Good morning!

It has been a few weeks since I have blogged about Obamacare. I wanted to give you an update on the republican obstruction. Yes, it is still going on out there.

Debunking The Latest Obamacare Myth: The ‘Insurance Company Bailout’

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is falsely claiming that Obamacare could force taxpayers to “bailout” insurance companies

Blog me. Happy Tuesday!

Peace & Love.

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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

Here’s The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly About The Bipartisan Bill To Restore The Voting Rights Act

On Thursday, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers (D-MI) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) plan to introduce bipartisan legislation that will undo much of the damage done by the Roberts Court’s 5-4 decision to neuter a key prong of the Voting Rights Act. Since its enactment in 1965, the Voting Rights Act required states with a record of racial voter suppression to “preclear” any new voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal court in D.C. The Supreme Court’s decision last June struck down the formula that determined which states are subject to this preclearance regime, effectively halting federal supervision of many states that were actively engaged in voter suppression.

Prior to the Roberts Court’s decision, nine states were subject in their entirety to the preclearance requirement, and parts of six others were also covered. Notably, much of the state of North Carolina, which recently enacted the most aggressive voter suppression law in the nation, was covered under the old formula.

The bipartisan fix to the Roberts Court’s decision creates a new formula that would initially lead to far fewer states being covered by preclearance. As the Nation’s Ari Berman explains, the new formula requires preclearance in states “with five violations of federal law to their voting changes over the past fifteen years,” and to localities “if they commit three or more violations or have one violation and ‘persistent, extremely low minority turnout’ over the past fifteen years.” The upshot of this new formula is that only four states, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas will immediately be subject to preclearance in their entirety. Notably, none of these four states are North Carolina, with its comprehensive voter suppression law.

The other piece of bad news is that the bipartisan bill creates a special carve-out for voter ID laws. Voter ID, which requires voters to show a photo ID before they can cast a ballot, are one of the most common voter suppression tactics in the country. Though their proponents claim that they are necessary to prevent voter fraud at the polls, such fraud is virtually non-existent. Indeed, a Wisconsin study found that just 0.00023 percent of votes are the product of in-person voter fraud, so a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit fraud at the polls.

What voter ID does accomplish that it removes many low-income, student and minority voters from the electorate, all of which are groups that tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. Yet, despite their impact on racial minorities, the bipartisan voting bill will not count voter ID laws as a violation of federal voting rights that that can be used to subject a state to preclearance. Berman reports that this special carve out for these racially discriminatory laws was necessary to secure the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and some other Republicans.

It should be noted, however, that while voter ID laws cannot be used to bring a state under the preclearance requirement, the bipartisan bill will allow them to be blocked in states that are already subject to preclearance — either under the new formula or under another provision that will be discussed shortly. In this sense, the bipartisan bill appears to be a compromise between a radical proposal hinted at by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — that voter ID be exempt from the Voting Rights Act entirely — and the pre-Roberts Court status quo. Nevertheless, there is a risk that the bipartisan voting bill will allow voter ID laws in some states to be grandfathered in if they are enacted during a period when the state is not subject to preclearance.

So that’s the bad news for supporters of voting rights. The biggest piece of good news is that the law does not just create a new formula that will immediately subject a handful of states to preclearance, it also strengthens the ability of courts to bring states and localities engaged in voter discrimination under the preclearance umbrella. Currently, the Justice Department is suing Texas andNorth Carolina under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision which allows a state to be made subject to preclearance if a court finds “violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred within the territory of such State or political subdivision.”

The problem with Section 3, however, is that it is widely understood to require the Justice Department to prove that Texas and North Carolina enacted voter suppression laws with the intent of disenfranchising voters because of their race. Proving intent is a challenge in any context — neither judges nor attorneys are mind readers — so DOJ faces a difficult road ahead under current law. The bipartisan bill will strengthen Section 3 so that “any violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law – whether intentional or not – can be grounds for a bail-in.” This is a really big deal. Big enough that it probably justifies paying the high price Cantor and others have demanded in order to revive the Voting Rights Act.

So on balance, this is a good bill for voting rights. It will improve the baseline significantly from the post-Roberts Court status quo, and will make it much, much easier to hold states like North Carolina accountable for voter suppression. Nevertheless, two caveats are in order.

The first is that anyone who remembers what happened after the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill knows that it is always dangerous to bet on progressive legislation surviving contact with the GOP-controlled House. Majority Leader Cantor’s apparent support for the bill is a good sign that it may pass, but it remains to be seen whether that support can be relied upon or whether he can deliver the votes necessary to pass the bill into law.

The second is that there is always some risk that the very conservative Roberts Court will object to this bill as well. The Court’s June decision gutting the Voting Rights Act includes some language suggesting that any preclearance formula is unconstitutional unless it is limited to states engaged in the kind of “‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965.”If the Roberts Court applies such a standard in future cases, not even North Carolina is likely to be susceptible to preclearance — though it remains to be seen whether the five conservative justices would actually go this far.

In other words, the biggest challenge facing voting rights advocates is that they must overcome two lawmaking bodies controlled by very conservative officials — the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court of the United States. Should they clear these hurdles, however, this bipartisan proposal would go a long way towards fixing the damage caused by the Roberts Court last June, and its amendments to Section 3 would actually make American voting rights law more robust in some ways than it was before Chief Justice Roberts got his hands on it.

*****

Readers: New topic for today. However I am sort of stuck on the topic from the last few days. Feel free to comment on whatever pulls at you. Or introduce something new. :)

So many interesting comments to Bee and women like Bee. All I can say is good stuff. Nothing really new to add except I want to address one commenter…

Morris: I appreciate you sharing your story as it inspired me to think deeper on it when I was discussing your comment to a male friend. It sounds to me like you got married young. So, your wife made a mistake and slept with you on the first date. You wanted her to and you got her to. Young girls do that all of the time – they don’t know any better. (So do mature women, but they should know better.) Between males telling girls that they aren’t worth much and tricking them into feeling that if they don’t give it up on the first date they’ll not see the man again, it is challenging for a young girl who doesn’t have a sense of herself, nor know herself, or her value, to say no and wait.

However, you still married her because you fell in love with her, and to this day still love her as much. And although you felt she was a great mother, wife and partner, you still hold onto this one thing, and have not gotten over it. With all of the wonderful things that you respect and love about your wife, it is too bad that you let the fact that she slept with you on the first date, and continually questioned her faithfulness, bother you for so long.

What I don’t understand is you felt that the marriage license was a “wedding pact” for you not to cheat on your wife, (And you didn’t. I congratulate you for upholding your end of the “pact.”) however, you didn’t trust that the piece of paper, the “wedding pact,” would also be upheld on your wife’s end.

The last time I checked it seems to be that men are more prone to cheat on their wives than women cheating on their husbands. So I find it interesting that because she made this one mistake, when she was young, which has bothered you ever since, yet you still loved her enough to marry her, that you could not afford her the same trust in her upholding her end of the “wedding pact.”

It reminds me of a commenter who felt that it was no big deal to cheat on his wife, yet, if she did the same and cheated on him, it would be something that he would never forgive.

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that you never got over it. Because women have a sense about these things, I can only imagine how your wife must’ve felt, knowing how uncomfortable your first sexual encounter made you feel throughout your entire marriage. And knowing that you never really trusted her to not fuck a man that she may have liked. Even if she never cheated on you, which I am guessing she didn’t, or would never cheat on you, she probably had to live with the fact that you never totally trusted her and thought that she would.

Your uncomfortableness was that she slept with you on her first date, didn’t value herself, and couldn’t be trusted. Her uncomfortableness may have been that you felt that because of her youth and sleeping with you on the first date, that you didn’t trust that she valued herself enough to be faithful to you. I really don’t know – I am just putting myself in her shoes and guessing.

She may have grown to really know herself, respect herself and know her value. But she may have felt that no matter what she did, no matter how great of a wife, mother or partner she was, you would not trust her totally, nor think she was as valuable as she had grown to know and be.

I really don’t know but that is my gut feeling. And I HOPE you don’t mind me expressing it.

Peace out. 

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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

The Supreme Court’s Probably About To Create A Right To Harass Women At Abortion Clinics

Coming soon to a women’s health clinic near you

Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely perceived as a swing vote on abortion, thanks to his decision to retain the “essential holding of Roe v. Wade” in the 1992 casePlanned Parenthood v. Casey. But this perception of Kennedy is misplaced. Since becoming a justice, Kennedy voted to strike just one of the 21 abortion restrictions that have come before the Supreme Court, and that one restriction was in Casey itself. Thus, Kennedy has not voted to block a law limiting access to abortion for the last 21 years.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear a case brought by abortion protesters seeking greater access to women approaching abortion clinics — and if Justice Kennedy gets his way, those protesters may soon have unlimited ability to “counsel” or even harass patients approaching women’s health clinics.

McCullen v. Coakley concerns a Massachusetts law that creates a buffer zone around clinics that women can freely travel through without being confronted by protesters, leafleters or so-called “sidewalk counselors.” Under the Massachusetts law, entrances to abortion clinics are surrounded by a 35 foot buffer zone that no one may enter unless they have legitimate business within the clinic or are simply passing through the buffer zone in order to reach another destination.

McCullen hinges on two distinctions at the heart of First Amendment law. Laws that are “content-based” — that is, laws that single out speech about a particular topic for inferior treatment — and laws that engage in “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, laws that treat people who hold one set of views differently than people who hold opposing views — are both treated with great skepticism under the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment allows a state to prohibit someone from loudly protesting outside their neighbor’s bedroom while that neighbor is trying to sleep, so long as it bans all protests on any subject whatsoever. But a law that prohibits only protests about abortion — or only prohibits protests opposing abortion — while permitting protests on all other topics, is likely to be struck down.

The plaintiffs in McCullen try to characterize the Massachusetts law as one that engages in viewpoint discrimination because it permits clinic workers and their patients to enter and exit the buffer zones (and thus to enter and exit the clinic itself), without permitting abortion protesters to do so. It’s a neat trick. Essentially, the plaintiffs argue that clinic workers are themselves pro-choice, so allowing them inside the buffer zone without also allowing anti-abortion protesters is a form of viewpoint discrimination. Should the Supreme Court accept this argument, the only way for Massachusetts to enforce its buffer zone law would be for it to also forbid clinic workers from entering and exiting the clinic where they work. Clearly, this is not a workable way for a health clinic to operate.

It’s likely, however, that the Court will hand an even more expansive victory to abortion protesters. Dissenting in a 2000 case called Hill v. Colorado, Justice Kennedy suggested that any law that prevents protests around health clinics by its very nature engages in content discrimination, no matter how the law is written or how broadly it sweeps. “We would close our eyes to reality,” Kennedy claimed inHill, “were we to deny that ‘oral protest, education, or counseling’ outside the entrances to medical facilities concern a narrow range of topics—indeed, one topic in particular. By confining the law’s application to the specific locations where the prohibited discourse occurs, the State has made a content-based determination.”

In essence, Kennedy argued that the only reason anyone ever protests outside of a health clinic is because they oppose abortion, so any restriction on protests outside of clinics should be treated as an impermissible content restriction. Should Kennedy’s view carry the day in McCullen, the result will be a constitutional right to protest outside of health clinics that does not exist at any other location or apply to protesters focused on any other topic.

In fairness, the plaintiffs in this case claim that they do not berate the women they target for so-called counseling — according to their brief, they “try to engage women who may be seeking abortions in close, kind, personal communication, with calm voices, caring demeanor, and eye contact.” That may very well be true, but if the Supreme Court gives them a constitutional right to engage in this kind of subtle protest, Massachusetts will hardly be able to permit this kind of activity while banning more aggressive protesters — permitting speech that is outwardly kind to women seeking abortions while banning speech that is overtly nasty to them would itself be a form of content-based regulation.

In other words, the likely outcome of a decision writing Justice Kennedy’s preferences into the law would be open season for everything from the kind of activity these plaintiffs say they engage in to angry men dressed up as grim reapers yelling at women approaching clinics.

*****

Sigh…

Blog me.

Peace & Love.

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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

It wasn’t enough for the republicans to push legislation requiring women to purchase “Rape Insurance.” Well, it doesn’t end there. The misogynistic, I-will-control-your-body repubs are now pushing for a bill that would force the IRS to audit rape victims.

This is really getting to be ridiculous. Our rights over our bodies are getting trampled on. Women…ladies…girls…sisters…we have got to ban together and get these men out of our panties. What is it going to take for the sisters of the world who support these sick men to get over it and think for themselves and for their sisters? Really. I am just beside myself with the abuse that we are putting up with. And we really don’t have anyone to blame but ourselves.

What is wrong LADIES?! When are we going to get pissed off enough to DO SOMETHING?! Because it is getting bad. 

House Republicans Are Pushing A Bill That Would Force The IRSTo Audit Rape Victims

House Republicans are currently advancing the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” or HR 7, a measure that would impose sweeping restrictions on abortion coverage that could make the procedure less affordable for Americans across the country. In addition to preventing low-income women from using their Medicaid coverage to access abortion, HR 7 could also have dramatic implicationsfor the tax code and the private insurance market. One of its most controversial provisions could actually require the Internal Revenue Service to conduct audits of rape victims.

Why? Because HR 7 eliminates medical-expense deductions for abortion care, essentially raising taxes on the women who opt to have an abortion. Like many abortion restrictions, this provision includes an exemption for victims of rape and incest, as well as women who encounter life-threatening complications from their pregnancies. But in order to enforce those exceptions, the IRS would have to verify that the women who are claiming a medical-expense deduction for an abortion fall into one of those three categories, to ensure they’re not committing tax fraud.

Essentially, that would empower the government agency to have the final say over what “counts” as a sexual assault or a life-threatening situation. And that, in turn, would force victims to prove their case.

“Imagine having to recount a sexual assault — a horrifyingly painful, personal experience — to a tax collector,” NARAL Pro-Choice America says in an action alert to its members to encourage them to mobilize against HR 7. “An anti-choice bill in Congress would do just that. It could force sexual assault survivors who access abortion care to prove the assault occurred.”

That certainly sounds horrific. However, it’s important to remember that HR 7 is hardly the only piece of anti-choice legislation that sets up this dynamic.

The biggest political controversies over abortion policies throughout the past year have centered on rape victims, highlighting the anti-abortion laws that don’t extend any exceptions to them. It’s easy to see why the pro-choice community focuses on leveraging the outrage surrounding rape and abortion. Voters overwhelmingly favor legal abortion access for individuals who have become pregnant from rape, and policies that don’t fall in line with that seem especially callous.

But even when abortion restrictions do include some kind rape exception, as HR 7 does, the issues don’t end there. Exceptions for rape victims have some unintended consequences. They require some kind of system to separate the women who have become pregnant from sexual assault from the other women who want to end a pregnancy for a different reason. They essentially necessitate “rape audits.”

And in states across the country, that’s exactly what’s already occurring. The audits aren’t being conducted by the IRS, but they are being conducted by state officials.

Medicaid coverage for abortion services provides the best example of this. The Hyde Amendment, the policy that currently forbids low-income women from using their Medicaid coverage to help pay for abortion services, includes the same exceptions as HR 7 does. Thirty two states and the District of Columbia follow that federal standard for their local Medicaid funds — so, if the women who live there want to claim one of those exemptions, they already need to sufficiently prove why they deserve it. Some states require more proof than others. In 22 states, low-income rape victims who want to use their Medicaid coverage to pay for their abortion need to present a doctor’s note. Eleven other states require them to file a report with law enforcement or a social services agency. Last year, Iowa approved a law that requires the governor to personally approve each woman who’s seeking an exception to the Medicaid coverage ban.

Studies have found that these exceptions don’t operate as intended. Most rape victims who rely on Medicaid don’t actually end up getting reimbursed for the procedure, largely because of all the red tape. “Basically these exceptions don’t work. It’s really a myth that there is coverage that is still provided,” Stephanie Poggi, the executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, told the Washington Post.

Nonetheless, that hasn’t stopped state legislatures from moving forward with similar restrictions in other areas of the insurance industry. Outside of Medicaid, several states have already imposed abortion restrictions on the private insurance market that are similar to HR 7. And the health reform law has given states an opportunity to impose coverage bans on the procedure in their new insurance marketplaces.

We already live in a world in which navigating insurance coverage for abortion is so complicated that many women simply assume their insurer won’t pay for it, and end up financing the entire cost out-of-pocket. And we already live in a world in which victims of sexual assault are forced to prove the validity of their experiences to a skeptical society that doubts they’re telling the truth. We certainly live in a world that’s enacted nearly as many barriers to abortion accessas humanly possible. Abortion restrictions that assume that some women’s reasons for terminating a pregnancy are somehow more valid than others exploits all of these dynamics. HR 7 fits neatly into this worldview — but it’s a continuation of a trend, rather than a brand-new outrage.

*****

Ladies: If come November you don’t take your lives on and vote in your own best interest, you will be bending over and kissing your rights goodbye, because the repub men are going to go at it even stronger if they have the opportunity.

Additional side note: In the above statement, I say “you” and not “we,” because there are many women who do vote their own minds, including myself. I am mostly speaking to those who don’t. Time to step up, and woman-up ladies. You know who you are.

Readers: I wonder what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would say about all of this? Well, in honor of his day, I am about to tell you that he was an advocate of contraception and the basic human right of women and couples to decide for themselves the number of children they wanted and were able to care for.

Family planning, in other words. And yes, we are still discussing this same topic almost 50 years later. I found this excerpt that I wanted to share with you.

In 1954, King began his ministry career at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala. The post-war baby boom was picking up speed. Oral contraceptives weren’t yet available. Griswold v. Connecticut — the Supreme Court case that ruled people have a right to privacy and a state can’t ban contraception — was more than a decade away. The average American woman had nearly twice as many kids as she does today, and it wasn’t always easy to get by, especially for women and families of color. As one mother wrote to King in his December 1957 “Advice for Living” column, published in Ebony magazine:

Mother: We have seven children and another one is on the way. Our four-room apartment is bursting at the seams and living space in Harlem is at a premium. I have suggested to my husband that we practice birth control, but he says that when God thinks we have enough children, He will put a stop to it. I’ve tried to reason with him, but he says that birth control is sinful. Is he right?

Dr. Kings Answer: I do not think it is correct to argue that birth control is sinful. It is a serious mistake to suppose that it is a religious act to allow nature to have its way in the sex life. The truth is that the natural order is given us, not as an absolute finality, but as something to be guided and controlled. In the case of birth control the real question at issue is that between rational control and resort to chance. Another thing that must be said is that changes in social and economic conditions make smallerfamiliesdesirable, if not necessary. As you suggest, the limited quarters available in our large cities and the high cost of living preclude such large families as were common a century or so ago. A final consideration is that women must be considered as more than “breeding machines.” It is true that the primary obligation of the woman is that of motherhood, but an intelligent mother wants it to be a responsible motherhood-a motherhood to which she has given her consent, not a motherhood due to impulse and to chance. And this means birth control in some form. All of these factors, seem to me, to make birth control rationally and morally justifiable.

*****

Readers: “…when God thinks we have enough children, he will put a stop to it.” Dream on – that is such a line of crap. Men haven’t changed much have they?

Dr. King pretty much said that her husband was wrong.  Thankfully he had his head on straight when it came to women. “…women must be considered as more than “breeding machines.” Amen Dr. King.

I’m not sure how Dr. King would respond to all of the sick stuff that our politicians are pushing to get passed, but I sure wish he were alive today so that I could hear his thoughts. I suspect it would be wise words like the above.

What do you think he would say? Blog me.

Mike, TM: How are you doing?

Peace out. 

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 2008-2012

“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"

Good morning!

I like the positive tone to my title better…but hey, MSNBC wrote the write, not me.

Women in Politics

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., front row, center, poses with other female House members on the steps of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 3, 2013, prior to the official opening of the 113th Congress. 

2014: A turning point for women in politics?

By Irin Carmon

“Our young women are forming a new era in female history,” wrote Massachusetts feminist Judith Sargent Murray excitedly. “The Rights of Women begin to be understood; we seem, at length, determined to do justice.” The year was 1798. It would be two hundred and fourteen years until her home state would elect its first female senator, Elizabeth Warren. This year, it might get its first elected female governor, likely Democratic nominee Martha Coakley.

In other words, when it comes to women in public life, the triumphalism has occasionally been premature.  Progress has been too often followed by backlash. The first time we heard “The Year of the Woman,” in 1992, the number of the women in the House and Senate grew exponentially–followed by a flattening when Republicans took over two years later.  Even after last year’s record-breaking election, the one that elected Warren and brought the number of women in the Senate to an unprecedented 20, the United States still ranks 79th in the world in female representation. (That well behind Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh, to name two.) The numbers are even bleaker when you look for women who aren’t white.

But America is moving forward. There were those twenty Senate women of 2012, including the first out lesbian Senator in Tammy Baldwin; the first Asian-American female Senator, Mazie Hirono; and Claire McCaskill, who prevailed over Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. In 2013, Janet Yellen became the first female chair of the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, Republicans have been hastily trying to show America that, in the immortal words of Ann Romney at the last Republican National Convention, “I love you, women!”

And 2014 offers even more reason for conditional optimism. Some of the most consequential Senate races of 2014, particularly if you’re rooting for Democrats to keep the Senate, have women at the center: Allison Lundergan Grimes, seeking to topple Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; Michelle Nunn, raising Democratic hopes in red Georgia; the potential loss of the long Democratic hold on a West Virginia Senate seat, with two women on either side of the aisle running. Two defenders, Senators Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan, are also pivotal. While Republicans currently have the advantage on female governors, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan, the sole female Democratic governor, might be joined by the women running in Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

And maybe, just maybe, in Texas, where Wendy Davis is running for governor along with lieutenant governor candidate Leticia van de Putte. Conventional wisdom has it that they are too liberal, that Davis is too tarred by the “Abortion Barbie” moniker, that they are running too soon for Texas’s coming demographic shift– especially in an era of barely-restrained voter suppression. But conventional wisdom has been wrong before.

On the night Texas Republicans sandbagged Davis’s historic filibuster of an omnibus abortion bill, van de Putte, who had just left her father’s funeral, struggled to be heard. “At what point,” she asked, “must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?”

This year, as Davis and van de Putte try to turn Texas blue together, that point may come. We’ll be there.

*****

Readers: As much as I added a positive tone to the title – I have faith – the question does deserve an answer. And my answer is, “Yes, as long as the repubs don’t get in the driver’s seat. Otherwise, women won’t be the only ones who are screwed.” 2014 midterms…here we come.

Howie: Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. But of course like many things that we learn, the questions that we ask and are answered, usually inspire more questions. :) However, I will just ask one. You had mentioned that if the TWO were in danger they could combine their strengths. At one time I believe that you(?) told us that the male has his powers and does not know he is one of the TWO, and the female knows she is one of the TWO but does not know how to use her powers yet. Is that correct?

Also, hard not to agree with your sentiments about the Wopre. Thank you for clarifying that the Universe will shrink and life will cease to exist, if not for the TWO getting comfy with each other. I guess it goes without saying that the death of both (if even possible) would give us the same results. It would also seem that their stupid act of bravado by attempting to find and destroy the TWO would warrant aggression toward them from many other Aliens.

Peace out. 

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 2008-2012

“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"