Michelle Moquin's "A day in the life of…"

Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love & Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures, Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!

  • Hello!

    Welcome To My OUR Blog!


    Michelle Moquin's Facebook profile "Click here" to go to my FaceBook profile. Visit me!
  • Copyright Protected

    Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Checker
  • Let Michelle Style YOU!

    I am a "Specialist in Styles" Personal Stylist. Check out my Style website to see how I can help you discover, define, and refine your unique style.
  • © Copyright 2008-2023

    All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2023. All material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don't post it to my blog.
  • In Pursuit Of…

    Custom Search
  • Madaline Speaks

    For those of you interested in reading an Earthling Girl's Guide to a better Government, and a Greener world, check out the blog:
  • Contact Your Representatives and Senators Here!

    To send letters to your representatives about any issue of interest, Click here


    To send letters to your Senators about any issue of interest, Click here


    Get involved - Write your letters today!
  • On The Issues

    Don't be uninformed! Click here to see how every political leader on every issue voted.
  • Don’t Believe The Lies – Get The Facts

    FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

    Click here to get the facts.

    Pulitzer Prize Winner Politifact.com is another trusted site to get the facts. Click here to get the facts.

  • Who’s Paying Who?

    On The Issues is a nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy.
  • Blog Rules of Conduct

    Rule #1: "The aliens can not reveal anything about anyone’s life that would not be known without the use of our technology. The exception being that if a reader has a question about his or her health and the assistance of alien technology would be necessary to answer that question.”

    Rule #2: "Aliens will not threaten humans and Humans will not threaten aliens."

    Rule #3:

    Posting Comments:

    When posting a comment in regards to any past or archived article, please reference the title and date of the article and post your comment on the present day to keep the conversation contemporary.

    NOTE: You do not need to add your e-mail address when posting a comment. Your real name, an alias, a moniker, initials...whatever ...even simply "anonymous" is all you need to add in the fields in order to post a comment.

    Thank you.

  • *********

    Yellow Pages for San Francisco, CA
  • Meta

  • Looking For A Personal Stylist?

    Michelle has designed and styled for the stars! She can be your "Specialist in Styles" Personal Stylist too. Check out Michelle's style website
  • Recent Posts

  • Michelle’s E-mail:

    E-mail me! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Care To Twitter? Come Tweet Me!

  • Disclaimer: Adult Blog

    I DO NOT CENSOR COMMENTS POSTED TO THIS BLOG: Therefore this blog is not for the faint hearted, thin skinned, easily offended or the appointed people's moralist. If you feel that you may fit in any of those categories, please DO NOT read my blog or its comments. There are plenty of blogs that will fit your needs, find one. This warning also applies to those who post comments who would find it unpleasant or mentally injurious to receive an opposing opinion via a raw to vulgar delivery. I DO NOT censor comments posted here. If you post a comment, you are on notice that you may receive a comment in language or opinion that you will not approve of or that you feel is offensive. If that would bother you, DO NOT post on my blog.

    27Mar2011
  • Medical Disclaimer:

    I am not a doctor nor am I medically trained in any field. No one on this website is claiming to be a medical physician or claiming to be medically trained in any field. However, anyone can blog information about health articles, folk remedies, possible cures, possible treatments, etc that they have heard of on my blog. Please see your physician or a health care professional before heeding or using any medical information given on this blog. It is not intended to replace any medical advice given to you by your licensed medical professional. This blog is simply providing a medium for discussion on all matters concerning life. All opinions given are the sole responsibility of the person giving them. This blog does not make any claim to their truthfulness, honesty, or factuality because of their presence on my blog. Again, Please consult a health care professional before heeding any health information given here.

    27Mar2011
  • Legal Disclaimer:

    Michelle Moquin's "A Day In The Life Of..." publishes the opinions of expert authorities in many fields. But the use of these opinions is no substitute for legal, accounting, investment, medical and other professional services to suit your specific personal needs. Always consult a competent professional for answers to your specific questions.

    27Mar2011
  • Fair Use Notice Disclaimer

    This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from me. You can read more about "fair use' and US Copyright Law"at the"Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School." This notice was modified from a similar notice at "Common Dreams."

Archive for the 'Political Powwow' Category

Saturday Satire

Posted by Michelle Moquin on 2nd July 2016

Bookmark and Share

Good morning!

Lia: I don’t laugh as much as I’d like to about anything these days. Sometimes I think I’ve lost my sense of humor, which is not something I want to lose. So when something strikes my funny bone, like you just did, I’m so grateful I still have it. Laughing out loud. Thank you for showing me I still got it.

Steve: I couldn’t help but respond because I’m laughing out loud at your comment too. So thank you. I love the way you think women aren’t fit to judge men in politics. You’re probably one who thinks men are better at making decisions over women’s bodies too. I agree with ZL, go stroke, and I will add, that tiny thing between your legs, at home in private, thanks.

Yesica: Yes!

Since I’m in that kind of mood this morning, here’s something else to keep you laughing into this holiday weekend. It’s hilarious in a unsettling kind of way. 😅 From the Daily Kos:

Jimmy Kimmel shows how some people will fall for any ridiculous lie about Hillary

The way that propaganda works is that once people develop a certain perception of something, it is very hard to disabuse people of that opinion. A case in point has played out over the primaries this season with Hillary Clinton. The general belief by many is that Hillary Clinton is a manipulative, cynical veteran of politics who is interested in her own power.

Depending on what side of the political spectrum you fall on this perception, while based in many good bits of evidence, it’s seemingly exaggerated when you compare Clinton to virtually every single liberal moderate politician in America. Bernie and Hillary voted on the same things 93 percent of the time. We don’t need to have a pie fight about that. That’s a fact.

Once again, I’ll note that I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and that too is a fact. Jimmy Kimmel Live took on that perception in a piece that they occasionally do called “Lie Witness News.” The premise is that they ask people about something in the news, in this case the recent release of more (mostly) unremarkable personal email server emails from Clinton. The humor comes in that they ask people, while leading those people with more and more outrageous “facts” about what was revealed in the news.

Some of the jokes are cute:

Can you believe how many Nigerian Princes she responded to?

To considerably more sinister:

What did you think about the fact that she accepted Osama Bin Laden’s LinkdIn request?

In every case, the people being interviewed lie by saying they heard, or read or know, about these “facts.” In every case, they say things like “it doesn’t surprise me,” and “I can believe it.” The point in the end is that whether or not Hillary Clinton has done anything wrong, or the degree to which she has done things wrong, matters not at all to someone who is ready to apply this general brush of corruption and ill intent on her.

It’s also funny.

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

😛😜😝

Happy Saturday, everyone! Thanks for being here.

Blog me. 

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016

me

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Posted in Entertainment & Laughter, Political Powwow | 43 Comments »

Flap Your Lips Friday

Posted by Michelle Moquin on 1st July 2016

Bookmark and Share

Good Morning!

Another write about another Wonderful Woman Of The World. From ThinkProgress:

The Supreme Court’s ‘Wise Latina’ Notches Her First Key Victory

AP_455903252888-1024x717

Twenty-five years ago on Wednesday, the greatest lawyer of the twentieth century confronted his own mortality.

“I’m old,” Justice Thurgood Marshall told a room full of reporters. “I’m getting old and falling apart.” The man who time and time again had forced Jim Crow to retreat using only the power of his own arguments was leaving the Supreme Court.

Justice Marshall’s retirement left a void on the nation’s highest Court for nearly two decades. Marshall was, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the year after his retirement, “a man who knew the anguish of the silenced and gave them a voice.” This was a man who’d personally faced lynch mobs while struggling to save innocent black men from a death sentence, a lawyer of unmatched skill and poise who was chased out of Southern towns with warnings that “n*ggers ain’t welcome in these parts after dark.”

Thurgood Marshall, Justice O’Connor wrote, continuously forced his colleagues on the Supreme Court to “respond not only to the persuasiveness of legal argument but also to the power of moral truth.”

 AP_6710230217-300x267

Justice Thurgood Marshall (AP Photo, File))

At a superficial level, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is an unusual candidate to take up Marshall’s mantle. Princeton and Yale-educated, Sotomayor began her career as a prosecutor before representing clients such as Fendi and Ferrari.

And yet, Sotomayor’s early work as an assistant district attorney gave her a unique insight into just how easy it is for police and prosecutors to abuse their power. As NYU Law Professor Rachel Barkow writes, Sotomayor’s “experience as an assistant district attorney and trial judge” appears “to have made her attuned to the need for checks on government power.” The justice’s “view in criminal cases is firmly grounded in how things actually work in practice” and “how real people interact with criminal justice policies in the vast majority of cases in the system.”

More than just a voice of criminal defendants who are often pushed around by a system designed to empower law enforcement, however, Sotomayor has also embraced Marshall’s role as the Court’s teller of difficult truths about race. During her confirmation hearing, conservatives tore into Sotomayor for saying in a 2001 speech that she would “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” But her tenure on the bench has shown that there is wisdom in these remarks. Sotomayor is one of only three people of color who have sat on the Supreme Court, and she brings a perspective that was long absent in the justices’ conference room.

“It is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims” of humiliating police scrutiny, Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion last week in Utah v. Strieff. “Race matters,” Sotomayor wrote two years earlier, in response to conservative colleagues who insist that the only way to eradicate racism is to ignore the fact that race exists.

Race matters to a young man’s view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman’s sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, “No, where are you really from?”, regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: “I do not belong here.”

These words, like her warning about racial injustice in Strieff, were written in a dissenting opinion. Yet they also presaged one of Sotomayor’s greatest — and most unexpected — triumphs.

The Triumph

No one thought Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin would turn out the way it did.

Fisher was a case, spearheaded by the same activist behind the Court’s decision gutting much of the Voting Rights Act, targeting affirmative action in university admissions. When Fisher first reached the Supreme Court in 2012, few people expected race-conscious admissions programs to survive contact with the justices. Oral arguments in the case, where potential swing-voter Justice Anthony Kennedy complained that the University of Texas had created an admissions program where “what counts is race above all,” only heightened this sense that affirmative action was on its death bed.

Then Sonia Sotomayor stepped up to the plate.

According to Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic, the justices initially split 5-3 after the 2012 oral arguments in Fisher (Justice Elena Kagan was recused), with the majority intending to strike down UT’s affirmative action plan. In response, Sotomayor “drafted a dissent suffused with the personal experience of her Puerto Rican Bronx background.” The justice’s message to her conservative colleagues, according to Biskupic, could be summarized as “you haven’t lived it and you don’t get it.”

With tensions growing within the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer, a center-left Clinton appointee, saw an opportunity to broker a compromise, and he eventually convinced Kennedy to pen a more moderate opinion allowing affirmative action to survive another day. Seven of the eight justices hearing this case eventually signed on to this opinion.

The justice’s message to her conservative colleagues . . . could be summarized as “you haven’t lived it and you don’t get it.”

Yet, while Kennedy’s first Fisher opinion permitted the University of Texas to continue using race as a small factor in its admissions process, it was widely viewed as nothing more than a stay of execution for affirmative action. The opinion returned the case to one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country, and it did so with instructions that no affirmative action may survive judicial review unless there are “no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” Sotomayor and Breyer’s efforts may have bought affirmative action a few more years, but the writing on the wall still seemed to show that race-conscious admissions was on its death bed.

Flash forward to last Thursday, when Kennedy handed down his second opinion in the Fisher litigation. “Something strange has happened since our prior decision in this case,” Justice Samuel Alito complained in response to Kennedy’s opinion. He had a point. For the first time in nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court, Kennedy voted to uphold a race-conscious admissions program. Affirmative action was saved.

Justice Sotomayor, for her part, played only a small supporting role in Fisher‘s final chapter. She quietly joined Kennedy’s majority opinion without writing an additional word. But she did not need to. The groundwork she’d laid the last time Fisher was before the Court delivered a result that once seemed impossible.

The Struggle

Yet, despite her quiet success in Fisher, Sotomayor spends far more time in dissent than she does building unexpected majorities. At a time when much of the nation is awakening to the extra burden people of color carry within our criminal justice system, Sotomayor is a lonely voice — often a voice speaking only for herself and no other justice — about the need for greater checks on prosecutors, prison officials and law enforcement.

Just weeks into her second term on the Court, Sotomayor took up the case of Anthony Pitre, a Louisiana inmate engaged in a self-destructive protest — after Pitre was transferred against his will to a particular prison facility, he protested the decision by refusing to take his HIV medication. Prison officials allegedly retaliated against this decision by “subjecting him to hard labor in 100-degree heat,” duties he could not safely perform in his weakened medical state.

Both a trial court and an appeals court rejected Pitre’s plea for lighter duty. A magistrate judge even labeled his claims “frivolous” and wrote that Pitre was “hoist by his own petard” for exacerbating his own medical condition to the point where he was unable to perform hard labor. The Supreme Court voted not to hear Pitre’s case, with Sotomayor as the lone voice registering dissent.

Citing “the principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment” and precedents establishing that prisons may not inflict “punitive treatment [that] amounts to gratuitous infliction of ‘wanton and unnecessary’ pain,” Sotomayor offered scorn for the magistrate judge’s approach to this case. “I cannot comprehend how a court could deem” Pitre’s allegations “frivolous,” she wrote.

“To be sure, Pitre’s decision to refuse medication may have been foolish and likely caused a significant part of his pain,” Sotomayor admitted. “But that decision does not give prison officials license to exacerbate Pitre’s condition further as a means of punishing or coercing him.”

Sotomayor similarly took up the charge of Israel Leija, a man who allegedly was unlawfully shot and killed by a police officer after leading police on a high-speed chase and threatening to shoot at them if they maintained pursuit. In an unsigned order, a majority of the Court held that the officer who killed Leija was immune from suit because he did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Only Sotomayor dissented. The officer, she wrote, “fired six rounds in the dark at a car traveling 85 miles per hour. He did so without any training in that tactic, against the wait order of his superior officer, and less than a second before the car hit spike strips deployed to stop it.” This, she added, is simply not allowed. “It is clearly established that the government must have some interest in using deadly force over other kinds of force” before it can take lethal action against a suspect. Even dangerous criminals have this right.

Neither Pitre nor Leija was a sympathetic litigant. One was a convicted criminal who willfully endangered his own health and then demanded an accommodation for doing so. The other behaved recklessly and directly threatened police. But Sotomayor’s insight in both cases was that no one loses their constitutional rights because they are unsympathetic — or even because they may have behaved badly.

This, after all, is the core insight behind a Constitution that protects the rights of the criminally accused — individuals that, by their very nature, are likely to be unsympathetic.

*****

The forum is now open.

Talk to me. 

Happy Friday!

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016

me

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Posted in Good Reads and Good See'ds, Political Powwow, Wonderful Women Of The World | 20 Comments »

Wonderful Women of The World

Posted by Michelle Moquin on 29th June 2016

Bookmark and Share

 

Good Morning!

Hi, Devin: Of course. I had a feeling this was your thing. Would love to hear more, so yes please.

Hi, Lin: I HOPE to as well. I don’t see it being a problem as long as we women stick together and make it happen. Speaking of making it happen…wow. You girlz really went for it, supported each other, rallied together, and succeeded in getting your first female leader. Amazing! So happy for you! I’m speechless. I hope the women here are reading and can get excited enough to do what you all did together. YOU are the inspiration. Thank you for all the wonderful wishes and support.

I can’t help but dedicate this write to you, the rest of the girlz, and all the readers who commented on this victory for women. It shows that when women succeed, things happen. Lots of wonderful things happen. Social Butterfly: I gave gratitude. Nice, Ruth, AF: I agree!

Wonderful Women of The World is usually a write reserved for Sundays, but you can bet this year I will be including them on any day that I please. Here’s a WWOTW Stephanie Toti featured in a write from the Huff Po:

This Lawyer’s First Supreme Court Case Just Decided The Fate Of Abortion Rights

56cde5b91500002a000b09c4

Stephanie Toti, 37, is arguing the biggest abortion case of the decade before the Supreme Court next week.

In February, The Huffington Post profiled Stephanie Toti as she was preparing to lead the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Toti a victory in the case, striking down both Texas regulations that made it more difficult for clinics to provide abortions.

Read our original story about Toti below:

The night of Nov. 7, 2006, Stephanie Toti slept on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court.

It was pouring rain, but the Capitol Police would not let the 26-year-old and her colleagues pitch a tent. So they laid in sleeping bags on the concrete, miserable, huddled together. The next morning, they stood in line in their soaking-wet clothes, hoping to get seats for oral arguments in the most important abortion rights case of the last decade.

After camping in the rain all night, Toti and her co-workers — junior employees at the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group that defends abortion rights around the globe — managed to nab a few spots in the last row.

“Some of our colleagues who had tickets to the arguments came around in the morning and brought us suits so we could change our clothes after we got into the courthouse and be appropriately dressed,” Toti said. “I remember sitting in the back and thinking, ‘Wow, this courtroom is so big!’”

Toti’s side lost. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — a federal law passed in 2003 that prohibited a specific kind of surgical abortion procedure.

Now, a decade later, Toti is preparing to argue her first Supreme Court case — the most significant abortion trial of this century. On March 2, she’ll take the lead in oral arguments on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine whether women in Texas and across the country will have access to abortion services in their communities.

The case challenges the constitutionality of two Texas abortion restrictions passed in 2013 that were designed to shut down most of the clinics in the state. The decision will not only determine the fate of abortion access in Texas; it will also send a signal to other states about the appropriateness of similar laws.

Most litigators who argue big cases before the Supreme Court are white men who have done it before. An elite group of 66 lawyers — only eight of whom are women — argued nearly half of the cases before the high court from 2004 to 2012, according to a 2014 Reuters analysis of 17,000 attorneys. Some of those attorneys have argued dozens of cases before the court, and nearly half of them are graduates of Harvard or Yale law schools who clerked for Supreme Court justices after graduation. That narrow representation turns the court into what the Reuters investigators described as an “echo chamber.”

But in the most consequential abortion rights cases, the reproductive rights movement has repeatedly turned to relatively inexperienced women.

Sarah Weddington (WWOTW!)was 27 when she argued and won Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion throughout the United States. Weddington had no previous experience with the high court. “Because I hadn’t been able to get a job with a law firm, I didn’t have any real experience,” Weddington told Ms. Magazine last year. “I had done one adoption for my uncle, some divorces for people with no real assets to divide up, a couple of wills for people with very little money. I had not done Big Law.”

In 1992, reproductive rights advocates chose Kathryn Kolbert (WWOTW!to represent them in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which challenged a Pennsylvania law requiring a 24-hour waiting period and spousal notification before a woman could obtain an abortion. Kolbert, then a 40-year-old attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, had only argued one case before the Supreme Court, but she claimed a narrow victory over Pennsylvania’s Republican attorney general. The court ruled that states can regulate abortion, but cannot place an “undue burden” on the right to obtain one. 

Being underestimated is “frustrating, but motivating,” Toti said.

Toti, who is now 37, has argued dozens of abortion cases in district and federal courts, and she briefly clerked for U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon in New York in 2005. But she has never argued before the Supreme Court. She lives in a modest walk-up apartment in Brooklyn with a roommate and occasionally attends Catholic mass with her sprawling Italian-American family on Long Island.

She is humble and soft-spoken in our interview in her office in Manhattan, which is filled with cards bearing supportive messages from her co-workers: “Uteruses before duderuses” and “Ovaries before brovaries.” Her nails are painted bright purple — her favorite color, and also the color of the marketing materials for Whole Woman’s Health, the chain of Texas clinics she represents.

Toti’s opponent, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller, argued two cases before the Supreme Court in 2015, and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy — the justice expected to be the swing vote in the case.

Keller’s team doesn’t appear to be taking its less-experienced female opponent seriously. As the case wound its way through the lower courts, Toti repeatedly had to remind the Texas attorneys that she is the lead counsel on the case. But they consistently directed communications to her co-counsel — a taller, slightly older man from the international law firm Morrison & Foerster. “They would always reach out to him and not even ‘cc’ me,” she said. “I would get back to the lawyers and say, ‘Here is our position,’ and the next time they would go back to him anyway.”

Toti’s co-counsel, Alex Lawrence, said the Texas attorneys are ignoring his colleague because she’s a woman. “I feel bad about it, but yes, it’s true,” he said in a phone interview. “They’re not comfortable with it completely. Maybe it’s a Texas thing, or maybe it’s just a man thing.”

Being underestimated is “frustrating, but motivating,” Toti said. And she needs the boost — the outcome of her first Supreme Court case will determine whether millions of American women will still be able to access abortion in their states.

“I definitely feel the pressure,” she said. “So much hangs in the balance.”

 56cdef2a1500002a000b09d1

T-shirts on display at Whole Woman’s Health of San Antonio. The Supreme Court will soon hear the organization’s challenge to Texas legislation that requires all abortion facilities to meet increased requirements by becoming ambulatory service centers. 

In the 2010 midterm elections, a new crop of ultra-conservative Republicans swept statehouses across the country, bringing with them a fresh determination to rid the country of legal abortion. Over the next five years, these lawmakers passed an unprecedented number of abortion restrictions that shut down dozens of clinics across the country. Their strategy was simple: Instead of passing outright bans on legal abortion that would be difficult to defend in court, states passed so many new regulations on abortion clinics and doctors that few providers would be able to meet the requirements and stay open.

In 2013, Texas enacted two of these so-called TRAP laws (“TRAP” stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers). The laws mandate that all abortions take place in ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals, and that all abortion providers must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The extensive renovations required to turn a clinic into a mini-hospital, such as specific hallway widths, large janitors’ closets and new ventilation systems, are too expensive for most clinic owners to undertake. And hospitals in Texas often refuse to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers for political or religious reasons that have nothing to do with the doctor’s experience or safety record.

By the middle of 2014, 20 of the state’s 42 clinics had shut down, forcing many women in poor, rural areas of the state to travel up to 300 miles to the nearest clinic. Women’s health advocates complained that the restrictions did not appear to be medically necessary — abortions are already remarkably safe, and in the event of an emergency, hospitals have to admit women whether the doctor performing the abortion has admitting privileges or not. “These laws don’t provide any material benefit to abortion patients,” Toti said.

In August 2014, the Center for Reproductive Rights — with Toti as lead counsel — sued Texas, arguing that the new restrictions were irrelevant to women’s health and imposed an unconstitutional burden on their access to safe and legal abortion. Toti won in district court and lost in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In November, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Toti’s task in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is to convince the court — specifically, Kennedy — that the new regulations are not medically necessary, that lawmakers passed them with the sole intent of eradicating legal abortion in Texas, and that the rules do indeed impede women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion.

Her team has taken a novel approach in its argument, submitting a document to the court in which 113 female attorneys share stories of their own abortions and explain how access to the procedure allowed them to break the cycles of poverty, abuse and teenage motherhood in their families and rise into successful careers.

The state of Texas will argue that the clinic regulations are necessary to protect the health and safety of women. “The state has wide discretion to pass laws ensuring Texas women are not subject to substandard conditions at abortion facilities,” Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, said in a statement when the Supreme Court agreed to review the case last November.

The death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this month does not change much about Toti’s case. If Kennedy sides with Whole Woman’s Health, the Texas restrictions will be struck down. But if he sides with the state, that will create a 4-4 tie, which will mean that a lower court decision that upheld Texas’ abortion restrictions will stand.

As she prepares for next week’s oral arguments, Toti is trying to avoid psychoanalyzing Kennedy. Instead, she is practicing with experienced Supreme Court lawyers who shoot rapid-fire questions at her in moot courts, interrupting her as the justices will. These dress rehearsals can be humbling.

“There have definitely been moments of remorse,” she said. “Everyone’s jumping in and asking these really hard questions, and I reach a point where I’m like, ‘When is this going to end?’”

At the gym or at the grocery store, Toti listens to audio recordings of past oral arguments on her headphones. Sometimes a dream about the case will wake her up in the middle of the night, and she’ll jump out of bed to scribble down the ideas cycling through her head. The notes rarely make any sense the next morning. “I’m not going to give you a specific example,” she said, laughing, “because I don’t want to tip off the other side to the kind of nonsense I’m coming up with.”

When the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, Toti’s bosses briefly considered replacing her with a more experienced Supreme Court lawyer. She lobbied to keep the case, noting that she had already taken the lead in district and appellate arguments. She convinced them. When she found out she’d argue the case, she was “really excited,” she recalled. “And then, you know, a moment later, slightly terrified.”

Lawrence, her co-counsel, isn’t as worried.

“Stephanie knows the case backwards and forwards,” he said. “Every nook and cranny of the case, she knows. That is an asset that cannot be undervalued.”

“I would not have wanted anyone else to argue this case,” he added. “Including myself.”

*****

Readers: The story may be out about the SCOTUS decision to reject Texas’s attempt to block access to abortions to women in its state, but the story to be told about the woman who argued it before that court deserves my blog time too. Talk about commitment to her fellow sisters. This woman has got it going –  Toti is focused and tenacious even in the face of men not respecting her position as lead counsel. I so applaud her for her efforts, for her “dream ideas,” for hanging in there under intense pressure. Yes, millions of women counted on her and she didn’t disappoint.

As usual it takes a female to make clear the negative impact laws men pass to impede the equality of women and their right to determine their own health care. Since no man can truly walk in a woman’s shoes, he can certainly try to obstruct progress, and unfortunately he has in the past, but he can’t understand the negative impact of his laws, nor will he care as much about them because those laws don’t affect men.

The proof is in the fact that three relatively inexperienced women have argued and won the three most important cases in America history. 

This is a more staggering feat than one would imagine on first blush until one learns that there is an elite group of 66 lawyers who have argued nearly half of the cases before the high court from 2004 to 2012, according to a 2014 Reuters analysis of 17,000 attorneys, and only 8 of them have been women.  I believe my point about men not truly understanding applies here too. This is where sympathy ends and empathy takes over.

Can you imagine what women could do for women, for the country, if we were in power positions? I can. 

If women wake up, they will see why all the more this demands a woman get her chance to not only change the often draconian laws men have passed to the detriment of women, but to promote new legislation that will right the ship. I for one am ready for it, and am planning on doing my best to ensure that our girl Hillary is our next president. I KNOW there are plenty of women who will join me. I’m counting on all of you. The time is now and there is no better time than now. #I’mWithHer.

Herbert: How lucky are you?! I wish I could’ve been there to see our President. It would’ve been one of the highlights of my life.

So nice to hear all about PRIDE from so many of you! Janice: Wow – so many films being shown. Cool. I didn’t know about that. Thanks for letting me know. Please Brittany et al: Send me notice of your PRIDE events ahead of time and I’d be happy to include them in my write next year! Karen: Thanks for the heads-up for Oakland in September.

Patricia: I love the idea too. He’s got my vote.

Ohh. I love ending on an up note. 

Your turn, Blog this BABE. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016

me

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Posted in Health & Well Being, Human Rights and Equality, Journeys within, Love, Sex & Relationships, Political Powwow | 19 Comments »

SCOTUS Throws Out Texas Abortion Access Law

Posted by Michelle Moquin on 28th June 2016

Bookmark and Share

Good Morning!

Woo hoo! A victory for women!! Great news. 

Thank you SCOTUS…Specifically: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, along with Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

How will this ripple effect other States? Read on…

Here’s the write from the NY times:

Abortion Ruling Could Create Waves of Legal Challenges

From Texas to Alabama to Wisconsin, more than a dozen Republican-run states in recent years have passed laws requiring that abortion clinics have hospital-grade facilities or use doctors with admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Now, Monday’s Supreme Court ruling — that those provisions in a Texas law do not protect women’s health and place an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion — will quickly reverberate across the country.

It will prevent the threatened shutdown of clinics in some states, especially in the Deep South, that have been operating in a legal limbo, with Texas-style laws on temporary hold. But legal experts said the effect over time was likely to be wider, potentially giving momentum to dozens of legal challenges, including to laws that restrict abortions with medication or ban certain surgical methods.

“The ruling deals a crushing blow to this most recent wave of state efforts to shut off access to abortion through hyper-regulation,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg, the director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School.

Adopting stringent regulations on abortion clinics and doctors that are said to be about protecting women’s health has been one of the anti-abortion movement’s most successful efforts, imposing large expenses on some clinics, forcing others to close and making it harder for women in some regions to obtain abortions. Republicans like Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who deplored Monday’s ruling, argued that they were requiring clinics to “be held to the same standards as other medical facilities.”

Now, the court has ruled that any such requirements must be based on convincing medical evidence that the rules are solving a real health issue to be weighed by a court, not by ideologically driven legislators — and that the benefits must outweigh the burdens imposed on women’s constitutional right to an abortion.

Anti-abortion groups expressed anger at Monday’s decision, insisting that abortion care is rife with unreported medical risks and malpractice, and vowed to press on. Americans United for Life, which has been a principal architect of the legislative strategy of putting requirements on clinics in the name of protecting women’s health, said it would continue to fight “to protect women from a dangerous and greedy abortion industry.”

“I’m confident that the states will move ahead to fill the public health vacuum that the Supreme Court has created,” said Clarke Forsythe, the acting president of Americans United for Life. “This decision does not foreclose more narrowly tailored regulations,” he said, promising that new ones will be developed state by state.

Since the Supreme Court has long held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, anti-abortion groups over the past decade have turned to the states to pass hundreds of laws designed to discourage abortions, such as waiting periods, mandated fetal sonograms and parental consent requirements.

Most recently, promoting stringent regulations on abortion clinics and doctors has been one of the movement’s most successful efforts.

Since 2011, for example, nine states have passed physician admitting-privilege requirements, bringing the total, including Texas, to 11, though in several cases the laws have been temporarily blocked. Similar proposals are pending in five more states, according to Elizabeth Nash, a researcher with the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

28legal-web2-master675

Dr. Willie Parker at Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery in February in Montgomery, Ala. Dr. Parker, a roving doctor who performs abortions at two clinics in Alabama and at a clinic in Mississippi, said on Monday that the Texas decision was “a huge victory.” CreditMelissa Golden for The New York Times

The latest admitting-privilege law, though a weaker one than that in Texas, is due to take effect on July 1 in Florida. Gov. Rick Scott said he was studying the implications of Monday’s Supreme Court decision. The Florida law allows clinics, as an alternative, to have a general transfer agreement with a nearby hospital, but it is unclear whether all of the state’s clinics can comply.

The clearest and probably quickest effect of the Supreme Court decision will be in the other states with admitting-privilege laws — which mainstream medical groups say are medically unnecessary, and which clinics in some regions cannot meet because of hostility to abortion.

Such laws threatened to force the shutdown of four of five clinics in Alabama, three of four clinics in Louisiana and the sole abortion clinic operating in Mississippi. Given Monday’s decision, none of the laws in those states, or in others where similar requirements are temporarily blocked, including Kansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, are likely to survive.

Robin Vos, the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, said in a statement: “Today the court has put women’s health and safety on the back burner for the profits of Planned Parenthood and abortion providers.”

He added: “As a pro-life legislator, I will continue to support legislation that protects the life of an unborn child and the health of the mother.”

On the other side of the issue, Dr. Willie Parker, who as a roving doctor who performs abortions at two Alabama clinics in cities where he cannot obtain admitting privileges and at the one clinic in Mississippi, said with relief that the Texas decision was “a huge victory.”

After years in which ever more forceful anti-abortion laws spread in the South, he said, “now the chain reaction can go in the other direction.”

Admitting-privilege requirements that are now in effect in Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee may also come under new challenge. Five other states, besides Texas, impose some form of surgery-center standards on clinics performing abortions in the first trimester. The effect of the new ruling may have to be considered state by state, legal experts said.

While surgery-center laws outside Texas have forced a few clinics to shut down, the laws in several states including Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia allow for waivers to the strict requirements, allowing some existing clinics to be exempt from rules governing, for example, storage space or flooring materials; the Texas law struck down Monday was, by comparison, inflexible.

Because the Supreme Court case was focused on provisions that were justified in terms of women’s health, the ruling is likely to have a less direct effect on some other contested abortion restrictions such as waiting periods or ultrasound requirements.

But the same standards would presumably apply to legal efforts to restrict nonsurgical, medication abortions in the name of protecting women. Battles are underway, for example, in some rural states over whether doctors can remotely prescribe abortion-inducing drugs. The greatest effect of the decision may come in the future, as the battle over abortion takes new forms.

Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the New York-based legal group that represented Texas clinics before the Supreme Court, said, “This opinion makes it clear that the court is going to look at the stated justification for a law, and look at the burdens it imposes.”

“It’s about making sure that regulations are truly justified,” she said.

For now, the Supreme Court is expected to make sure that states where cases are pending, like Louisiana and Mississippi, follow the principles laid out on Monday.

*****

Readers: I’m soo sick of men making comments, no…decisions, about women’s health as if they have a vagina of their own and the ability to give birth. Last time I checked they don’t. That’s a nod to you, Paul Ryan, and all the other anti-abortionists who want to control women and their rights over their bodies. They aren’t concerned about protecting women’s health like they espouse.

How is it better for a woman’s health, when the state a woman resides in to get an abortion severely limits her access to safe and legal procedures? How is it better for a woman’s health when she is in a desperate situation and may resort to an unlicensed rogue practitioners because she has no other choice? How is it better for a woman’s health when all she wants is to have an abortion but is faced with stressful situations from abortion clinics who, discourage her desires, make her go through long waiting periods, and mandate fetal sonograms?

I don’t know about you, but if that’s your way of protecting my health, I want nothing to do with you, thank you. Just let me make my own decisions freely as I should be able to since abortion is legal.

I can’t believe that in this day and age we’re still talking about and fighting over this. We have the right to have an abortion but those who oppose are always trying to make it hard for women to exercise that right. I will echo Hillary’s tweet:

Screen Shot 2016-06-27 at 9.24.28 PM

This is a victory and a good reason to celebrate. AND we aren’t done yet.

What’s on your mind? Blog me. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016

me

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Posted in Health & Well Being, Human Rights and Equality, Journeys within, Political Powwow | 19 Comments »

#RememberInNovember

Posted by Michelle Moquin on 23rd June 2016

Bookmark and Share

 

Good morning!

I’ve been searching for a write like this. These GOPs need to be called out – we’re doing that here! – and voted out! – We’ll do that in November. It’s not all about getting Hillary in, it’s also about getting these repubs out. If we’re going to be able to do anything come January next year we need to have long flowing coattails behind Hillary.

Gabby Giffords: Welcome. This one is for you. I HOPE you’re doing well.

These 23 GOP Senators Voted Against Background Checks. They Could Also Be Voted Out In November

GunIssueProfileCover-2

On Monday night, one week after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, the Senate rejected four gun-related measures. One proposal would have made it harder for suspected terrorists to purchase firearms and another would have expanded background checks to all gun sales. Similar measures also failed after 26 people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 14 people were killed at a San Bernardino office party.

The votes are not surprising given that the 56 senators who voted against expanding background checks (and 53 who voted against allowing the attorney general to stop the sale of a firearm to a suspected terrorist) have received a combined total of roughly $36 million from the National Rifle Association.

“What am I going to tell 49 grieving families?” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said after the votes. “I am going to tell them the NRA won again.”

But roughly 90 percent of Americans — including 80 percent of gun owners — support these measures. Immediately after the vote, voters and gun control advocates vowed to make the upcoming election a referendum on Republican politicians who are beholden to the NRA. On Twitter, people expressed their disapproval at Congress with the hashtag #RememberinNovember.

A total of 24 Republican Senate seats are up for election in November — 22 face reelection and two are retiring. Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, the most vulnerable Republican senator running for reelection, bucked his party and voted in favor of closing the current loophole that allows people to purchase firearms online and at gun shows without a background check. The other 23, meanwhile, voted against that measure.

The Republican senators who both voted against background checks and who could leave office in January have received a net total of $16,258,008 over their careers from the NRA. That number accounts for all of the money they’ve received from the NRA, both directly and indirectly. It also includes all of the money the NRA has spent against their opponents (payments the NRA has made in favor of their opponents are subtracted). The retiring Sen. Dan Coates (R-IN) also voted against background checks, but the NRA has actually spent more money opposing Coates over the years than they have on his behalf.

GunIssueProfileShare-816x916

“A lot of these people are up for reelection this year and I will dedicate the next several months of my life to making sure we remember that,” Everytown for Gun Safety survivor engagement manager Erica Lafferty Smegielski told ThinkProgress Monday. Smegielski’s mother, Dawn Hochsprung, was the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School and was killed in the shooting there in 2012.

“We’re going to take it to the polls,” she continued. “And if Congress again, now after the worst mass shooting on U.S. soil in modern history, if they’re not going to act now then when? Clearly it’s not going to happen with the people who are holding office and we’re going to hold them accountable for that and vote them out in November.”

*****

Ruth/AF: Well said. I’ll be the Dem to say it because your words are worth repeating. “The republicans are more beholden to the NRA who fills their pockets than they are with the pain of their constituents whose plight should fill their hearts.” The above total spent supports your statement. I HOPE all is well with you.

Readers: So much for “country first” when roughly 90 percent of Americans which includes 80 percent of gun owners support these gun measures. LSOSs. Uhh do ya think they care what the “country” wants? This is proof they don’t give a fuck. They didn’t care about the Sandy Hook kids, nor the gays in Orlando, nor anyone else who has gotten killed by ARs. The proof is in their vote and their pockets.

Do you have friends voting? Of course you do – hopefully all of your friends are going to show up in the voting booth. Send this to them if they care about the shootings like in Orlando, and all the other horrific killings that we’ve had silence moments for, not happening again. It’s far from ending AR violence but this is a step in the right direction.

Write these names down and let’s make sure they no longer have a vote in politics. #RememberInNovember.

Anything else to say?

Blog me. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016

me

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Posted in Health & Well Being, Human Rights and Equality, Lying Sacks Of Shit, Political Powwow | 8 Comments »