National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote
National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote
John Derbyshire, a British-American conservative author and columnist for the National Review, has written a new book titled We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism. The book contains a section called “The Case Against Female Suffrage.” Yesterday on his radio show, Alan Colmes asked Derbyshire to articulate his argument.
“What is the case against female suffrage?” Colmes asked. “The conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left,” Derbyshire responded nonsensically. “They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — and in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.”
Colmes then pressed Derbyshire on whether women should have the right to vote. “Ah…” Derbyshire sighed, attempting to dodge the question initially. “I’m not putting forward a political program here,” he said. But then Derbyshire slowly began to open up:
DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.
COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?
DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?
COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.
DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].
COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.
DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.
Derbyshire reasoned that we “got along like that for 130 years.” Colmes countered by asking if he also wants to bring back slavery. No, Derbyshire responded, “I’m in favor of freedom personally.” Colmes noted that freedom didn’t extend to women’s right to vote, however. Derbyshire said, “Well, they didn’t and we got along ok.” Listen here:
Later in the interview, Derbyshire said there’s also a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”
If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
- Comments
- 218
Right-wing icon Schlafly: Feminism is ‘the most dangerous, destructive force in our society today.’
Right-wing icon Schlafly: Feminism is ‘the most dangerous, destructive force in our society today.’
Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-Equal Rights Amendment activist who heads the Eagle Forum, hosted the right-wing conference How To Take Back America last weekend. Several GOP members of Congress attended the conference, and each paid their respects to Schlafly for her leadership in the conservative movement. Schlafly delivered several speeches and led a discussion advocating traditional roles for women as well as warning about the dangers of feminism and blasting single mothers:
I submit to you that the feminist movement is the most dangerous, destructive force in our society today. [...] My analysis is that the gays are about 5% of the attack on marriage in this country, and the feminists are about 95%. [...] I’m talking about drugs, sex, illegitimacy, drop outs, poor grades, run away, suicide, you name it, every social ill comes out of the fatherless home.
Watch it:
At the closing ceremony, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) thanked Schlafly for her critical support of his candidacy last year, and Mike Huckabee stood by as she was presented with the “American Hero of the Century” award. “God bless you,” said Huckabee, “and God bless Phyllis Schlafly most of all.”
Texas schools move away from abstinence-only education: We don’t think it’s working.
Texas schools move away from abstinence-only education: We don’t think it’s working.
Texas currently has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country and “the highest rate of repeat teen births.” It also leads the nation in the amount of government money it spends on abstinence-only education. But some school districts in the state are now shifting away from that approach, admitting that it isn’t working:
“We mainly did it because of our pregnancy rate,” said Whitney Self, lead teacher for health and physical education at the Hays Consolidated Independent School District. “We don’t think abstinence-only is working.” [...]
Both approaches to sex education teach that refraining from sexual activity is the safest choice for teens.
But abstinence-only gives limited information about contraceptives and condoms and tends to downplay their effectiveness, while abstinence-plus stresses the importance of using such protection if teens are sexually active.
Medical experts have stated concluded that not only do abstinence-only programs not curb teen pregnancy, but “there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active.”
Asked If His Thesis Advocated A ‘Radical Agenda,’ Bob McDonnell Replies ‘No’
Asked If His Thesis Advocated A ‘Radical Agenda,’ Bob McDonnell Replies ‘No’
Last month, the Washington Post revealed that Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell, had written a master’s thesis at Regent University in 1989 “in which he described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family,” said that “government policy should favor married couples over ‘cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators,’” and criticized “as ‘illogical’ a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.” After reading the thesis, TPM’s Eric Kleefeld and Zachary Roth said it represented “a manifesto of the anti-gender-equality right-wing.”
The thesis has since become a central issue in McDonnell’s race against Democrat Creigh Deeds. On Fox News Sunday today, host Chris Wallace asked McDonnell if his thesis represented a “radical agenda.” McDonnell replied that it did not:
WALLACE: … it was revealed that in 1989 you wrote a master’s thesis in which you said — and let’s put up some of the things on the screen — this has obviously been a big issue here in Virginia — The new trend of working women and feminism that is ultimately detrimental to the family. You criticize tax credits for child care. And you even opposed a Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for married couples. Mr. McDonnell, isn’t that a pretty radical agenda?
MCDONNELL: No. I think those are a couple of quotes out of a 100-page document, Chris, and what the whole purpose of the — of the thesis was to say, Look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.
Watch it:
When McDonnell said the thesis was “20 years ago and some of my views over time have changed,” Wallace played a clip from an ad being run by Deeds, which said that McDonnell has supported his thesis agenda as a legislator. “In fact, we checked the record. As a legislator, you voted against a resolution that would have called for ending wage discrimination based on gender,” said Wallace. “You voted against extending child care services. And you voted against extending or requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control. So it’s not just the thesis.”
Insurer Denies Woman’s Claim: She Should Have Known That Her Bleeding Breast Was Not An ‘Emergency’
Insurer Denies Woman’s Claim: She Should Have Known That Her Bleeding Breast Was Not An ‘Emergency’
One of the worst abuses of private insurance companies is the practice of using spurious reasons to deny claims. In April, Rosalinda Miran-Ramirez awoke and found her shirt soaked in blood. Realizing that her “her left breast [was] bleeding from the nipple,” she rushed to the emergency room.
Today, CBS-5 reports that this San Francisco Department of Public Health employee has had her claim denied because her insurance company, Blue Shield of California, didn’t consider her situation to be an “emergency.” Even though her doctor told her it was likely a tumor, Blue Shield said that Miran-Ramirez should have known it wasn’t:
But Miran-Ramirez said the real shock came when her insurance company, Blue Shield of California HMO, which had initially approved the claim for the emergency room visit, reversed course and sent her a new bill three months later requiring her to pay the total charges for that visit: $2,791.00.
Why? Documents from Blue Shield indicate the company had reviewed the case and determined Miran-Ramirez “reasonably should have known that an emergency did not exist.”
“I am like how can they say that it was not an emergency? Like, my breast was bleeding! I am not a clinical person but if your breast is bleeding, for me that’s an emergency,” she said. [...]
So she appealed. And she was denied again. This time Blue Shield told her she hadn’t been in “any acute distress.”
Watch CBS-5’s report:
The sad truth is Miran-Ramirez is certainly not alone in having her claim denied by a major health insurer. The California Nurses Association (CNA), a nurses’ union and health care advocacy group, recently released a comprehensive study of claims denials across California. The study found that the six largest insurers in California rejected 47.7 million claims in the first half of 2009, nearly 22 percent of all claims submitted. The CNA twice successfully lobbied the California legislature to pass legislation that would establish a single-payer universal health care system in the state, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA).
Last week, in a congressional hearing titled “Between You and Your Doctor: the Bureaucracy of Private Health Insurance,” top insurance executives testified before Chairman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that the insurance company practice of denials can be fatal for its customers.
Indeed, such a denial cost 17-year old Nataline Sarkisyan her life in 2007, when Cigna denied coverage for a liver transplant until it was too late. Her mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, came to D.C. earlier this year to lobby for a public health insurance plan that would stop such denials. She told the press, “Insurance companies cannot decide who’s going to live and who’s going to die.”
Following the CBS-5 investigation, Blue Shield agreed to pay for all charges for Miran-Ramirez’s emergency room visit.
Kyl Asserts ‘I Don’t Need Maternity Care’ In My Health Policy; Stabenow Shoots Back ‘Your Mom Probably Did’
Kyl Asserts ‘I Don’t Need Maternity Care’ In My Health Policy; Stabenow Shoots Back ‘Your Mom Probably Did’
Today, the Senate Finance Committee debated Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) amendment to prohibit the federal government from “defining the health care benefits offered through private insurance.” Kyl tried to make his case by citing the unnecessary expense of maternity care. He was quickly smacked down by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):
KYL: I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.
STABENOW: If I could just interject once with my colleague — I think your mom probably did. (LAUGHTER)
KYL: Over 60 years ago my mom did. (LAUGHTER) You notice I wasn’t too specific with regard to that.
Watch it:
Of course Kyl doesn’t need maternity care; he will never be a mother. As Igor Volsky notes at the Wonk Room, Kyl’s amendment “would prohibit the government from defining which benefits should be included in a standard benefit package and would permit health insurance companies to design policies that exclude higher-cost beneficiaries.”
Maternity care, in fact, is a perfect example of why Kyl’s amendment is so bad. Most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 14 states have a requirement for such coverage, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise dramatically. Anthem Blue Cross — which has been actively fighting health care reform — considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure:
“The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That’s what you’re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,” said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. “Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.”
“A well defined minimum benefits package would compel health insurers to provide basic services to all Americans,” adds Volsky. “The Kyl amendment, which ultimately failed, would have allowed the industry to continue profiting from discriminatory practices.”
Health Insurers Consider A Caesarean-Section Pregnancy A Pre-Existing Condition
Health Insurers Consider A Caesarean-Section Pregnancy A Pre-Existing Condition
Earlier this week, the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim reported on the fact that in seven states plus the District of Columbia, “getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.” The insurance industry figures that if “you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure,” but what it really does is punish these victims for something that wasn’t their fault.
But that isn’t the only policy that health insurers have that primarily discriminate against women. First of all, most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 14 states have a requirement for such coverage, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise dramatically. Why? Anthem Blue Cross — which has been actively fighting health care reform — considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure:
“The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That’s what you’re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,” said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. “Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.”
Even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) spoke an unintentional truth when he said of his parents: “When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already four-and-a-half-months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a pre-existing condition.”
When a woman isn’t currently pregnant, she often still cannot get coverage. Many insurers consider a Caesarean-section pregnancy a pre-existing condition and refuse to cover women who have had the procedure. From a 2008 New York Times story about a Colorado woman who had Golden Rule Insurance:
She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.
The number of C-sections performed in the United States has been “growing steadily,” with approximately 30 percent of women having the procedure. Other insurance companies that don’t necessarily reject women with C-sections often do charge them higher premiums or “factor in chronic or recurring problems that might have led to the Caesarean.” What’s even worse is that once you’re denied by one company, it’s harder to get coverage somewhere else because you’ve been red-flagged.
Today, Golden Rule CEO Richard Collins is testifying before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy about “Bureaucracy of Private Health Insurance.”
Court rules that KBR employee’s gang rape wasn’t a personal injury ‘arising in the workplace.’
Court rules that KBR employee’s gang rape wasn’t a personal injury ‘arising in the workplace.’
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.” Mother Jones reports:
Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.
One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.
“We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract.
Fox refuses to air ‘Family Guy’ abortion episode.
Fox refuses to air ‘Family Guy’ abortion episode.
The edgy comedy show “Family Guy” is known for its political incorrectness. It regularly features a sexual deviant character, put a McCain-Palin button on a character wearing an SS uniform, and has even taken shots at the Fox network. Only once has Fox refused to air one of the show’s episodes (“When You Wish Upon a Weinstein”). At Comic-Con this weekend, show creator Seth MacFarlane said that there will be soon be another; Fox is blocking an episode on abortion:
“20th Century Fox, as always, allowed us to produce the episode and then said, ‘You know what? We’re scared to f–king death of this,’” MacFarlane said.
MacFarlane later clarified his remarks, saying that he supports “whatever decision Fox makes.” Fox has said that although it will not air the episode, it will likely be distributed on DVD.
Jimmy Carter: ‘The words of God do not justify cruelty to women.’
Jimmy Carter: ‘The words of God do not justify cruelty to women.’
Former President Jimmy Carter, who in 2000 officially severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention after the SBC declared its opposition to female pastors and reiterated its calls “for wives to be submissive to their husbands,” condemned the mistreatment of women by religious leaders, writing that “the words of God do not justify cruelty to women.” In an opinion piece published last weekend, entitled “Losing my Religion for Equality,” Carter said that a “twisted interpretation of the word of God” taught by male religious leaders has been used to justify the oppression of women:
The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
Although Carter severed ties with the SBC in a 2000 letter mailed to 75,000 Baptists, the former president “continued to serve as a deacon and Sunday school teacher at his local church” in Plains, GA, an SBC affiliate that in 2006 ordained former first lady Rosalynn Carter as a deacon. President Carter, a member of a group of retired statesmen formed by Nelson Mandela called “The Elders,” said last month that the group had concluded that religion has been “a basic cause of the foundational excuse” for “other dominant males to persecute or abuse or deprive women of their justifiable rights.”
‘Operation Rescue’ founder warns of ‘violent convulsions’ if health bill doesn’t ban abortions.
‘Operation Rescue’ founder warns of ‘violent convulsions’ if health bill doesn’t ban abortions.
Fresh off his claim that “[t]o refuse to filibuster [Sotomayor] is to bow in abject obedience to the Angel of Death,” Randall Terry, founder of the right-wing extremist group Operation Rescue, warns that his supporters may engage in violent acts of terrorism unless Congress prohibits abortion services from being covered in the new health reform legislation:
Background: It is clear that many elements in the pro-abortion congress and White House want to force Americans to pay for the murder of the unborn in their “healthcare” program. If that happens, it is tantamount to the government putting a gun to taxpayers’ heads to pay for the brutal murder of an innocent child. This is tyranny and evil of the highest order. . . .
“Nevertheless, the sheer horror and frustration of such an evil policy will lead some people to absolutely refuse to pay their taxes. And I believe — if my reading of history from America and around the world is correct — that there are others who will be tempted to acts of violence.
“If the government of this country tramples the faith and values of its citizens, history will hold those in power responsible for the violent convulsions that follow.” — Randall Terry
Terry is probably the first public figure to raise terrorism as a potential response to a health bill which allows Americans to keep the same access to reproductive care that they currently enjoy. Many conservative lawmakers, however, are pushing a poison pill amendment to the health reform package being considered by Congress that would forbid any plan offered within a national health insurance exchange from providing coverage for abortion services. 71% of Americans oppose an amendment, such as this one, which would cut off women’s access to reproductive care.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt suggests Obama’s mother wanted to abort him.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt suggests Obama’s mother wanted to abort him.
Speaking on the House floor yesterday, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) argued that low-income mothers of African-Americans — like President Barack Obama and Justice Clarence Thomas — would have aborted their children, if only the government had agreed to pay for it. To audible boos from his House colleagues, Tiahrt stated:
If you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that would be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that would encourage…single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion. If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our President grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother might have taken advantage of it? Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we’d have been denied his great mind?
Watch it:
Setting aside Tiahrt’s questionable decision to list only African-Americans as candidates for retroactive abortion, Tiahrt also makes the misleading claim that “70% of Americans oppose using public funds for abortions.” In reality, current law allows Americans to pay for abortion through their health plans, and a recent poll shows that 71% of the country supports maintaining the status quo by permitting a public plan to cover reproductive services. Nevertheless, many Republicans are pushing a poison pill amendment that would forbid any plan offered within a national health insurance exchange from providing coverage for abortion services.
Grassley endorses caller’s pledge to forgo paying taxes if abortions are federally-funded.
Grassley endorses caller’s pledge to forgo paying taxes if abortions are federally-funded.
On C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a caller referenced a question Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) posed to Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her Supreme Court nomination hearings yesterday in which Graham asked about taxpayer-funded abortions. “If the tax dollars do start going to fund abortions I am at this point going to refuse to pay my taxes,” the caller said, adding, “I would rather go to jail than have people take my tax dollars and kill innocent human beings.” “First of all,” Grassley replied, “I agree with you on your opinion.” Watch it:
Grassley has been the conservative leader in trying to take away abortion services from women who enter into a new national health care Exchange (which would be established if health reform passes). If Grassley prevails in this fight, “millions of women who have access to abortion services (through their employer) would suddenly lose it, should they chose to enroll in a new health care plan in the Exchange.”
Transcript: More »
Operation Rescue Founder Launches ‘Defeat Sotomayor’ Roadshow
Operation Rescue Founder Launches ‘Defeat Sotomayor’ Roadshow
Randall Terry, founder of the right-wing extremist group Operation Rescue, has announced a twelve-city tour intended to convince senators that “[t]o refuse to filibuster [Sotomayor] is to bow in abject obedience to the Angel of Death.” The graphic depicted to the right is taken from a flier promoting the event, which claims:
“We must stop permitting this hypocrisy, cowardice, and treachery in our midst. Pro-life voters are calling on pro-life Senators to filibuster Sotomayor.
“A Senator cannot say, ‘I want to overturn Roe,’ and then vote to confirm a Supreme Court Judge that will uphold Roe. A vote to confirm Sotomayor is a vote to uphold Roe.
“Many senators use pro-life rhetoric to seduce us; they get our money, our volunteer labor, and our votes. But once an election is over, they discard us like an embarrassing mistress. . . . Whether they ‘have the votes’ to sustain a filibuster or not, they need to fight to stop her, for the sake of the babies who will die under her judicial reign.“
Sadly, such rhetoric is relatively tame by Terry’s extremist standards. Terry refused to condemn the recent killing of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, instead calling him a “mass-murderer” who “did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.” Terry also once went on the radio to pray for a Colorado abortion provider to be executed; two days later, that doctor was found dead.
Sally Kern Returns To Blame America’s ‘Economic Woes’ On ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ And ‘Abortion’
Sally Kern Returns To Blame America’s ‘Economic Woes’ On ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ And ‘Abortion’
Last year, Oklahoma state legislator Sally Kern (R) drew well-deserved criticism for an outlandish rant against the gay community, in which she compared homosexuality to “toe cancer” and said “it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.” “Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country,” said Kern. Listen here:
Though activists responded to her comments with protests, Oklahoma conservatives rallied around her, saying that they “stand with and support Sally.” Now, Kern is back, once again sparking controversy for her attacks on the LGBT community.
Kern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery”:
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;
Though Kern denies that her proclamation is timed to coincide with gay pride celebrations across the country, critics say otherwise. Kern’s proclamation specifically criticizes President Obama for recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month. “Whereas, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior,” reads the proclamation.
Watch an Oklahoma News 9 report on Kern’s proclamation:
ThinkProgress’s Amanda Terkel goes on MSNBC and weighs in on the Palin-Letterman fight.
ThinkProgress’s Amanda Terkel goes on MSNBC and weighs in on the Palin-Letterman fight.
This morning, ThinkProgress’s Amanda Terkel and Sabrina Schaeffer of the Independent Women’s Forum went on MSNBC to talk about the controversy between comedian David Letterman and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R). Both Terkel and Schaeffer said that Letterman’s jokes were inappropriate, but added that Palin should turn back to policy issues and not dwell on this controversy for too long. While Schaeffer said that there was a different standard for conservative and liberal women, Terkel pointed out that President Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, was also the target of frequent attacks (e.g. Rush Limbaugh calling her the “White House dog” when she was 13 years old). Watch it:
Bush DOJ Failed to Enforce Federal Law Protecting Abortion Providers from Anti-Abortion Extremists
Bush DOJ Failed to Enforce Federal Law Protecting Abortion Providers from Anti-Abortion Extremists
In the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion extremist, the very real problem of extremist violence against abortion providers and clinics has gained a fresh spotlight, even though that violence is not new. After the 1993 murder of an abortion provider, Dr. David Gunn, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which made any use of “force, threat of force or physical obstruction” against doctors and patients a federal crime. The law was an attempt to put an end to the constant wave of death threats, acts of vandalism, and clinic bombings.
According to the National Abortion Federation, the “FACE law has had a clear impact on the decline in certain types of violence against clinics and providers, specifically clinic blockades.” Under the Bush Administration, however, criminal and civil enforcement of the law by the Department of Justice declined dramatically, the Washington Independent’s Daphne Eviatar reports:
The day after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, TWI obtained data revealing that under the Bush administration, criminal enforcement of the federal law designed to protect abortion providers and clinics had declined by more than 75 percent over the last eight years.
But there’s also a civil component to that federal law, known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act. That part of the law allows the attorney general to seek an injunction and compensatory damages for anyone who’s been harmed by any activity that violates the law. And it turns out that the Department of Justice over the last eight years didn’t use that part of the law to protect abortion providers, either.
Eviatar found that, according to DOJ statistics, the Bush Administration “brought only about two criminal prosecutions per year in the entire country under the FACE Act, and never more than four in any single year.” In contrast, under President Clinton the Justice Department “prosecuted 17 defendants for violations of the FACE Act in 1997 alone, and an average of about 10 per year since the law was enacted in 1994.” Evitar reports though that the Bush Justice Department had an even more abysmal record of enforcing the civil component of the FACE Act:
Yet despite these broad powers that Congress granted the attorney general in 1994 to prevent and combat violence against abortion clinics and providers, the Bush administration almost never used them. From 2000 until 2008, during the eight years of the Bush administration, the Justice Department filed only one civil case under the FACE Act. From 1994 until 1999, in contrast, in just five years of the Clinton administration, the Department filed 17 civil cases under the FACE Act — in addition to its much heavier load of criminal cases that we’ve reported before.
Between 2000 and 2008, the National Abortion Federation recorded 3,291 acts of violence against abortion providers and “at least 17 cases of ‘extreme’ violence against abortion providers in the United States, such as arson, stabbing and bomb attacks.” However, the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice “prosecuted only 11 individuals for any acts of violence against abortion clinics or providers.”
Operation Rescue interested in buying Dr. Tiller’s clinic.
Operation Rescue interested in buying Dr. Tiller’s clinic.
After the brutal assassination of Dr. George Tiller, his family discussed closing down his controversial abortion clinic. Surprisingly, anti-choice group Operation Rescue — which had made closing down Tiller’s clinic one if its main goals — opposed the move. “Good God, do not close this abortion clinic for this reason,” said president Troy Newman. “Every kook in the world will get some notion.” However, yesterday, the Tiller family announced that the clinic will be “permanently closed.” Kate Klonick observes that “it seems like Newman isn’t quite as upset by the means of closing the clinic — at least not upset enough not to see his movement profit from it.” From the Kansas City Star:
Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said that his group has discussed the idea of buying the tan, windowless clinic in east Wichita. He made the comment after the Tiller family announced that the clinic would be closed permanently.
“I would love to make an offer on that abortion clinic, and that’s some of the discussion that we’re having,” Newman said in a telephone interview Tuesday from his group’s headquarters in Wichita.
It’s unclear for what purpose Operation Rescue would use the clinic. (HT: Yglesias)
O’Reilly: I never called Tiller ‘Dr. Killer.’
O’Reilly: I never called Tiller ‘Dr. Killer.’
Last night, Bill O’Reilly took issue with a recent San Francisco Chronicle article that pointed out that O’Reilly had referred to the late Dr. George Tiller as ‘Dr. Killer.’ “Transcripts prove what reporter Joe wrote was false,” O’Reilly said. In fact, O’Reilly did refer to Tiller as ‘Dr. Killer’ on June 2.
O’REILLY: In order to terminate a life, that has to be catastrophic. And I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in Dr. Killer’s case, that wasn’t what he was doing. But Ms. Ireland, we appreciate you coming him on.
IRELAND: You call him Dr. Killer, and he was murdered. And I think that that is…just outrageous.
Watch a compilation:
While his June 2 remark appears to have been inadvertent, O’Reilly often referred to Tiller as “Tiller the baby killer” prior to his murder.
Tiller’s accused killer claims that more anti-abortion violence is ‘planned around the country.’
Tiller’s accused killer claims that more anti-abortion violence is ‘planned around the country.’
This past weekend, abortion providers from across the country gathered in Wichita, Kan. to attend the funeral the of Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered last month. On the same weekend, the man accused of murdering Tiller told the AP that “similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal”:
Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he’s being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.
“I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal,” Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.
It wasn’t clear whether Roeder knew of any impending violence or whether he was simply seeking publicity for his cause. Law enforcement authorities including the Justice Department said they didn’t know whether the threat was credible.
The Justice Department told the AP that Roeder’s “threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics.” Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder dispatched U.S. Marshalls to protect “appropriate people and facilities around the nation” in the wake of Tiller’s murder.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll