ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Chipping Away At Roe: Arkansas And North Dakota Advance ‘Fetal Pain’ Abortion Bans

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Feb 19, 2013 at 6:15 pm

So far this year, GOP lawmakers in Arkansas and North Dakota have practically tripped over each other to see which state can introduce more anti-abortion legislation. Among other abortion restrictions, each state is currently advancing a “fetal pain” measure to outlaw abortion procedures after 20 weeks of pregnancy — based on the scientifically disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain at that point — despite the fact that similar laws have been blocked in court for running afoul of the reproductive rights granted under Roe v. Wade.

On Monday, state senators in both Arkansas and North Dakota approved 20-week abortion bans. Neither measure makes an exception for the health of the woman, despite the fact that women who seek late-term abortions often do so because they discover unexpected health issues or fatal fetal abnormalities. Arkansas’ measure does include narrow exceptions to allow abortion services in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the woman’s life — but North Dakota’s abortion ban doesn’t even make the narrowest exceptions for rape or incest.

Nebraska was the first state to pass a 20-week abortion ban under the specious logic that fetuses can feel pain during the second trimester of pregnancy. Since then, seven other states have passed similar laws, and two fetal pain measures in Georgia and Arizona are currently being blocked from taking effect.

But the possibility of an impending court challenge won’t stop anti-choice lawmakers who are insistent on slowly chipping away at women’s constitutional right to reproductive health services. Both Arkansas and North Dakota have also proposed more extreme abortion measures — a “heartbeat ban” in Arkansas that would outlaw abortion after just 12 weeks, and a “personhood” measure in North Dakota that could ban all abortions and even some forms of contraception — that go even further to circumvent Roe, which guarantees women’s right to a legal abortion until the point of viability, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Economy

Independent Analysis: Sequester Spending Cuts Would Cost 700,000 Jobs

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 19, 2013 at 6:05 pm

President Obama today called, once again, for Republicans in Congress to support a plan to void the so-called “sequester,” the automatic budget cuts scheduled for March that were set in motion by the 2011 debt ceiling deal. House Republicans responded by releasing a statement that called for eliminating job training and financial literacy programs and by mocking the very idea of government funded scientific studies.

But engaging in the sort of austerity included in the sequester is a terrible idea with the economy in its current fragile state. As Macroeconomic Advisers noted today (reiterating its previous analysis), the sequester will knock 0.6 percent off of economic growth this year, killing 700,000 jobs:

– Our baseline forecast, which shows GDP growth of 2.6% in 2013 and 3.3% in 2014, does not include the sequestration.

– The sequestration would reduce our forecast of growth during 2013 by 0.6 percentage point (to 2.0%) but then, assuming investors expect the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to delay raising the federal funds rate, boost growth by 0.1 percentage point (to 3.4%) in 2014.

– By the end of 2014, the sequestration would cost roughly 700,000 jobs (including reductions in armed forces), pushing the civilian unemployment rate up ¼ percentage point, to 7.4%. The higher unemployment would linger for several years.

Here are the competing plans to void the sequester that have been proposed in Congress. The GOP has yet to introduce an official plan this time around, instead just pointing to legislation that it passed in the last Congress. Of all the plans, only the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ acknowledges that the country’s most pressing issue right now is not the deficit, but lingering, high unemployment.

LGBT

Conservatives Celebrate ‘National Marriage Week’ With Sexism

By Zack Ford and Adam Peck on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Last week, conservative groups held “National Marriage Week,” an attempt to amplify Christian messaging about marriage. Ironically, many of the pieces published for the occasion celebrated the many benefits of marriage, highlighting how the same groups’ opposition to same-sex marriage is in turn a cruel attack on the well-being of gays and lesbians. As part of the week’s messaging, The Heritage Foundation featured a letter from President Ronald Reagan to his son about marriage, then today posted the following graphic on its tumblr excerpting its final quote:

The quote is unfortunately sexist, given that it implies the man is working and the woman is waiting at home. But of course, its use is implicitly heterosexist as well. The Heritage Foundation opposes LGBT equality and regularly publishes arguments against recognizing same-sex marriage, so it would likely not be quick to celebrate the happiness of a gay man who knows he, too, has someone to come home to.

At any rate, however, progressives can agree with conservatives and President Reagan on the essential component of this quote: companionship is a healthy support structure for adults and the core foundation of families and communities.

Climate Progress

James Hansen Slams Joe Nocera For Failure To ‘Understand Basic Economics’ And Selective Quotation

By Joe Romm on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:31 pm

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/29/opinion/Joe_Nocera/Joe_Nocera-articleInline.jpg

You might think an A-list business reporter for the NY Times would know basic economics. But not in the case of Joe Nocera.

His umpteenth confused post on the Keystone XL pipeline suggests that when he talks to people like, say, James Hansen, he doesn’t really listen:

On Monday, I finally spoke to Hansen. His knowledge and sincerity are easy to admire, even if his tactics are not. He told me he would like to see oil companies pay a fee, which would rise annually, based on carbon emissions. He said that such a tax could reduce emissions by 30 percent within 10 years. Well, maybe. But it would also likely make the expensive tar sands oil more viable. If you really want to eliminate expensive new fossil fuel sources, the best way is to lower the price of oil, which would render them uneconomical. But, of course, that wouldn’t exactly lower demand either.

#FAIL. Just how admirable is it to interview a world-class expert, mis-state his position, get the economics of his plan exactly backwards, and then disparage his tactics in the pages of the NY Times?

Hansen, as I would assume everyone knows, wants all fossil fuel providers to pay a fee, not just oil companies. Further, Hansen has published what he emailed Nocera:

An economic analysis indicates that a tax beginning at $15/tCO2 and rising $10/tCO2each year would reduce emissions in the U.S. by 30% within 10 years. Such a reduction is more than 10 times as great as the carbon content of tar sands oil carried by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (830,000 barrels/day). Reduced oil demand would be nearly six times the pipeline capacity, thus rendering it superfluous.

How precisely would a high and rising CO2 tax make the dirty tar sands more viable? In an epic blunder of basic economics, Nocera has apparently confused a higher market price for oil — which would make the tar sands more viable — with what Hansen has actually proposed, a higher price to the consumer and businesses for using carbon-based fuels (but no direct change in the market price).

Ironically, Nocera’s economics are so backwards that he fails to realize that his final lines of snark are also utterly dead wrong. The carbon tax Hansen proposes would clearly lower demand for oil overall, and thus lower the price of oil, which would also undermine the tar sands viability.

And as Brad Plumer notes in his debunking, “No, a carbon tax wouldn’t be good for Canada’s tar sands,” tar sands oil “would be at an even greater disadvantage” since it “is more carbon-intensive than other types of crude, creating 14 percent to 17 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions over its lifespan.”

It is a sad commentary on the state of (lack of?) basic editing at the NY Times that it ran this error-riddled piece.

Finally, if you were seduced by Nocera’s “maybe” into wondering whether a CO2 price rising to $115/tCO2 in 2023 would cut U.S. CO2 emissions by 30%? Well, the Energy Information Administration says that a mere $25/tCO2 would cut CO2 emissions 20% in 10 years. So I think it is rather obvious that another $90/tCO2 on top of that would easily cut emissions 30% (especially since Hansen doesn’t want to stop the CO2 price rise after just 10 years).

As Hansen writes:

Joe Nocera was polite, but he does not understand basic economics.  If a rising price is placed on carbon, the tar sands will be left in the ground where they belong.

Hansen explains why he posted his email to Nocera: “Joe Nocera quoted a private comment from a note explaining that I could not promise I would be back in New York to meet him.  But he did not mention the contents of the e-mail that I sent him with information about the subject we were to discuss.  The entire e-mail is copied below.” In a cover email, Hansen explains, “Apologies to Bill McKibben for the comment that could be misconstrued — I do not question the efforts to wake up the public to the situation at hand, and pressure elected officials to serve the public interest, not special interests.”

Last year, Nocera took exception to my saying he joined “the climate ignorati,” asserting that I was casting him as a “global warming denier.” But as I noted at the time, the ignorati are, as Google reveals, “Elites who, despite their power, wealth, or influence, are prone to making serious errors when discussing science and other technical matters.” The shoe fits.

Justice

Congressman Considers Gabby Giffords A ‘Prop’ For Gun Regulations

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 pm

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV) on Tuesday agreed that he considers former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), who was a victim of an assassination attempt two years ago, a “prop” in the debate over gun regulations.

Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports, uncovered the audio of Heck, speaking with conservative radio talk show host Alan Stock, agreed that Giffords was nothing more than a “prop” at the State of the Union:

STOCK: At the end of the president’s State of the Union when he said have a vote for Gabby Giffords, have a vote for this and that. I found that to be nauseating and you know what else is nauseating too is putting Gabby Giffords up there, who can’t even clap her hands, as a figure of somebody being — having shot her. I think it’s a shameful act putting her up there as a prop. I’m sorry. I really do.

HECK: Yeah, no I agree. I think again in the cloud of emotion surrounding Connecticut those who are anti-gun want to use that to limit their Second Amendment rights.

Listen to it:

Giffords has made a remarkable recovery since she was shot through the head at a town hall in a parking lot in Tucson, AZ, two years ago. In fact, the experience has prompted Giffords, along with her husband Mark Kelly, to found an organization called Americans For Responsible Solutions, devoted to combating gun violence.

Update

Heck’s office release this statement on the incident:

My statement was in reference to the idea of gun control grab coming out of Washington DC. Of course there is no way that I think that Gabby Giffords is a prop… Should I have come to her defense? You know, in a fast-moving interview, in retrospect, I should have said something but I didn’t. I was just looking to get past that and talk about gun control in general.

Health

Big Tobacco-Backed Lawmakers Take Down Oklahoma’s Anti-Smoking Bill

By Sy Mukherjee on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 pm

An Oklahoma state Senate committee rejected a measure that “would have repealed a 1987 law that prevents cities and towns from enacting tobacco use restrictions stricter than that of the state” by a 2-6 vote on Monday — drawing sharp rebukes from public health advocates who see the legislation’s failure as a political concession to Big Tobacco, and even drawing the ire of the state’s GOP Gov. Mary Fallin, who has called on lawmakers to pass legislation aimed at curbing Oklahoma’s smoking-related public health care costs.

“This is a victory for tobacco lobbyists and the tobacco industry,” said Alex Weintz, Fallin’s communications director. “It’s a defeat for the state of Oklahoma and anyone who cares about improving our health.”

As OKNews reports, the debate over SB 36 revealed a clear correlation between the state senators’ votes and the amount of money they received from the tobacco lobby:

The debate on the measure turned into a showdown between Sen. Frank Simpson, R-Ardmore, the only senator to sign a pledge to refuse all contributions, meals and gifts from the tobacco industry, and Sen. Rob Johnson, who is listed as the No. 1 recipient on a website that tracks legislators receiving money from tobacco lobbyists.

Johnson, R-Yukon, received about $11,295 in campaign contributions and gifts from those who were identified as tobacco lobbyists since 2006, according to the website tobaccomoney.com, which was started last year by Doug Matheny, the former director of tobacco prevention at the state Health Department. [...]

“From the tobacco companies themselves, I don’t think I’ve received that much comparatively to other interests,” he said. “It has absolutely nothing to do with it. I’ve taken max contributions from somebody and completely have been opposed to an idea they’ve had.”

Johnson and his fellow reform opponents implied that SB 36 would be a burden on businesses, since it would discourage Oklahoma residents from patronizing establishments that don’t allow smoking. But that logic completely ignores the very real — and very significant — costs of the state’s smoking epidemic. National smoking-related medical costs amount to $200 billion in preventable spending every year, and studies have confirmed that states making small investments in smoking cessation policies see massive economic returns. In Oklahoma specifically, where about 5,800 people die each year from smoking, every household pays an estimated $556 annually in state and federal taxes to cover smoking-caused medical costs.

Ultimately, the measure’s defeat is a reminder of the outsized influence that Big Tobacco continues to enjoy. Fallin has vowed to continue her fight to encourage anti-smoking efforts in Oklahoma, and will potentially call for a popular referendum on SB 36 — but if she does, the people of Oklahoma can expect a titanic statewide lobbying campaign by the tobacco industry.

Justice

Supreme Court Won’t Raise Standards For Drug-Sniffing Dogs

By Nicole Flatow on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of an alert by a drug-sniffing dog whose certification had expired. In a unanimous decision on one of two drug-sniffing dog cases before the court this term, Justice Elena Kagan said the Florida Supreme Court imposed requirements far too onerous on police to establish the reliability of police dogs. She wrote:

The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test.

The decision was narrow in its scope, holding only that Florida’s “strict evidentiary checklist” for establishing the reliability of a dog was inconsistent with flexible standards for establishing the probable cause necessary to justify an arrest. In particular, it criticized the court’s reliance on records of a dog’s performance, noting that determinations of “success” may not account for dogs’ sniffing of trace amounts of drugs or well-hidden drugs that the police never find. Justice Souter found otherwise when he documented the pervasive use of dogs with error rates as high as 60 percent in a 2005 dissent. He wrote then:

The infallible dog … is a creature of legal fiction. Although the Supreme Court of Illinois did not get into the sniffing averages of drug dogs, their supposed infallibility is belied by judicial opinions describing well-trained animals sniffing and alerting with less than perfect accuracy, whether owing to errors by their handlers, the limitations of the dogs themselves, or even the pervasive contamination of currency by cocaine. … In practical terms, the evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times.

Today’s decision does not revisit the majority’s opinion in that 2005 case, and thus does not question the expansive police authority to use the dogs without reasonable suspicion of drug offenses. Another police dog case coming down the pike this term, however, will question whether use of such dogs can be expanded to the front door of someone’s home without probable cause.

While today’s decision is narrow and reasonable, holding only that the court may not impose a too-onerous requirement on police, it leaves open the policy concern that police maintain broad discretion in their use of dog sniffs, with no national standards and little oversight to ensure that these dogs are even reliable. In 2011, more people were arrested for drugs than for anything else, according to FBI statistics. And without more rigorous standards, police maintain the discretion to use drug sniffs as a cover for stops and searches that could not otherwise be justified by police.

Economy

Why The Bipartisan Push For An Online Sales Tax Is The Right Move

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm

The online retail giant Amazon benefits from a large loophole in the federal tax code. Because companies only have to collect sales tax in states where they have a physical presence, Amazon is able to avoid collecting the tax in many states, giving it a way to undermine traditional retailers. But a bipartisan group of 57 members of Congress is trying to change the law to close Amazon’s loophole:

Twenty senators and 37 members of the House from both parties signed on to the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (MFA)—legislation that would allow states to collect taxes on what consumers buy over the Internet.

The measure would finally resolve a decades-old dispute over whether states can collect sales taxes on mail-order and online purchases. Currently, states are barred from requiring out-of-state sellers to collect sales taxes, unless the retailers have a physical presence (or nexus) in their jurisdiction. The MFA would allow states to require sellers to collect these levies no matter where the firms are located.

This loophole gives Amazon (and other online shops) a leg up on its competitors for no real reason. As Michael Mazerov wrote for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there is “no excuse for exempting large companies like Amazon and Overstock that are perfectly capable of collecting tax everywhere — just as their brick and mortar competitors do.”

Applying an online sales tax fairly would also make the tax code slightly more progressive, as “many low-income families would love to shop online to avoid sales tax but can’t because they don’t own a computer or can’t afford high-speed Internet access.” Sales taxes are inherently regressive, and exempting online purchases makes them even more so, as those with the right technology get to skip the tax entirely.

States governed by both Democrats and Republicans have moved to address this issue, but it won’t be truly fixed until Congress takes action.

Alyssa

Motion Picture Association of America CEO Christopher Dodd On Why Movies Matter

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:33 pm

On Friday, Motion Picture Association of America president and CEO Christopher Dodd took the stage at the National Press Club to talk about his first several years on the job. It was an interesting talk less because of policy issues that Dodd focused on, or that he discussed during the question-and-answer period, but because of the way he talked about movies, and what they’ve come to mean to him as art during his almost two years at the association. In arguing for movies’ unifying role in a politically divided country, and movies and television as key tools of cultural diplomacy, Dodd’s talk raised some fascinating questions for me about how we approach and analyze movies, and what levels of responsibility we want to assign an art form that claims that potential impact.

Dodd admitted that before coming to the MPAA, “As a father of two very young children, 7, now almost 8, and 11, my movie selections were limited.” But as he’s reconnected with the product that his member companies produce, Dodd made an argument that both serves to burnish the reputation of those companies, and potentially exposes them to higher standards than your average producer of widgets.

“They tell stories, stories that help us make sense of our world and ourselves…Consider the focus on racism in To Kill A Mockingbird or Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” Dodd said. “The best movies ground us in common values and ideals. America’s a big place, as we all know, with red states and blue states…But gathered together in a darkened theater, regardless of our differences, we become, in spite of our differences, one place.”

The ability of movies to achieve that unity or provoke that kind of thought doesn’t mean that all movies have to meet that aspirational standard. But it does suggest that movies that do aim to tackle big ideas deserve to be taken seriously, which means being examined critically. Often, debates over accuracy get dismissed as nit-picking, which if the only question at stake is whether a movie is a literal translation of historical events or not, is potentially fair. But the questions of why and when movies choose to diverge from the historical record is can be rich ones, particularly when those questions happen in the realm of character interpretation, as in the presentation of President Lincoln’s attitudes toward black Americans in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. As a critic who writes about the politics of entertainment, it’s been exciting to see academics, policy reporters, and political commentators enter the debates around Lincoln, Argo, Django Unchained, and Zero Dark Thirty because their desire to play on this turf is a reaffirmation of the idea that gives life to my career, even if I’m not always thrilled about how these arguments have functioned. The battles over how to interpret Zero Dark Thirty , for example, seem to me to have narrowed down to debates about whether the film is an accurate transcription of a murky historical record, rather than exploring the more revealing questions of how the script and directing choices shape the movie’s message about the immorality of torture, and why Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow felt compelled to portray the movie as an unbiased piece of reportage in the first place. That latter choice in particular says as much about the state of our debate about the use of torture as the movie itself.

If we’re going to take film seriously on the grounds that it has a unique power to influence audiences, we need to examine how well it does at getting audiences to do interpretive work—and leaving them space in which to do it—to open themselves up to new ideas, and to inhabit new perspectives. The blunt statements of opinion writing or cable news appearances, or the clear conclusion-drawing of long-form journalism aren’t necessarily the things that serve those goals well in film, where an indirect approach may lead otherwise-resistant audiences to a point they might not have accepted when presented bluntly, and manifestos can make characters seem like strawmen, rather than flesh-and-blood humans.
Read more

Health

Colorado Lawmaker: Women Can’t Tell Whether They’re About To Be Raped, May Shoot The Wrong Person

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm

State Rep. Joe Salazar (D-CO)

In a debate over whether to prevent college students from carrying concealed weapons on campus on Friday, Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar (D) suggested that female students are too paranoid to responsibly use a firearm. According to the state lawmaker, women may not be able to tell whether or not they’re actually in danger and end up pulling the trigger on an innocent person:

SALAZAR: It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.

Gun advocates often attempt to frame concealed carry permits as a women’s issue, claiming that women need the added protection of a firearm to fight back against attempted incidents of sexual assault. Domestic violence counselors vehemently oppose the policy, pointing out that hidden guns on campus won’t actually help address rape culture, particularly since an estimated two-thirds of sexual assaults occur between people who already know each other. But suggesting that women are too emotional to be able to identify sexual violence — and implying that paranoid women may sometimes “feel like” they’re in trouble when they “may actually not be” — doesn’t help address pervasive issues of rape culture, either.

Salazar apologized for his remarks today. “I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” his statement read. “That was not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make.”

Insensitive comments about rape certainly know no party lines. But concrete policies to address issues of sexual assault have unfortunately become more partisan in recent months. The federal Violence Against Women Act, which has strengthened systems to help survivors of sexual violence for the past 18 years — and which specifically impacts college students, since it helps fund campus programs to address dating violence — has been locked in a political battle in Congress ever since GOP lawmakers balked at adding expanding protections for diverse communities. Republicans in Congress actually let it expire for the first time ever during the last legislative session.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up