The War on Women

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:44 am

THIS IS NOT NORMAL....DO NOT MAKE THIS NORMAL

IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO SPEAK OUT DO NOT REMAIN SILENT

They KNEW this JANUARY 17 2017

Image

A wife beater in the White House that they knew about for a very very long time

John Kelly said he remembers a time when women were sacred...


John Kelly's defense of Rob Porter is not an anomaly. Not long ago, he served as a character witness for a former marine who was accused of sexual misconduct against female subordinates — and who was later arrested on 7 felony warrants of indecent liberties with a child.

Image

Marine Colonel Who Retired in Disgrace Faces New Felony Charges

Image
Todd Shane Tomko (courtesy photo)

Military.com 27 Nov 2017 By Hope Hodge Seck
The former commander of the Marines' Wounded Warrior Regiment who spent two months in the brig last year after driving drunk to his own arraignment is behind bars again, this time as a civilian.

Todd Shane Tomko, 54, was arrested and lodged in the Adams County Jail in Quincy, Illinois Nov. 22 on outstanding warrants from the Virginia Beach Police Department, officials with the jail confirmed to Military.com. The Quincy Herald-Whig, which first published news of Tomko's arrest, reported that he was arrested on seven felony warrants of indecent liberties with a child.


VA Approved Lender
Let us help you use your VA Loan Benefits and get into the home you deserve. Apply online now. Veterans First Mortgage® NMLS #449042 Equal Housing Lender
At Tomko's May 2016 court-martial in Quantico, Virginia, his military attorney described him as a broken man, beset by post-traumatic stress after a 33-year career, which included combat tours. He was fired from his post as commanding officer of Quantico's Wounded Warrior Regiment in 2015 amid reports of misconduct including drunkenness at public events and inappropriate relationships with female enlisted subordinates.

He ultimately pleaded guilty to sending inappropriate and exual messages to a female corporal, violating a series of military protective orders at Quantico, obtaining and using testosterone without a prescription, and driving to his May 6, 2016 arraignment with a blood alcohol level of .208.

In all, four active-duty and retired general officers testified for Tomko as character witnesses, including retired Gen. John Kelly, former commander of U.S. Southern Command and now White House chief of staff.

Maj. Gen. James Lukeman, then commanding general of Marine Corps Training and Education Command, said he had hand-selected Tomko to be his chief of staff for operations at 2nd Marine Division in 2013, but ultimately became troubled by the symptoms he exhibited and, at one point, issued his own military protective order, like a restraining order, against him.

"I'm not a doctor, but he's not able to prevent himself from doing these things that he's pleading guilty to," Lukeman said at the court-martial. "I can't imagine it would come to that."

According to an April letter to the editor published in the Herald-Whig, Tomko became the pastor of Parkview Church in Quincy following his forced retirement from the Marine Corps.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... arges.html


‘They Protected An Abuser’
By David Kurtz | February 8, 2018 4:22 pm

You can measure how badly the White House is handling the Rob Porter abuse case by watching the incensed reaction of Amanda Carpenter, a former staffer to Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), just now on CNN.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYqRTRocf1Y


WH Doesn’t Deny Reports It Knew About Allegations Of Ex-Staffer’s Abuse
By Matt Shuham | February 8, 2018 4:04 pm

UNITED STATES - FEBRUARY 01: Rob Porter, right, White House staff secretary, and Don McGahn, White House counsel, attend a luncheon featuring a speech by President Donald Trump at the House and Senate Republican retreat at The Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., on February 1, 2018. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Group
The White House on Thursday did not deny reports that top Trump administration officials knew that ousted White House staff secretary Rob Porter had been accused by multiple women of domestic abuse.

Rather, White House spokesperson Raj Shah said that White House chief of staff John Kelly “became fully aware” of the allegations on Wednesday. He refused to get further into specifics.

“He had not seen images prior to the statement on Tuesday night,” Shah said.

A reporter pressed: What did “fully aware” mean? What did Kelly know about the allegations before a Tuesday night report in the Daily Mail broke the story publicly?

“Again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of what may have emerged from the investigation,” Shah said, not denying reports that Kelly — who vouched for Porter even after the first reports surfaced publicly — knew about the allegations of abuse well before this week.

Separately, a reporter asked how White House officials had stood behind Porter even after Porter had said in a statement that he had personally taken the photos of his ex-wife showing apparent signs of domestic abuse — namely, a black eye.

“I think it’s fair to say that we all could have done better over the last few hours— or last few days in dealing with this situation,” Shah said. “But, you know, this was the Rob Porter that I and many others have dealt with. That Sarah dealt with, that other officials including the chief of staff have dealt with, and the emerging reports were not reflective of the individual we had come to know.”

Shah said Porter’s background investigation was “ongoing” at the time of his resignation, and that he was working on an interim security clearance during his time at the White House. Wednesday was Porter’s last day, Shah said.

“Over the course of any investigation, some information may arise that seems troubling or complicated and requires additional investigating,” Shah said at the top of the briefing, reading a description of the background check process from a prepared remark. “It’s important to allow that process to continue in order for a fulsome understanding of the information.”

He added later: “It’s important to remember that Rob Porter has repeatedly denied these allegations and done so publicly. That doesn’t change how serious and disturbing these allegations are. They’re upsetting. And the background check investigates both the allegations and the denials.”

This post has been updated.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... fers-abuse


Politico: Kelly Knew Porter’s Security Clearance Would Be Denied Weeks Ago
By Caitlin MacNeal | February 9, 2018 7:39 am

on May 2, 2017 in Washington, DC.Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America
White House chief of staff John Kelly learned several weeks ago that multiple white House aides, including staff secretary Rob Porter, would be denied full security clearances, Politico reported Thursday night, citing an unnamed administration official.

Kelly planned to fire those who were denied security clearances, but had not yet done so, according to Politico.

The chief of staff has come under intense scrutiny this week over the White House’s handling of public allegations from Porter’s ex-wives that he abused them. When the allegations first surfaced on Tuesday, the White House, including Kelly, stood by Porter and defended his character.

By Thursday, Porter had left the White House permanently as attention on the abuse allegations increased. White House spokesman Raj Shah admitted Thursday that the administration “could have done better” in responding to the accusations about Porter’s past behavior.

Kelly learned some time in the fall that abuse allegations from Porter’s ex-wives were holding up his security clearance, but the chief of staff did not act to investigate the matter at the time, according to the Washington Post.

White House Counsel Don McGahn was also aware of the allegations but did not act. McGahn learned that Rob Porter’s ex-wives were going to make negative allegations about him about a year ago, and discovered more specifics about the accusations as the year went on, but he never initiated a review of the staff secretary before he resigned this week, the Washington Post reported Thursday night. In June, the FBI told the White House about the accusations, but it’s not clear whether that news reached McGahn. The White House counsel learned in the fall that abuse allegations were delaying Porter’s security clearance, but he agreed that Porter should stay on, per the Washington Post.


In November, an ex-girlfriend of Porter’s contacted McGahn to warn him about allegations of domestic abuse, but the White House counsel again didn’t act, according the Washington Post.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... -clearance
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:57 pm

Trump's HHS worked with conservative group on Planned Parenthood policy
By JENNIFER HABERKORN 02/12/2018 12:32 PM EST

A conservative legal organization worked with the Trump administration to make it easier for states to defund Planned Parenthood, according to documents obtained by congressional Democrats and shared with POLITICO.

HHS last month told states they no longer have to comply with Obama administration policy that made it difficult for states to exclude the women's health group from their Medicaid programs — an announcement timed to the March of Life anti-abortion rally. HHS received a draft legal analysis from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom a week before the announcement, according to House Oversight Committee ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings.


Cummings cited a whistleblower who shared emails and documents.

“The documents provided by the whistleblower raise serious concerns about whether the Trump administration is now taking orders from an extreme right-wing interest group that is trying to deny American citizens the ability to exercise their right to obtain family planning services from the provider of their choice, which is guaranteed by federal statute,” Cummings wrote in a letter to HHS Monday.


Neither HHS nor the Alliance Defending Freedom immediately responded to a request for comment.

The collaboration could be pivotal as courts sort out the legality of excluding Planned Parenthood. Since 2015, several states have tried to defund the organization. Two appeals courts have issued conflicting decisions, raising the possibility the issue could reach the Supreme Court.

According to emails obtained by Cummings, several HHS officials last month discussed a draft letter they would soon be getting. A senior HHS official told others that processing the letter should be “an utmost priority.”

A four-page letter with legal analysis was sent the same day. House Democrats say the letter came from the Alliance Defending Freedom and attorney Casey Mattox, who previously worked there. He has since left for the conservative Charles Koch Institute.

The letter HHS ultimately issued was dramatically shorter and less expansive than the draft. In the January letter, HHS said additional guidance could be forthcoming. Cummings said the letters achieved the same result and demanded that HHS turn over more documents related to the latest Medicaid letter.

HHS' decision to expedite the letter allowed the Trump administration to tout the effort at last month’s March for Life, the nation’s largest anti-abortion rally. "I have also just reversed the previous administration's policy that restricted states' efforts to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law," President Donald Trump said on Jan. 19, when addressing the rally.

Matt Bowman, HHS deputy general counsel, worked at the Alliance Defending Freedom prior to joining the administration.

Planned Parenthood and its allies argue existing law doesn’t allow states to exclude the organization from Medicaid for political reasons. But several states, such as Arkansas, say they have a right to decide which health care providers participate in their programs.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson terminated Planned Parenthood in 2015 after anti-abortion activist David Daleiden issued a series of sting videos alleging the organization sold fetal tissue. The group has denied the allegations.

The Trump administration roll back won’t have an immediate impact, since it doesn't have the force of law. Congressional Republicans tried several times in 2017 to enact legislation to allow states to eliminate Planned Parenthood from Medicaid but were not successful.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... icy-338084
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:04 pm

Duterte makes lewd threat to female rebels in Philippines

Image
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte reviews an honor guard at the Bureau of Customs in Manila on Feb. 6. He told soldiers last week to shoot female rebels in their genitals. (Mark R. Cristino/European Pressphoto Agency)

By Emily Rauhala February 12 at 2:48 AM

BEIJING — Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte told soldiers last week to shoot female rebels in their genitals, the latest of several violent, misogynistic remarks.

Addressing a group of former communist rebels on Wednesday, Duterte, who served as a mayor before becoming president, appeared to encourage the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to target women in conflict.

“Tell the soldiers. ‘There’s a new order coming from the mayor. We won’t kill you. We will just shoot your vagina,’ ” he said.

“If there is no vagina, it would be useless,” Duterte continued, according to local media reports, appearing to imply that women are useless without their genitals.

The president’s communications office included the comment in the official transcript from the event but replaced the word “vagina” with a dash.

Duterte’s presidency has been defined by violence — and often violently misogynistic language.

Since he came to power on a promise to kill all the drug users and dealers in the country, thousands of Filipinos have been shot dead, prompting the International Criminal Court to open a preliminary examination.

Duterte regularly denigrates and threatens women, but when challenged, he insists it was all just a joke. Just last week, his spokesman accused women of “overreacting” to the president’s comments. “I mean, that’s funny. Come on. Just laugh,” Harry Roque said.

According to the official transcript from the Wednesday event, the crowd did, in fact, laugh at Duterte’s remarks.

Duterte, who was elected president in 2016, has made headlines for “joking” about the rape of a kidnapped Australian who was later killed and for telling troops to rape women in conflict. He often shares unsolicited opinions on the sexual attractiveness of women, particularly female politicians who question his policies, in an apparent effort to demean, shame and silence them.

As Duterte’s translated remarks began to circulate over the weekend, feminist and human rights groups expressed dismay.

Duterte’s “latest nasty remark openly encourages violence against women, contributes to the impunity on such, and further confirms himself as the most dangerous macho-fascist in the government right now,” Emmi de Jesus, a representative for Gabriela, a feminist organization, said in a statement.

“He is pushing the fascist AFP to commit more bloody human rights violations and grave abuses of international humanitarian law, and takes state terrorism against women and the people to a whole new level.”

In a statement, Carlos Conde, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, called Duterte’s remarks “the latest in a series of misogynist, derogatory and demeaning statements he has made about women.”

“It encourages state forces to commit sexual violence during armed conflict, which is a violation of international humanitarian law,” the statement added.

Read more:

Trump boasts of ‘great relationship’ with Duterte at first formal meeting

The ‘son of a whore’ story is about so much more than Duterte’s dirty mouth

Duterte mocks woman senator as ‘screwing her driver’ and nation
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:56 am

State Department report will trim language on women's rights, discrimination

NAHAL TOOSI
02/21/2018 10:03 PM EST

Rex Tillerson is pictured. | AP Photo
The move — believed to be ordered by a top aide to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — reflects the Trump administration’s rightward turn from the Obama administration on family planning issues. | Hussein Malla/AP Photo
State Department officials have been ordered to pare back passages in a soon-to-be-released annual report on global human rights that traditionally discuss women’s reproductive rights and discrimination, according to five former and current department officials.

The directive calls for stripping passages that describe societal views on family planning, including how much access women have to contraceptives and abortion.

A broader section that chronicles racial, ethnic and sexual discrimination has also been ordered pared down, the current and former officials said.

The move, believed to have been ordered by a top aide to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, reflects the Trump administration’s rightward turn from the Obama administration on family planning issues. It also appears to highlight the stated desire of Tillerson and President Donald Trump to make human rights a lower priority in U.S. foreign policy.

Some career State Department officials — particularly female staffers — are suspicious of the motives behind the changes, which they fear could undermine the report’s impact and integrity. A State Department spokesperson said any changes were being made for focus and “clarity.”

"This sends a clear signal that women's reproductive rights are not a priority for this administration, and that it's not even a rights violation we must or should report on," one serving State Department official said.

The sources did not know the name of the aide who gave the instruction, but understood the person to have a senior position.

The annual human rights document is the product of a long and painstaking process of compiling information from U.S. embassies. An often dryly written explanation of conditions in dozens of nations, it can nonetheless cast a harsh light on governmental and societal practices.

The report is relied on by a range of people, from U.S. lawmakers to political activists. Asylum seekers from countries such as China, for instance, have cited the report to support claims that they are subject to forced sterilization or abortion.

Past human rights reports have covered the issue of women's reproductive rights in detail, offering numerous statistics and anecdotes to paint a picture of the conditions in particular countries.

Last year’s report, noted, for instance, that India has “unmet needs for contraception, deaths related to unsafe abortion, maternal mortality, and coercive family planning practices, including coerced or unethical sterilization and policies restricting access to entitlements for women with more than two children."

While coercive measures by governments are expected to continue to be chronicled in this year’s report, the current and former officials said, many other elements on reproductive rights will likely not be.

The subsection is also expected to be renamed, changing from "Reproductive Rights" to "Coercion in Population Control."

In a statement to POLITICO, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said that the way the department “presents the report's material has changed from time to time,” and that “this year we are better focusing some sections of the report for clarity.” She said the department was not “downgrading coverage of LGBT or women's issues.”

Nauert added that this year’s report will try to avoid “duplicating statistics that are readily available from international organizations,” and that officials “will sharpen the focus of the report on abuses of internationally recognized human rights and the most egregious issues.”

The former and current State officials said that a top Tillerson aide had requested the changes in recent days at what was effectively the last minute. The revisions could force State officials to miss the statutory deadline of Feb. 25 to release the report.

The directive was communicated last week to employees of the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The bureau is now scrambling to make the revisions.

The current and former officials said the late request is evidence of ongoing managerial problems at State, where many top positions remain unfilled and a small group of aides to Tillerson have centralized power while slowing decision-making. The human rights bureau is one of several still lacking an assistant secretary more than a year into Tillerson’s tenure.

“It’s not unusual for an administration to come in and make changes” on how the report is produced and what it emphasizes, one of the former State officials said. “It’s weird to do it this late in the game.”

The human rights bureau also has been directed to cut back a broader section in the various country reports generally called “discrimination, societal abuses and trafficking in persons.” Along with women’s reproductive rights, that section touches on topics such as anti-Semitism or pressures on the gay and lesbian community. It also includes discrimination that's not necessarily government-sponsored.

For instance, last year’s report spotlighted anti-Semitic incidents and hate speech in Poland, citing a banner unfurled by soccer fans that read, “Let [the Jews] burn.” The report added that the fans “then burned three effigies representing Jews."

The former officials said the Tillerson aide had requested those sections be reframed to focus more on what governments are or aren’t doing in relation to such challenges while paring back the emphasis on nongovernmental influences. For instance, the Roman Catholic church’s influence over attitudes toward gays and lesbians in a particular country might be dropped.

Like many Republican administrations before it, the Trump team has instituted a policy prohibiting giving U.S. aid to foreign groups that provide or promote abortions. The Trump administration went further than all of its predecessors, putting such conditions on groups that receive global health funding in general — not just money for family planning.

Tillerson and Trump have both said human rights should not block other U.S. foreign policy priorities, especially when it to comes to key allies such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But the administration hasn’t held back on talking about human rights when speaking out against enemies like Iran and North Korea.

Last year, Tillerson broke with tradition and chose not to personally unveil his department’s human rights report — dismaying activists and lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who believe human rights should be a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

It is unclear whether Tillerson will personally unveil this year’s report.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... ion-420361
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:58 am

Idaho GOP Lieutenant Governor candidate suggested that punishing women with the death penalty would reduce abortions. No, I’m not kidding.

Punishing women with the death penalty would cut abortions, Idaho candidate says
BY KIMBERLEE KRUESI

April 03, 2018 03:36 PM
Updated April 04, 2018 06:41 PM
A Republican lieutenant governor candidate on Tuesday softened his stance that women who get an abortion should be punished if it is ever criminalized in Idaho, a day after saying the punishment should include the death penalty.

“Prosecutions have always been focused on the abortionist,” said Bob Nonini in a statement. “There is no way a woman would go to jail let alone face the death penalty. The statute alone, the threat of prosecution, would dramatically reduce abortion. That is my goal.”

Nonini first raised eyebrows on the divisive social issue during a Monday candidate forum in Moscow hosted by the conservative Christian podcast CrossPolitic.

“There should be no abortion and anyone who has an abortion should pay,” Nonini said.

Pressed by moderators on the nature of the punishment, Nonini nodded in agreement when asked if he supported the death penalty as a possible outcome for abortion.

Nonini, a three term state senator from Coeur d'Alene, confirmed that position in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

However, several hours later, Nonini issued a statement seeking to take back his strict stance.

“I strongly support the overturning of Roe v. Wade,” Nonini said. “That would allow states like Idaho to re-criminalize abortion as a deterrent. However, it is my understanding that in the history of the United States, long before Roe was foisted upon this country; no woman has ever been prosecuted for undergoing abortion. That is for practical reasons, as well as for reasons of compassion”

Nonini added that his wife, Cathyanne, does not share his endorsement of the death penalty even though both are devout Catholics.

It’s common for Republican candidates to express their anti-abortion positions in GOP-dominant Idaho. Typically, many stress the importance of educating women on alternative options to an unplanned pregnancy or making access to abortion clinics more difficult rather than focus on possible punishment for the woman.

A handful of anti-abortion advocates have begun increasing their call for stricter penalties for women and providers.

Last year, Abolish Abortion Idaho launched a ballot initiative seeking to charge both abortion providers and women with first-degree murder – but it is unclear if the group will have enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Dan Foreman attempted to introduce legislation that would also classify abortion as first-degree murder for mothers and doctors, but the proposal never received a hearing.

Nonini was joined at Monday’s forum by two other Republican candidates: Idaho Falls businesswoman Janice McGeachin and former Idaho Republican Party Chairman Steve Yates.

Five Republicans are running in the May primary election after incumbent GOP Lt. Gov. Brad Little announced he would run for governor, but only Nonini, McGeachin and Yates were invited to attend the forum.

Both McGeachin and Yates say abortion is murder, but stopped short of supporting charging women with first-degree murder for undergoing the procedure.

“No, I cannot support a woman facing the death penalty for having an abortion,” said McGeachin. “What we should do is prevent that.”

Yates downplayed that criminalizing abortion would result in fewer women seeking the procedure.

“In terms of criminalizing things, I have no problem with that except that doesn’t always solve the problem,” Yates said.

Nonini’s comments echo similar rhetoric said by Donald Trump during the presidential campaign. In 2016, Trump came out in support of “some sort of punishment” for women who get abortions, but the campaign later backtracked that he believes abortion providers should be the ones punished.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/poli ... rylink=cpy
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed May 02, 2018 5:51 pm

Iowa lawmakers approve banning abortion at ‘fetal heartbeat’


In this Tuesday, May 1, 2018 photo, Rep. Brian Meyer of Polk County questions Representative Shannon Lundgren of Dubuque on the floor of the Iowa House as legislators debate the “heartbeat” bill at the state capitol in Des Moines. Republican lawmakers with control of the Iowa statehouse fast-tracked a bill early Wednesday that would ban most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy, sending what could be the nation’s most restrictive abortion legislation to the governor. (Zach Boyden-Holmes/The Des Moines Register via AP) (Associated Press)
DES MOINES, Iowa — Republican legislators sent Iowa’s governor a bill early Wednesday that would ban most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy, propelling the state overnight to the front of a push among conservative statehouses jockeying to enact the nation’s most-restrictive regulations on the procedure.

Critics say the so-called “heartbeat” bill, which now awaits the signature of anti-abortion GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds, would ban the medical procedure before some women even know they’re pregnant. That could set up the state for a legal challenge over its constitutionality, including from the same federal appeals court that two years ago struck down similar legislation approved in Arkansas and North Dakota.

Backers of the legislation, which failed to get a single Democratic vote in either Iowa chamber, expressed hope it could challenge Roe vs. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established women have a right to terminate pregnancies until a fetus is viable. Conservatives say an influx of conservative judicial appointments under President Donald Trump could make it a possibility.

“Today we will begin this journey as Iowa becomes ground zero, now nationally, in the life movement,” Sen. Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City, said during the floor debate.

Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement that the legislation was an “embarrassment” for the state.

“By passing an intentionally unconstitutional bill, Iowa Republicans have declared that they do not care about the foundational values of our state, or Iowa’s future,” she said. “They do not care how much taxpayer money will be spent on a lawsuit, they don’t care how many women’s lives will be damaged because of inadequate access to care, or how many families may choose to go elsewhere because Iowa is no longer a state where they are safe to live and work.”

The House began debate over the measure early Tuesday afternoon, voting it out shortly before midnight with six Republicans there opposing it. The Senate then picked it up, with approval shortly after 2 a.m. Wednesday. The nearly back-to-back votes come as lawmakers seek to pass a state budget and tax cuts later this week.

Although Reynolds hasn’t said publicly if she’ll sign the bill into law, press secretary Brenna Smith said in an email the governor “is 100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”

Several states have attempted to advance abortion bans in recent years. Mississippi passed a law earlier this year banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but it’s on hold after a court challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear similar heartbeat bills North Dakota and Arkansas approved in 2013 that were rejected by the appeals court.

The Iowa legislation contains some exemptions, including allowing abortions after a detectable heartbeat to save a pregnant woman’s life or in some cases of rape and incest. Another provision prohibits some uses of fetal tissue, with exemptions for research. A woman would have to report a rape within 45 days to law enforcement or a physician to qualify for an exemption to the abortion ban. Incest must be reported within 140 days to receive an exemption.

Rep. Mary Wolfe, a Democrat from Clinton, said that “absolutely nothing” would stop a “desperate” woman from lying to a physician, who cannot investigate whether a pregnancy is the result of incest and cannot report it to law enforcement. Conversely, she said a child who is raped but delays reporting it until showing signs of pregnancy could be denied an abortion.

“Children who have been brutally raped, who are scared to death, who have little tiny bones and maybe forcing their rapist’s baby out of there is not in their best interest — too bad for them under this law,” Wolfe said.

The bill provides immunity to women receiving abortions but not to doctors who perform them. Their licenses could be revoked for violations, and prosecutors could consider criminal charges against them. That’s not addressed by the bill.

Republicans at the Iowa Capitol have long sought to approve legislation that would further restrict abortion, and their flip of the state Senate chamber in the 2016 election gave them a trifecta of GOP power for the first time in nearly 20 years. Last session, they passed a bill banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which is in effect.

A provision in that legislation requiring a three-day waiting period for abortions — among the longest wait periods in the country — was challenged in court. It remains on hold amid litigation being considered by the state Supreme Court.

Iowa Republicans have long said the 20-week ban was just the start.

“A baby has become something we can throw away. This bill says it’s time to change the way we think about unborn life,” said Rep. Sandy Salmon, a Janesville Republican.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 0abeb97ad0
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue May 08, 2018 7:38 am

Death Threats Against Abortion Providers Nearly Doubled in 2017: Report


Violence and intimidation against abortion clinics are on the rise, a new report from the National Abortion Federation finds. While Republican politicians are looking to shut down clinics through government action, anti-abortion extremists are in the streets blockading clinics, threatening providers, and generally creating an atmosphere of fear for women exercising their right to choose:

The report found that there was an overall decrease in acts of vandalism against clinics but a significant increase in activities aimed at disrupting services and intimidating patients and providers. Acts of trespassing increased from 247 in 2016 to 823 in 2017, instances of obstruction tripled to 1,704 and threats of death or other harm nearly doubled to 62. [...]

The one attempted bombing in 2017 involved a pipe bomb that did not explode after being placed in an abortion clinic in Champaign, Illinois, in November. The three men charged by federal authorities are allegedly part of a militia group called the "White Rabbits" who also have been charged in the bombing of a Minnesota mosque last year.

A clinic in Cleveland incurred more than $32,000 in damages because of repeated brick-throwing attacks on its windows.

And Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are busy filling the federal courts with judges who will act with Republicans and vandals to shut down clinics.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-polit ... 017-report
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed May 16, 2018 9:04 am

20 AGs back lawsuits by family planning groups against Trump

Maggy Krell, chief counsel of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles, Tuesday, May 15, 2018, with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra about lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to change rules they say will limit access to family planning services. Becerra and 19 other attorneys general filed legal papers Tuesday supporting lawsuits filed against the president in Washington federal court by groups that promote birth control. (Brian Melley/Associated Press)
By Associated Press May 15 at 6:55 PM

LOS ANGELES — Twenty attorneys general voiced their support Tuesday for lawsuits challenging Trump administration rule changes they said will reduce access to family planning services.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the president is playing politics with patients by changing rules that would shift federal family planning funds toward organizations that stress abstinence.

The AGs filed a brief in Washington federal court that supports lawsuits by groups that promote birth control.

The lawsuits target proposed rule changes announced in February by the Department of Health and Human Services for about $260 million in family planning grants.

In a funding document, the agency made favorable mention of “natural family planning” that includes the rhythm method and other strategies to avoid pregnancy without using birth control. It also said it would favor abstinence messages for adolescents.

About 4 million low-income Americans receive subsidized services through the Title X family-planning program.

Planned Parenthood groups in Wisconsin, Ohio and Utah, and the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association filed the lawsuits saying the rule change violated terms of the Title X statute Congress adopted with bipartisan support in 1970.

“By changing the rules, the Trump administration is threatening basic access to essential health care for women and families throughout the country,” Becerra said. “They’re shrinking the universe of services that a woman or family can access — having nothing to do with what’s related to wise health care choices.”

The supporting brief was also signed by prosecutors in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/20 ... 0615ffd396
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri May 18, 2018 12:47 pm

The new Trump plan to defund Planned Parenthood, explained

New rules could leave low-income women without access to affordable birth control.

Sarah KliffMay 18, 2018, 11:00am EDT
Marc Piscotty/Getty Images
Women’s health clinics that provide abortions or refer patients for the procedure will be cut off from a key source of federal funding under new Trump administration rules expected to be released Friday.

Both the New York Times and Modern Healthcare report that the White House plans to issue new guidelines for Title X, the only federal program dedicated to paying for birth control. The new rule is expected to require a “physical as well as financial separation” between entities that receive Title X funds and those that provide abortions.


The new rule is the latest battle in Republicans’ years-long war to end Planned Parenthood’s public funding. The women’s health provider currently uses Title X funding to provide contraceptives to millions of low-income women. Planned Parenthood estimates that it sees approximately 41 percent of women who receive family planning services through Title X.

It is true that Planned Parenthood is the country’s largest abortion provider. In 2009, the organization performed just over 330,000 abortions, about 40 percent of all abortions that year.

But it’s also true Planned Parenthood is a key part of the American health care safety net and one of the largest providers of contraceptives in the country. More than one-third of low-income women who get birth control through Title X currently do so at one of Planned Parenthood’s 817 clinics.

The best research we have suggests that if Planned Parenthood is cut out of the Title X program, there isn’t a backup option. Low-income women who use Title X services at these clinics likely will not have another place to turn for birth control — and unintended pregnancies could rise as a result.

Title X provides birth control to low-income women. Lots of those patients use Planned Parenthood.

Launched in 1971, Title X was meant to fulfill President Richard Nixon’s promise that “no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.”

Title X does not, and has never, paid for abortions. Federal law prohibits any government dollars from paying for the termination of pregnancies. Organizations like Planned Parenthood often use Title X grants to subsidize birth control, STD screenings, and other reproductive health services for low-income patients who may lack health insurance coverage.

The program grew steadily over the past 40 years, from a $6 million budget in 1971 up to $286 million in 2017. In 2014, an estimated 4,100 clinics used Title X funding to provide low-cost or free contraception to their low-income patients, typically those who lacked health insurance coverage.

Many of those Title X patients seek care at Planned Parenthood clinics.

This is partially due to the fact that Planned Parenthood exists in many places where other family planning clinics don’t: A new analysis from the Guttmacher Institute estimates that there are 103 counties in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the only provider of publicly funded contraceptives. In an additional 229 counties, Planned Parenthood serves the majority of women who are low-income and qualify for government help paying for birth control.
Image
Guttmacher Institute/Health Affairs
Separate research suggests that Planned Parenthood plays a unique role in catering to women’s birth control needs, providing greater access to family planning services than other clinics.

Eighty-nine percent of Planned Parenthood clinics, for example, report being able to provide their patients with emergency contraceptives, compared to 34 percent of federally qualified health clinics (which typically serve low-income patients and are also a major recipient of Title X funding). And 81 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics say they provide same-day access to intrauterine devices (IUDs), the most effective type of reversible birth control. By contrast, just 30 percent of other clinics do that.
Image
Kaiser Family Foundation
This new rule won’t end Planned Parenthood’s federal funding completely. The clinics actually receive three-quarters of their public money through Medicaid, the federal program that covers low-income Americans.

When Medicaid patients fill birth control prescriptions at Planned Parenthood or receive certain health care screenings, the insurance program reimburses the clinics for those services. This new rule won’t change that.

Instead, cutting off these funds would likely make it harder for Planned Parenthood to provide family planning services to women who lack health insurance coverage. This would be especially acute in the 18 states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, leaving their low-income residents with few options to find affordable health insurance options.

States have experimented with cutting off Planned Parenthood’s funding. Unintended pregnancies have gone up.

One former Republican president, Ronald Reagan, has implemented similar restrictions around the Title X program. Regulations issued under his administration in the late 1980s prohibited Title X health centers from sharing staff or a physical location with abortion providers. Opponents of the policy dubbed this the “domestic gag rule,” as it mirrored a separate “global gag rule” that banned international family planning clinics receiving American aid money from performing or discussing abortion.

President Clinton ended those restrictions in 1993, and clinics like Planned Parenthood have received Title X funding ever since.

More recently, Texas has experimented with cutting abortion providers out of state-level family planning grants. Recent research shows that this led to fewer women getting birth control, and more unintended pregnancies.

The Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas used pharmacy claim data to understand what types of birth control women used before and after Texas cut Planned Parenthood from its public family planning program. This is a program that serves women who earn less than $1,800 a month if they are single (or less than $2,426 per month if they have a child).

Data published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated some very big changes that happened to Texas women in the counties that used to have Planned Parenthood as part of their networks.

For example: Prescriptions for long-acting, reversible contraceptives including IUDs and birth control implants plummeted by 35.5 percent in counties where Planned Parenthood clinics shuttered after the new law. When Planned Parenthood was part of the Texas program, 1,042 women used this type of birth control over the course of three months. Afterward, it was 672.
Image
New England Journal of Medicine
The Texas women’s health program had about 8,000 women using the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera, which requires a shot every three months for the medication to remain effective. Even before Planned Parenthood was cut from the Texas network, only 56.9 percent of patients in counties with Planned Parenthoods would return for an on-time follow-up shot every three months.

Numbers fell much lower, though, after the 2013 cuts. Counties previously served by Planned Parenthood clinics saw a 21.2 percentage point decline in women returning for on-time shots — while numbers in counties that had never had Planned Parenthood clinics essentially held steady.
Image
New England Journal of Medicine
Less access to birth control correlated with an uptick in births among certain Texas patients.

This design of this part of the study is a bit complex, and you can read more about it in the paper itself. It essentially involves comparing women who were using the Depo shot at the end of 2012 — right before the Planned Parenthood cuts — to women who were using the Depo shot at the end of 2011 and experienced no such disruption.

Researchers found that the women who lived in places affected by the Planned Parenthood cuts had 27 percent more births than the women using Depo in the year prior.

This was not just a sudden increase in Texas women having babies. Births among women who’d never had a Planned Parenthood clinic in their county to begin with actually decreased slightly over the same time period.

“This directly contradicts the claim that other providers will simply take up the slack and that they’ll meet the demand currently being met by Planned Parenthood providers,” Amanda Stevenson, who led the Texas study, told me when it was released last year. “We can say, after this study, that isn’t the case in Texas.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/18/17367964/ ... ood-defund
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Sat May 26, 2018 2:23 pm

The Open Society Foundations & the transgender movement
Posted on May 25, 2018
by Michael Biggs


https://4thwavenow.com/2018/05/25/the-o ... -movement/

Michael Biggs is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College. He researches social movements and collective protest.

The transgender movement has transformed cultural norms and social institutions at breathtaking speed. Most of us, becoming acquainted with the trans issue for the first time, are astonished to discover the extent of the gender revolution. The movement has accomplished in a few years what the movements for women’s and for gay and lesbian rights took many decades to achieve.

Part of the explanation is the amount of money behind transgenderism. The Gender Industrial Complex, as we may call it, has many components. Lucrative sponsorship comes from pharmaceutical companies and medical providers. Charities originally established to fight for homosexual rights (like Human Rights Campaign in the United States and Stonewall in Britain) wield large budgets. Last but not least, three American billionaires have bankrolled the transgender movement on a global scale: Jennifer Pritzker, whose activities were detailed in another blogpost, Jon Stryker, and George Soros.

This blogpost focuses on the Open Society Foundations (OSF), funded by Soros. This is not easy to discuss because he is vilified by right-wingers, whose criticism sometimes degenerates into anti-semitism (Williamson 2018). Therefore those of us who are liberal or progressive tend to react instinctively by dismissing any scrutiny of Soros out of hand. This is unjustified, as I will show by providing some facts about how OSF has funded the transgender movement.

OSF fully supports the objectives of transgender activists. Self-identification is “an essential legal right for trans people” (OSF 2014a). In other words, biological sex must be superseded by subjective gender identity, to include options “outside the binary categories of male and female” (OSF 2014b). Identity should not be “governed by age restrictions” (OSF 2014b). Therefore OSF funds “trans-led or LGBT organizations that promote progressive, rights-based processes for legal gender recognition” (OSF 2014a). It also advocates access to “hormonal therapy, counseling, and gender-affirming surgeries” on demand (OSF 2014a). This includes puberty blockers for youth (OSF 2013).

How much has OSF spent to promote the transgender movement? In 2011–13, it spent $3.19 million, which made it the top funder, followed by Stryker’s Arcus Foundation and Pritzker’s Tawani Foundation (Funders for LBTQ Issues 2015). OSF’s current database includes grants worth $3.07 million for 2016–17 (searching for keywords “trans” and “transgender”). The largest recipients in this current tranche are the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association ($642,000), Global Action for Trans Equality ($500,000), and Transgender Europe ($500,000).

Three million dollars on trans issues is a tiny fraction of OSF’s total expenditure, merely 0.3% (OSF 2017). Crucially, however, this funding greatly exceeds the resources given to alternative voices. This website, for example, receives no funding. To illustrate the difference that money can make, consider the commemoration of the victims of violence.

As we saw, OSF gave $500,000 to Transgender Europe in the past two years. Transgender Europe also received $1,072,000 from the Arcus Foundation from 2010 to 2017 (Arcus Foundation 2018). The organization’s projects include the Transgender Day of Remembrance, which is underpinned by a comprehensive database of victims throughout the world, Trans Murder Monitoring. This database counted 325 trans victims of violence in year from October 2016 to September 2017 (TMM 2017). The great majority of these occurred in Central and South America. There were only three in Western Europe, and thankfully none in the United Kingdom. Surprisingly, perhaps, the Transgender Day of Remembrance was widely observed in Britain in November 2017. In many universities, for example, candles were lit for each of the victims, the transgender flag was raised, speakers were invited, and services held. Searching university websites (the domain .ac.uk), we find over 2,800 webpages containing the phrase “Transgender Day of Remembrance”.

While no transgender person was murdered in the United Kingdom in 2017, 138 women were killed by men, including murders where a man was the principal suspect (Smith 2018). These data were compiled by Karen Ingala Smith, who receives no funding for this work. She started recording such deaths in 2009, under the rubric of Counting Dead Women. This was developed into the Femicide Census—in partnership with Women’s Aid—with minimal funding and pro-bono support by two legal firms (Femicide Census 2016).

Despite the diligent research over many years, this has left barely a trace in British universities. The equivalent search on their websites yields fewer than a hundred webpages containing the phrases “Femicide Census” or “Counting Dead Women”.

To sum up, more than a hundred women are murdered each year in the United Kingdom at the hands of males, but no day has been set aside to commemorate their deaths. Transgender murders are exceedingly rare—eight in the past decade (Trans Crime UK 2017; Evening Standard 2018)—and yet they have an institutionalized day of remembrance. Even if we consider the homicide rate rather than the number of homicides, Nicola Williams demonstrates that transgender people are no more likely to become victims than are women (Fairplay for Women 2017).

The prominence of transgender victims, compared to the virtual invisibility of female victims, is partly explained by the amount of resources devoted to compiling evidence and promoting commemoration. Thus funding from large American charities like OSF—along with the Arcus and Tawani Foundations—shapes the political climate in Britain and around the world.

References

All but one (indicated by *) have been archived on the Internet Archive.

Arcus Foundation. Grantees in Europe, Focusing on Social Justice, Beginning with T. https://www.arcusfoundation.org/grantee ... l-anchor-1

Evening Standard. 2018. ‘Hounslow stabbing’, 22 March 2018. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/t ... 96261.html *

Fairplay for Women. 2017. How Often Are Transgender People Murdered? https://fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murder-rates/

Femicide Census. 2016. Profiles of Women Killed by Men: Redefining an Isolated Incident. https://1q7dqy2unor827bqjls0c4rn-wpengi ... n-2017.pdf

Funders for LBTQ Issues. 2015. TRANSformational Impact: U.S. Foundation Funding for Trans Communities. http://www.lgbtfunders.org/wp-content/u ... Impact.pdf *

OSF. 2013. Transforming Health: International Rights-Based Advocacy for Trans Health. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/ ... 130213.pdf

OSF 2014a. Explainers: An Essential Legal Right for Trans People. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/ ... ans-people

OSF. 2014b. License to Be Yourself: laws and Advocacy for Legal Recognition for Trans People. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/ ... 140501.pdf

OSF. 2017. Open Society Foundations 2017 Budget Overview. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/ ... 170202.pdf

Smith, Karen Ingala. 2018. 2017. https://kareningalasmith.com/2017/02/12/2017/

Trans Crime UK. 2017. Trans Homicides in the UK: A Closer Look at the Numbers. http://transcrimeuk.com/2017/11/16/tran ... e-numbers/

Trans Murder Monitoring. 2017. TDoR 2017 Update. http://transrespect.org/wp-content/uplo ... ble_EN.pdf

Williamson, Kevin D. 2018. “An Epidemic of Dishonesty on the Right.” National Review, Feb. 22. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... -epidemic/
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Heaven Swan » Wed May 30, 2018 6:24 am

^^^
Thanks for posting this Agent Orange, and great to see you posting again.

BTW Your avatar is one of the most clever I’ve seen. :basicsmile
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Wed May 30, 2018 2:03 pm

Thanks. :)

Judging by my twitter feed at least, it seems like the radfem vs. transactivist debate is getting hotter than ever, with more and more people (men and women) coming down on the side of the former in the face of the blatant misogyny of the latter.

It looks to be heading towards some kind of boiling point. 'Morgane Oger', a m2f trans politician from BC, has been essentially harassing a victim of FGM on twitter for discussing her lived experience as sex-based discrimination rather than because of her gender. It's one of the most bizarre and despicable things I've seen yet.

Also, Chelsea Manning posted a couple of tweets, since deleted, of her standing on a ledge of a tall building with the message 'I'm sorry.' It's pretty typical trans histrionics, but, as I suspect CM has become a living psy-op, I don't believe it was just a random occurrence. It all serves to further the narrative of the horrible oppression trans people face that outweighs any and all other oppressions.

For Manning the story is no longer an issue of a whistleblower being detained unlawfully for outing state-sponsored atrocities—it's now all about her 'oppression' as a transwoman. It's a masterful bit of cultural engineering and narrative steering.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Blue » Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 pm

I second that thanks for the Biggs article, Mr. Cooper. This is pretty RI weird stuff. I mean sexism and misogyny have definitely been ramping up since oh, forever.
But wtf with the Transgender Day of Remembrance? I suppose one could say who cares, is there even one calendar day left that the greeting card industry hasn't labeled?
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Heaven Swan » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:19 am

Thanks Agent Orange and Blue for supporting women.

I agree AO about the debate moving towards a boiling point. Common sense will rule out in the end.

Despite the hate in the media lots of women are joining radical feminism. The rank and file majority are pissed-off millennials. There’s a smattering of Gen Xers (the most propagandized generation ever), and a few Baby Boomers who, especially if they were active in the 2nd wave, are respected and revered by all. The movement ain’t going away any time soon. (See #metoo).

Our main focus is ending our oppression and the male violence against women that enforces it. Trans are killed by the same type of men and if they had joined us we would have gotten along and possibly even welcomed them into the fold. Instead, they aligned (as a movement, not individually) with the perpetrators and the rest is history.

I hate how radical feminists are smeared as transphobic. We do support their human rights and only oppose them politically because they have moved aggressively to take away our rights. The article you posted lifts the veil on their enormous funding and support for their every whim. Turns out their whims, like medical insurance coverage for cosmetic surgery (like facial feminization) greatly benefit the medical industry. One hand washes the other as they say.

Speaking of whims, I looked up Brynn Tannehill, the author of a ‘terf’ smearing article posted in the Roseanne thread. An ex-military who, in this video, speaks on why trans having excellent jobs where everyone is polite and accepting of them is not enough, that they need to be indulged and coddled on every imaginable level. (Paraphrase).

While women are still fighting for our basic human rights it seems so unreal...

"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:33 am

Planned Parenthood, State AGs Blast 'Barbarous' Effort To Mute Abortion Info

Wade Goodwyn
August 2, 20188:10 PM ET

Supporters of Planned Parenthood react to speakers at a rally in New York in May.

Frank Franklin II/AP
Planned Parenthood Federation of America told NPR on Thursday it will be joining officials in a growing number of states to oppose a Trump administration proposal to withhold federal funds from family planning clinics that provide information about or refer women seeking an abortion.

In a draft press release given to NPR, Planned Parenthood said, "By conditioning funds on restrictions that are fundamentally at odds with the professional and ethical obligations of health care professionals, the Department will give many grantees and health care professionals no choice but to withdraw from Title X." The organization serves more than 1 1/2 million Title X patients around the country.

"We will resist this rule with everything we have," Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state told NPR. "We will not be complicit with Donald Trump on this. This is a barbarous policy to prevent women from getting access to health care."

The proposed changes are to the Title X program, which provides financial support for more than 4 million low-income women to get primary and preventive health services. In a notice of proposed rule-making published on June 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed the following rule change: "A Title X project may not perform, promote, refer for, or support, abortion as a method of family planning, nor take any other affirmative action to assist a patient to secure such an abortion."

The goal is to establish a firewall of separation between taxpayers and health care providers who might provide abortion information to women.

Critics call the proposed changes a "gag rule" and vow to drop out of the Title X program altogether rather than participate in what they describe as unethical interference between health care providers and their patients.

On Monday, attorneys general of 13 states sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. The letter said if the rule is finalized, Title X recipients will be forced into the "untenable position of deciding whether to accept program funds with mandates that restrict access to care and force a gag on clinics" or give up Title X funding altogether. The latter would result in a cut in funding available to family planning providers, "thereby reducing critical healthcare services available to vulnerable populations. Either decision will lead to serious public health threats, increased risk of unintended pregnancies, and gaps in care."

In June, the National Association of Community Health Care Centers weighed in, saying, "Should this proposed rule be adopted, health centers would have to choose between allowing federal regulations to dictate what they can and must discuss with their patients, and using a critical source of revenue to support patient care. Either way patients would not be well-served."

The attorneys general, from mostly Democratic states around the country, vowed to oppose the administration's new rules in court.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/02/63511231 ... rtion-info


What Will Happen If Abortion Legislation Is Turned Back to the States?

Anticipating Changes to Roe v. Wade? Some States Are Way Ahead of You

Planned Parenthood supporters
Protest supporting Planned Parenthood in Cleveland, Ohio, June 24, 2017. Photo credit: Tim Evanson / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s resignation from the Supreme Court in June has suddenly intensified concerns for pro-choice advocates. With President Donald Trump’s second SCOTUS appointment, and his rhetoric on the campaign trail, many fear a return to pre-Roe v. Wade days.

While the high court should see a more solid 5-4 conservative majority soon, a full overturn of Roe v. Wade remains unlikely. But SCOTUS action could still compromise a woman’s right to choose to the point of rendering it infeasible.

For Americans living in states that limit abortion, this grim scenario is already a reality. And a more conservative Supreme Court will likely prompt even more state restrictions on abortion providers. Blue states, meanwhile, are already scrambling to tie up loose ends, rushing to repeal old laws on their books that banned abortion yet have been ignored since Roe declared it legal in 1973.

At the same time, a change in how abortion is medically administered means abortions are likely to keep happening — regardless of what federal judges rule.

The availability of drugs that can safely terminate an early-stage pregnancy at home has changed the landscape for women seeking an abortion. In many cases, women can order the medications from websites and use them without the need to visit a health care provider. With this is mind, a question arises: How much will it matter if the Supreme Court limits or overturns Roe v. Wade, and abortions become either illegal or highly restricted in certain states?

It might matter a lot, actually.

Related: Why Marching for Life Now Means Attacking Contraception

A hostile Supreme Court ruling will make an unwanted pregnancy “so much worse for more and more people,” said Megan Malloy, senior policy manager for the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization involved with advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights. “The impact will be felt hardest by people who are already disadvantaged in their access to healthcare and reproductive health — those on low incomes, people of color, and the young.”

Protest against Planned ParenthoodSave
Protest against Planned Parenthood building in Washington, DC, January 2014. Photo credit: American Life League / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Restricted access to family planning information and services is already a reality in some parts of the country, Malloy added.

“Where you live already determines the availability of abortion services,” she said. “Certain states have laws prohibiting abortion on their books that would kick in as soon as any federal ruling against abortion is given.”

For example, Indiana’s Senate passed a law forcing women to have an ultrasound scan just before a planned abortion. But federal courts ruled against it, calling the extra step “an undue burden.” If the courts begin to allow this kind of restrictive action at the state level, many more women would seek an alternative to clinics, such as buying their drugs online.

While a far cry from the old-fashioned horror stories about rusty coat hangers in back-alley clinics, how safe is a modern medical abortion, in reality? Currently, a dose of two drugs is given in the first 9–10 weeks of the pregnancy — first, mifepristone at the clinic, followed a few hours later by misoprostol, which the woman takes at home.

“Home-administered medical abortion is generally very safe and effective,” Molloy said. “A well-documented history of patients receiving the drugs through a medical practitioner supports this.”

There is a catch, however.

“Mifepristone is over-regulated, which means it can only be dispensed by certain providers,” she said. “When people access the drugs on their own, they take misoprostol alone, which is less effective.” But Molloy emphasizes that misoprostol alone is still a safe option with an 85 percent success rate. “WHO (the World Health Organization) recognizes misoprostol alone as appropriate if the other over-regulated drug is not available.”

Some states are taking action to preserve access to services in advance of the president’s second SCOTUS appointment. Massachusetts repealed some ancient laws this month, in the Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women, or “NASTY Women” Act. (The measure takes its name from Trump’s insult to Hillary Clinton in the final debate between the candidates before the 2016 election.)

Abortion, USSave
A 2017 study of states’ support for abortion rights conducted by the Guttmacher Institute. Photo credit: Data Source – Guttmacher

The NASTY Women Act struck down a centuries-old state ban on the use of contraception by unmarried women. It also halted criminalization of the distribution of contraception, and repealed a requirement that abortions be performed in a hospital after the first trimester. Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the act into law last week, a follow-up to a law protecting access to free contraception that he signed last November.

Nine states go even further, with laws protecting an individual’s right to terminate pregnancy before viability, should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. They are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Meanwhile, four states — Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota — have laws that would kick in to ban abortion altogether.

So where does this patchwork of state and federal legislation leave those in need of abortion?

Molloy told WhoWhatWhy that the first, and best, plan of action is to maintain the status quo of access to information, contraception, and clinicians.

“Clinical access needs to be protected and preserved, especially in light of the threat that a change in the Supreme Court offers,” Molloy said.

And if clinics are outlawed? Molloy believes that knowledge is power.

“We need to be focusing on giving people all the information they need to self-manage their abortion for whatever reason, be that for increased privacy, or due to a more restrictive legal situation. It is up to us as a society and community to be protecting access to all the safe and effective options for an abortion.”

The ACLU maintains that a woman’s right to choose is a civil liberty, and more than half of America agrees, with the Pew Foundation pinning support at 57 percent. While the will of the people on this issue might be at odds with the trajectory of the highest court in the land, both sides — for and against a woman’s right to choose — are digging in deep for a fight that will likely transcend federal law.

Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Roe protest (American Life League / Flickr – CC BY-NC 2.0).

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/08/02/what- ... he-states/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests