Oops: Republican Obamacare Amendment Expanded Abortion Access for GOP Staffers

—By Molly Redden

| Mon Dec. 9, 2013 3:00 AM GMT

"Crap." Pete Marovich/ZUMA

Nearly 9 in 10 health care plans that members of Congress and their staff must choose from include abortion coverage, a fact that has Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and right-wing media outlets raising hell.
But the only reason that congressional staffers have to choose from these plans at all is because a Republican amendment to Obamacare requires it. Thanks to this amendment, congressional staffers, who once had to pay for abortions out of pocket, can now buy insurance that covers abortions.
The bizarre story of how a conservative, anti-abortion Republican ended up expanding abortion access for congressional staff dates back to the initial fight over the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Here's how it happened: The Obamacare exchanges were expressly designed to provide insurance to the uninsured, so congressional staffers—who, like most Americans, already had insurance—were initially excluded. Republicans claimed that this amounted to Democrats "exempting" themselves and their staff from Obamacare, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress and their staff to use the exchanges. Grassley's proposal was intended to embarrass Democrats. But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, and the law passed with his amendment.
But Grassley's measure forced congressional staff out of the Federal Health Benefits Program, which federal law prohibited from offering any abortion coverage. Under the the federal plan, any congressional employee who wanted an abortion had to pay for it out of pocket. Now that they're on the Obamacare exchanges, though, congressional employees will only pay out of pocket for abortion insurance. They'll be able to choose any of the 112 plans available via Washington, DC's health care exchange, only 9 of which do not cover abortion.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Grassley's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Smith claimed to the Associated Press that this means Congress is spending taxpayer dollars on abortions. But as ThinkProgress' Tara Culp-Ressler detailed, the employer contributions congressional staff receive for health care—i.e., federal, taxpayer dollars—will not be used to pay for abortions. The Office of Personnel Management has bent over backward to ensure that when congressional staff purchase health care plans, they'll be paying for any abortion coverage with segregated personal funds.
And the cost of that abortion coverage will likely be much less than that of an actual abortion. A 2013 Guttmacher Institute study using 2009 data found that the average out-of-pocket price women paid for an abortion was $485.
So to recap: Republican fearmongering about an Obamacare exemption for congressional staffers that never existed has earned congressional staffers a big abortion discount.

Molly Redden

Reporter

Molly Redden is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She tweets at @mtredden. RSS | Twitter

GOP Sen: An abortion to save a mother's life is simply a 'matter of convenience'

Robert SobelOrlando Liberal Examiner

July 24, 2013

A Republican state congressman got into a heated argument with a Facebook user over the weekend regarding abortion rights. During the exchange, the congressman claimed that keeping abortion legal to save the mother's life was simply a "matter of convenience."
Brian Nieves, the Republican Missouri Senate Majority Whip, posted a photo of a gun on his Facebook page. Nieves claimed that an unnamed "Modern Day Patriot" gave him the gun and Nieves made negative comments about House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi in the process. Responding to the photo and Nieves was a fellow Facebook user, who ridiculed the Republican congressman for posting the picture and making the comments. Nieves then commented back, asking the Facebook user is he was easily offended by "partial-birth abortions." Think Progress points out that the conversation continued with the Facebook user posting medical reasons for why a late term abortion may be necessary, but Neives fired back with comments that are on par with typical conservative logic.

"Brian Nieves: (Facebook user's name)... This is what you say in support of Partial Birth Abortion?? Here are your words from above: "Common Logistical and Personal Reasons for Partial Birth Abortions
-- Lack or lack of recognition of pregnancy symptoms, particularly by adolescents
-- Inability to afford a first trimester abortion
-- Inability to locate medical assistance during first trimester (due to lack of local medical professionals)
-- Lack of financial resources, emotional support, and/or partner
July 20 at 11:36pm · Like · 2
Brian Nieves (Facebook user's name).... "Life of the Mother?" Your own argument proves it is a matter of convenience! Tell me this - Do you even know what a partial birth abortion really is? No, seriously, do you actually know what it is?? If so, explain to me what a partial birth abortion is."

While a late-term abortion is never on anyone's "to do" list, there are times when the procedure is medically necessary. Both sides of the political fence continue to battle over this issue and the larger issue of abortions rights and a woman's right to choose. The "pro-life" movement and "pro-choice" sector have laid claims to small victories in the past and, at times, the issue has even found its way to the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, the argument and battle wages on. No one will ever be able to convince the opposing side to believe their side of the argument. The abortion issue isn't one that can be convenient by numbers and statistics, it's a matter of moral and ethical code that can only bring small victories to the table, not one that will win over an entire nation.

11 Imaginary Republican Enemies That Could Give Bigfoot A Run For Its Money

The Huffington Post  |  By Nick Wing Posted: 12/05/2013 8:45 am EST  |  Updated: 12/05/2013 8:48 am EST 
There is no hard evidence that Bigfoot exists, but that hasn't kept cable television networks from feeding the American public shows happy to pretend it does. Same goes for Megalodon, a gargantuan prehistoric shark that the Discovery Channel claimed was still alive in a Shark Week "documentary," despite the fact that all scientific evidence suggests it has been extinct for more than a million years.
In this way, some Republicans have become the cable TV execs of lawmaking. From in-person voter fraud to fetus snacks, conservative politicians around the nation have aggressively pushed legislation focusing on things that don't really exist, at least not in the way they want you to believe they do. Like shows that promise to find Bigfoot (but never quite do), or "Megalodon: The Monster Shark That Lives" (but not really), the GOP's offerings might be laughable, if not for their far more serious consequences.
Below, 11 Republican enemies that are about as real as Bigfoot:

1. Devious election thieves
Supporters of controversial GOP-backed voter-identification measures that have cropped up around the nation regularly claim that such laws are needed to protect the integrity of elections, which they suggest is under constant attack by an onslaught of people attempting to commit voter fraud.
Nobody denies that protecting elections is important, but voter-ID laws claim to do so by focusing on a largely nonexistent threat. In-person voter fraud, which could be deterred by forcing voters to show various forms of identification, just isn't an issue. Since 2000, there have only been 10 recorded cases of voter impersonation. With 3,313 Bigfoot sightings in 92 years, you're far more likely to spot a Sasquatch than witness in-person voter fraud.


The name's Harry Henderson and I'm here to vote Democratic.
2. Gay couples trying to ruin your straight marriage
Allowing same-sex couples to get married does exactly nothing to the bonds formed by straight nuptials. And if, against all odds, gay marriage somehow does ruin your marriage, we hate to break it to you, but you and your spouse's problems extended far beyond a shared desire to deny marriage equality to gay people.

"All your beaus are belong to us."
3. Creeping Sharia
Wait. Did you hear that? Oh sure, it could have been nothing -- but it also could have been Islamic fundamentalists seeking to implement their religious laws in an effort to slowly seize control of the nation from the inside!


I'm crazy?!?! Crazy like a fox! This increasingly institutionalized brand of Islamophobia has come into favor in the past five years, manifesting itself in a variety of ways around the political arena. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has been a vocal proponent of this paranoid crusade, warning against what she's painted as a dangerous Muslim influence in the Obama administration and local court systems around the nation. Republican lawmakers have also sought to address this supposed threat -- of which there has yet to be any evidence -- with legislation designed to prevent religious law (read: Sharia) from being considered in court.
With all of this in mind, perhaps it's fitting that Bachmann often sounds like someone trying to explain their alleged Bigfoot sighting.

4. Taxpayer-funded abortions
Under the Hyde Amendment, taxpayer dollars can't go toward abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Despite its illegality under federal law, the term "taxpayer-funded abortion" has been tossed around by anti-abortion activists for years, frequently under the guise that these procedures are a regular occurrence that must be stopped.
Taxpayer-funded abortions don't exist, however, and some have argued that millions of women are at risk because of the refusal to allow these services to be covered by public insurance plans. In many states, conservatives have enacted additional harsh restrictions on abortion coverage in private insurance plans as well. In the most extreme cases, women aren't able get abortion coverage through either public or private health insurance plans, even in cases of rape or incest.
While some insurance plans offered through certain federal or state exchanges do cover abortions, that part of the insurance is covered by a separate rider, making the plans compliant with the Hyde Amendment.

5. ACORN
ACORN was a community anti-poverty organization tasked with registering voters and lobbying for affordable health care and housing. We use the word "was" because it doesn't exist anymore. It folded in 2010 after being targeted by a GOP-led assault launched in response to a heavily edited, but nonetheless devastating, undercover-investigation documentary by conservative provocateur James O'Keefe, who posed as a pimp for the project.

This is how real pimps dress, right?
The fact that ACORN is defunct hasn't gotten it removed from the GOP's list of enemies. House Republicans have voted to defund the already defunded organization more than 10 times since it disbanded. The threat ACORN poses to society is quite literally imaginary, but some people apparently didn't get the memo.

6. "The War on Christmas"
It's that time of year again, when conservatives and Fox News -- and especially Sarah Palin -- are getting ready to pounce on any suggestion that politically correct liberals might be encroaching on your freedom to loudly celebrate consumerist Christmas without giving a shit about other religions, or the separation of church and state.


This is what Santa thinks about your holiday! Texas launched a preemptive strike in this "war" earlier this year, when Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed the "Merry Christmas" bill. The measure allows public school teachers to use holiday-specific greetings and imagery in their classrooms, as long as the winter displays include more than one religion or secular symbols.
While teachers groups panned the effort as a waste of time designed to address a nonexistent problem, other states sought to build on the momentum with legislation of their own. Tennessee and Alabama have both considered similar bills, though neither has made it very far.

7. Pop-Tart gun control
When 7-year-old Maryland boy Josh Welch got suspended from school for two days after chewing his Pop Tart into the shape of a gun earlier this year, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) knew he had to act.


You call that a gun? Stockman responded by introducing the Student Protection Act, a bill that sounded hard to disagree with. It was designed block federal funds for any school that enforced rules punishing students who played with imaginary weapons. Welch's punishment was surely idiotic, but was it really the type of isolated idiocy that needed to be fixed with federal legislation? No. No, it wasn't.

8. Drug-addled takers
Republicans across the nation and in Congress have championed legislation that would require applicants for welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits to submit to drug testing. While the public would rather see the lawmakers themselves get drug tested, the legislative push against people on government programs is seemingly operating on the assumption that most of them are just a bunch of lazy, drug-abusing moochers.


This is how Republicans want you to see welfare recipients. Interestingly enough, however, the legislators themselves haven't really tried to make that argument, and when they have, they've largely turned to anecdotal evidence and hearsay in the absence of concrete studies that suggest people on public assistance are actually more prone to drug abuse.
In 2012, a study of Florida's welfare drug testing program, since used as a model for a number of other states, found that it had been a failure. Only 2.6 percent of the state's welfare applicants failed their tests, most commonly because of marijuana use. Because the state was required to pay for all of the passed tests, it ended up netting a loss of $118,140 on the initiative. In Utah, a similar program caught only 12 drug users. Proponents argued that more had dropped out of the application process, likely because they were drug users who were afraid they'd fail the test.
While people who use drugs while on public assistance aren't entirely a figment of Republican imaginations, there isn't a reason to believe there is the sort of epidemic that many complain about. They, like Bigfoot, have become a bogeyman that serves as more of a perceived threat than a real one.

9. Socialist Muslim Obama and his Kenyan birthplace
President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, which, for anyone that might still be confused, is a part of the United States.

Speak American, ya damn islands!
During Obama's first term, Republicans across the nation were giddy to jab the nation's first black president with suggestions that he was a foreigner and therefore illegitimate. Republican state lawmakers in a number of states pushed initiatives determined to force any candidate (read: Obama) to provide "an original long-form birth certificate" to get on the ballot. Obama eventually released his, a ridiculous move that did very little to get his critics to take off their tinfoil hats.
And if the deliberate refusal to accept Obama as an American isn't enough, Republicans have gone the extra mile to insist that Obama is a secret Muslim. For many, the president's religion doesn't really matter, but according to his own words and practices, Obama is a Christian. That hasn't convinced all Republicans, however, as polling has showed that around a third of those on the right are still convinced Obama practices Islam. And for those who still maintain that he's some sort of Socialist, we encourage you to consult real Socialists.

10. Fetus snacks
In 2012, a GOP state lawmaker in Oklahoma introduced legislation designed to ban aborted human fetuses in food. It would have been a pretty sensible idea, if there had actually been any evidence of fetuses being included in food in the first place. He said he'd based the bill on an article he'd read online and apparently misinterpreted. The misguided legislation thankfully went nowhere.


11. Human-animal hybrids
A few years back, Republicans concerned that scientists were keen on creating half-men-half-monkeys pushed a number of state laws banning human-animal hybrids. The laws enacted broad restrictions on scientific research, most forms of which weren't being practiced anywhere, much less in the United States. While some forms of DNA mixing have been used in various stem-cell experiments for therapeutic purposes, the apparent fear of a full-fledged hybrid monster of any sort was never real.
Cable TV is also fond of pretending that human-animal hybrids exist. Animal Planet released a pair of fake mermaid documentaries earlier this year, deliberately misleading viewers into believing that there was actually any evidence whatsoever of the mythical creatures' existence. There wasn't, but that didn't stop the network from pulling in huge viewership numbers.


And hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good piece of bullshit?  

10 Weirdest Fundamentalist Christian Conspiracy Theories

The world of fundamentalist Christians is crawling with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and just plain bizarre beliefs.

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte

 

For the Christian right, having a “faith-based” worldview extends far beyond claims about demons and angels. Unsurprisingly, the world of fundamentalist Christians is absolutely crawling with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and just plain bizarre beliefs about how the world works. Here’s a list of 10 of the weirder ones are currently in circulation.
1) Same-sex marriage is an elaborate scheme concocted by lesbians to entrap men. David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy managed to cough up a theory that is an outstanding blend of homophobia, misogynist myths about the mendacity of women, and paranoia about the supposed gravy train that is child support. He argues that women will marry each other and conscript men into supporting them by “pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” The men will then “become economically conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return,” presumably because the only reason a man would want to care for his own children would be in exchange for sex and housework. He also assumes that the only sources of income women have access to are child support and welfare; the possibility that women hold jobs doesn’t seem to occur to him.
Usher is trying to find a way to justify the increasingly ridiculous right-wing claim that same-sex marriage is somehow undermining “traditional” heterosexual marriage. He has zero-evidence for his claim outside of his belief that women are generally sleazy liars, and will “cheat” men out of the straight marriages they’re entitled to by sneaking off with women.
2) Planned Parenthood is trying to get kids “hooked” on sex. The anti-choice organization American Life League has been peddling the idea for a long time now that Planned Parenthood works like a mythical drug dealer, but with sex. The theory, summarized in this amazing video, goes like this: Planned Parenthood lures otherwise asexual young people into thinking sex is fun (something they are dead certain that you would never, ever think if not for Planned Parenthood). They then trick them into having sex by telling them contraception works, but (evil laugh), the contraception doesn’t work and the young people get pregnant and have to have abortions. Which means profit for Planned Parenthood! This neat little theory requires ignoring both the fact that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that contraception does work, but ignoring facts and evidence is what the Christian right does best.
3) Gay men wear special rings for the sole purpose of giving innocent straights HIV. This one was trotted out recently by everyone’s favorite disseminator of Christian right urban legends, Pat Robertson. “You know what they do in San Francisco, some in the gay community there they want to get people so if they got the stuff they’ll have a ring, you shake hands, and the ring’s got a little thing where you cut your finger,” he explained, suggesting there’s a serial killing ring of gay men who kill with HIV for reasons undetermined. Robertson backpedaled, but as Anderson Cooper suggested, only because he got caught.
4) The abortion-mad Chinese eat human fetuses. This one is popular in anti-choice circles, because it hits both the abortion-obsessed and racist sweet spots. The claim is sometimes that the Chinese eat “fetus soup” as an aphrodisiac, because concern that other people are enjoying sex too much is always part and parcel of any anti-choice urban legend. This obviously false bit of racist propaganda is spread mostly through email, though prominent anti-choice activists like Jill Stanek have also perpetuated it.
5) Crazed liberals in Illinois want to teach 5-year-olds how to have sex.A Chicago school district has implemented a mandatory sex education program for each grade level, leading Christian right publications to accuse the district of practicing “pedophilia” by trying to get kindergartners to think about “sex and sexual acts.” While it’s no surprise that fundamentalists love the opportunity to titillate and outrage themselves by imagining kids getting blow job lessons, the reality is much more mundane….and pedophilia-preventive. Lessons for kindergarten and first grade will simply be about anatomy, with an emphasis on learning the difference between “good touch vs. bad touch,” specifically so children who are targeted by pedophiles know to report what’s happened. But perpetuating the belief that evil pervert liberals are targeting innocent children clearly matters more to the Christian right than stopping real-life perverts who are actually targeting children.
6) Obama is the Antichrist and plans to rule America by sharia law. Even though you’d think Obama would be getting on with this plan already instead of wasting time talking about bombing Syria, the belief that any day now a combination of sharia law and the apocalypse will be brought on by Obama still rules in Christian right circles. Public Policy Polling found that an alarming 13 percent of Americans are sure Obama is the Antichrist and another 13 percent entertained the possibility. Christian right-wingers are always on the lookout for “evidence” that Obama’s secret sharia plan is about to take off, leading to headlines likes this one from Breitbart.com: “Obama administration paves the way for sharia law.”
7) Charles Darwin took it all back the day he died. This one has been around since the 19th century, but still has a significant amount of play on the Christian right, as part of the ur-conspiracy theory which holds that scientists are just making up evolutionary theory as part of a grand atheist conspiracy conducted for reasons unknown. Interestingly, this is one legend leaders in the Christian right have been trying to put to bed recently, with even the group Answers In Genesis—which believes that dinosaurs and humans lived in harmony together—denying that Darwin recanted his atheistic views on his deathbed.
8) JK Rowling is trying to lure your children into Satanism with her Harry Potter books. Hardline Christian conservatives have always been afraid pop culture is a conspiracy of Satan’s to attract impressionable young people, so it’s unsurprising that Rowling’s Harry Potter series, with its portrayal of fantasy magic, made the top of the list of products to be feared. The hysteria hit a peak in 2001, with fundamentalist activists accusing the books of trying to “desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult” and “trafficking in evil spirits.” Things were made worse when the Onion published a satirical article Christian conservatives didn’t realize was satire, causing them to literally believe young kids told the Onion things like, “But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies.” The furor has died down somewhat, but plenty of evangelical leaders still routinely claim demons can possess your body if you read Harry Potter.
9) Pro-choicers in Texas were planning to pelt the state senate with jars of feces. This one rose up and was debunked within the space of six weeks over this summer of 2013. The claim, which unfortunately was given credence by the Texas Department of Public Safety back in July, was that evil pro-choicers were planning to sneak jars of poop into the debate and were only stopped by brave, poop-confiscating lawmakers. Eventually, the TX DPS reluctantly handed its actual documents regarding the protests over and sure enough, there is no evidence outside of urban legend-mongering from conservatives that there were any jars of any human waste whatsoever. Unfortunately, the legend was already out and circulating.
Humorless fundies are also perpetuating the claim that there was Satan-worshipping from pro-choicers at the protests, even though a cursory perusal of the evidence shows that the shouts of “hail Satan” were not a prayer so much as a joke aimed squarely at the Christian right protesters.
10) Birth control pill turns your uterus into a grave littered with teeny-weeny corpses of fully formed babies.Kevin Swanson, Christian right talk show host, expelled this one recently, claiming that “certain doctors and certain scientists” are finding that women on the pill have, “these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb.” An evocative image, albeit one that requires not only falsely believing the pill “kills” embryos (it works by suppressing ovulation), but also simply refusing to believe that menstruation actually exists.
These are just a sampling of the stories you’ll hear in hushed, can-you-believe-it tones in Christian right circles, where the urban legend is a primary form of communication.

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.

US top court rejects pre-abortion ultrasound case

20 hours ago

 

 

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court refused Tuesday to hear a case concerning pre-abortion ultrasounds for women seeking to terminate their pregnancies in Oklahoma.

By refusing to take up the matter, the top US court let stand a ruling by the state's supreme court that struck down a local law requiring "the performance, display and explanation of a pre-abortion ultrasound."
The state claimed to have a "legitimate interest of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed."
The law mandated that doctors or certified technicians working with them perform ultrasounds on woman at least an hour before carrying out an abortion.
It required the images to be displayed in such a way that they could be seen by the women in question and mandated a "simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting."
In addition, physicians or certified technicians were required to provide a medical description of the images, which had to include such details, if applicable, of a heart beat and internal organs.

They also had to "obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion" although the measure stated that "neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images."

After examining the matter in closed session three times, the Supreme Court gave no explanation for its refusal to take it up.
Just last week, the court announced it would not review the Oklahoma supreme court's decision to overturn a state law that restricts the use of an abortion pill.
The decision effectively upholds the lower court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional, and will allow doctors in the state to prescribe RU-486, also known as the Mifepristone abortion pill.
It is also expected to say soon whether it will take up a Texas law that could lead to the closure of more than a third of clinics performing abortions in the state.
Despite its landmark "Roe V. Wade" decision in January 1973 legalizing abortion in the United States, the practice has remained a perennial source of controversy and in recent years a growing number of states have passed laws limiting it.
Supreme Court watchers expect the nine-member panel to revisit the issue.
On January 15, it will focus on the right of "pro-life" protesters to demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.
  

Payback Is a Bitch for Abortion Clinic Protestors, Thanks to a Brilliant Landlord

Payback Is a Bitch for Abortion Clinic Protestors, Thanks to a Brilliant Landlord

Cassie Murdoch Roe v. world 3/30/12 1:00pm

Todd Stave has the unenviable position of being the landlord of a building in Germantown, Maryland, which he leases to an abortion provider called Reproductive Health Services Clinic. So he knows a little something about dealing patiently with anti-abortion protesters. But when they started calling him at home at all hours and harassing his family, he got fed up and came up with a very clever solution: Do unto others as they have been doing unto you.

Problems really began for Stave at the end of 2010, when he leased his building to LeRoy Carhart, one of the only doctors in the U.S. who openly acknowledges that he performs late-term abortions. As you can imagine, he's a controversial man, and protesters come from far and wide. There is a constant group of them parked outside, praying and holding up signs, many of which have pictures of mangled fetuses. That's pretty much a landlord's nightmare, and yet Stave has a very calm attitude about it. He told Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post this week,

    It's their right. They are protected by the First Amendment. And outside the clinic is probably the most appropriate place for them to express their views.

If you're wondering how Stave can remain so relaxed about the situation, he explains, "I've been a member of this fight since Roe v. Wade. Since I was 5 years old." You see, the clinic used to belong to his father, and then his sister ran it. When he was younger, the office was firebombed, and protesters were often gathered outside his dad's house. So he's used to a certain level of harassment and he'll tolerate it — but only up to a point. And recently, the usually calm, cool, and collected Stave was pushed to his limit.

It's common practice for anti-abortion protesters to disseminate doctors' personal information and urge people to harass them—and it can clearly go far beyond that, as with the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas. LeRoy Carhart, who's now in Stave's clinic, had his Nebraska farm burned to the ground back in 1991. But protesters in Maryland figured out they could start targeting Stave for owning the clinic's property. He was largely unfazed by this campaign, until last fall when they took it too far. On his daughter's first day in middle school, a large group of people protested outside her school, and then they showed up again for back-to-school night. They were naturally carrying signs with his name and contact info and those nasty pictures of fetuses.

Stave was furious, and then it got even worse. Dozens of the protestors began calling him at home, around the clock. His friends wanted to help him fight back; that's when Stave had the brilliant idea of turning the tables on his tormentors. He began recording the names and numbers of the assholes who called, and then he gave the list of info to his friends and asked them to call these people back on his behalf. Shazam! And the really smart part was that when someone from Team Stave called, they always took the high road. He explains,

    In a very calm, very respectful voice, they said that the Stave family thanks you for your prayers. They cannot terminate the lease, and they do not want to. They support women's rights.

Genius. While it was initially only a few friends doing the calling, the group quickly expanded. Soon, he was up to having 1,000 callers at his disposal. And they got crafty too. They'd look up information on the people who'd placed unwanted calls to Stave, and then when they called, they'd drop the names of the person's children or their school into the conversation. They'd also, said Stave, "tell them that we bless their home on such and such street," and then name their address. Are you getting shivers up you're spine yet? Stave's calling force became so powerful that sometimes he was able to hammer an unwanted caller with up to 5,000 calls in return. Looks like two can play at this game, stalkers.

Stave's approach was so appealing that he was flooded with people from all over wanting to help. So he organized Voice of Choice, which now has about 3,000 volunteers. They don't just fight back for Stave anymore. They'll make calls on behalf of whoever is being bullied by anti-abortion protesters, whether it's a doctor or a landlord or their family.

When asked if he thought this method of payback was harsh, Stave said no: "We gave them back what they gave us." Actually, not even. You gave back a mild, family-friendly version of what they gave to you. You proved to them that you know where they live and who their children are, but you didn't show up at their homes and schools and threaten them. You didn't come onto their lawn with posters detailing terrible imaginary things that they've done. You're serving up Revenge Lite™: Tastes great, less killing.

What's more, Stave is strict about who Voice of Choice will make calls for. If it's just run-of-the-mill protests outside clinics, he won't help them because he believes in people's First Amendment right to be out there saying what's on their mind. Protestors must be personally harassing doctors or landlords in order for Stave to step in. If only abortion opponents had the same respect for people doing what they were allowed by law to do. Ahem.

So this is the part where the evil bullies who've plagued him (and others) at all hours of the day or night learn their lesson after having a taste of their own medicine, right? Yep, yep. They all realized they were being horrible, and now every anti-abortion protester is treating their pro-choice opponents with the utmost respect. HA. No. Actually this is the part in the story where it gets much worse. Ready?

Since Voice of Choice has been such a success, Stave was honored by NARAL in California last week. Knowing that he was going to be out of town receiving the award, his personal band of haters chose that moment to canvass his neighborhood with fliers that had a photo of Stave in a Nazi uniform, photos of Holocaust victims, and bloody fetuses. [Pause for a brief rage-stroke intermission.] Of course, the fliers had Stave's contact information—and all of the phone numbers and addresses for other members of his family.

This goes without saying but, nevertheless: This is so incredibly fucked up. First of all, the guy owns a building, not a concentration camp. Second of all, what kind of person picks up a flier like that and thinks, "I need to get in touch with this Nazi!" God help us all.

Obviously Stave's daughter and all of his neighbors saw the fliers, but the contact information for Stave's family members must have been spread around. Because on Monday an abortion protestor showed up at the dental office owned by Stave's brother-in-law and began doing his abortion-protestor routine outside. That's such a great idea — I'm sure the random patient walking in for a cleaning is totally going to make the connection that the dentist's brother-in-law owns a building where there's an abortion clinic, and therefore abortion is wrong. At this point, Stave was back in town, so he went over to confront the protestor. And when he got there, the creep said, "How was your trip to San Francisco?" Deep inhale, slow exhale.

It is amazing that people like Stave have fortitude to stand up to psychos like this coming at them from every direction, but thank heavens they do, because, honestly, the thought that these protesters get away with so much is sickening. It's hard to know where these nutcases will end when it comes to making Stave's life a living hell—but it's probably not going to get any better now that he's getting more and more national media attention.

At least we know he's got plenty of backup from Voice of Choice. The worse these people get, the longer VoC can keep them on the phone, telling them all about the many "blessings and prayers" they're sending to their home addresses and to the locations of their children's daycare centers. Then everyone will be so busy making and receiving calls that they'll have less time to spend protesting outside clinics. And maybe in the future, we'll get to a magical place where both sides are talking to each other 100 percent of the time, and a woman will be able to walk right up to the front door of an abortion clinic without being harassed—because everyone will be so busy talking on the phone to their enemies to notice or care what she's choosing to do with her body.

A clinic's landlord turns the tables on anti-abortion protesters [Washington Post]

Lunatic Potential Senator From Texas Believes Global Warming is Caused by Abortion (Video)

Posted by Progressive Populist  |  on November 5, 2013

In January of this year, the state of Texas unleashed Tea Party looney bird Ted Cruz to wreak havoc on the nation, and believe it or not, there may be someone worse than he is who could end up as the other senator from Texas a year from now.
David Barton is an evangelical Christian minister who believes that separation of state and church is a “myth”, evolution should not be taught in school, the government should regulate gay sex, schools turn kids gay, the bible opposes the minimum wage, and that people should legally be able to own bazookas, tanks and fighter planes. He has been urged to challenge incumbent senator John Cornyn by Glenn Beck and is, of course, a Tea Party darling.
If that isn’t enough to scare the living hell out of you, maybe the video below will.
Barton, in a discussion with
snake oil salesmantelevangelist Kenneth Copeland, comes to the conclusion that abortion is behind global warming and the accompanying crazy weather patterns. They come up with this brilliant explanation by this head-scratching sequence of events…
First, God got mad at us for voting in pro-choice politicians.
Then, with God pissed off and wanting to unleash his anger on us, He “opened the door to the curse,” which led to a barrage of floods, tornadoes, murder and pedophilia.
And unlike in the old days when our ancestors would get together and pray for repentance when bad weather struck them, now we just call it global warming and don’t kneel down and pray every time a strong wind gust or blast of thunder is unleashed on us.
In conclusion, God is so mad at us that He is letting global warming and the crazy weather that comes with it happen to us.
No, this is not a sample article from someone seeking employment with the Onion. There really is a David Barton out there who really does think this way.
Let’s do our best to talk some sense into Texans and keep this guy out of the Senate. You think Ted Cruz is bad, which he absolutely is? This guy might be Ted Cruz on steroids. Barton’s only political experience to date is being the former vice chair of the Republican Party of Texas.
Watch the video below, from RightWingWatch.

Three Bush-Appointed Judges Reinstate Texas’ Anti-Abortion Law

BREAKING: Three Bush-Appointed Judges Reinstate Texas’ Anti-Abortion Law

 By Ian Millhiser on October 31, 2013 at 8:32 pm

A panel of three Republican judges, all of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush, granted the state of Texas’ request Wednesday night to reinstate a law that will force many of the state’s abortion clinics to close their doors. The order, authored by Judge Priscilla Owen, grants a temporary stay of a lower court judge’s decision blocking a provision of Texas law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in order to perform abortions at clinics. As Judge Lee Yeakel explained in his opinion striking this part of the Texas law, many abortion providers “do not currently have admitting privileges and cannot gain admitting privileges for reasons including lack of a board certification specialty, retirement, impact on their private practice, and residing too geographically remote from the hospitals that are 30 miles from the Whole Women’s Health Services facilities.” For this and related reasons, the effect of the Texas law would be to prevent many clinics from performing abortions altogether.
Judge Owen, the author of Wednesday’s opinion, is among the most staunchly anti-abortion judges in the country. In 2000, when both Judge Owen and future United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were justices on the Texas Supreme Court, then-Justice Owen authored a dissenting opinion seeking to make abortions more difficult to obtain in Texas. Gonzales responded to Owen in a separate concurring opinion that labeled Owen’s proposed resolution of the case an “unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
The other two judges on the panel, Bush appointees Jennifer Walker Elrod and Catharina Haynes are also considered staunchly conservative judges.

 

Pastors who re-victimize survivors of abuse

by John Shore on October 29, 2013 in Christian Issues

Got this letter in. If you’re a Christian pastor who ever counsels women who have been abused, please read it. If you’re the kind of pastor this survivor writes about—the kind who, one way or another, blames the victim—either change, please, or do the world a favor and find yourself another vocation.

Hi John,
I really liked what you had to say in your post To a Gay Anti-Christian Who Suddenly Converted. This especially struck a chord with me:

Becoming a Christian doesn’t solve all your psychological problems. Becoming a Christian doesn’t mean the angst of life just suddenly evaporates from your life. Christianity does grant you a comprehensive context for understanding the whole of the human experience. And that’s hardly nothin’. But it’s not everything. God gives you the big picture; but a lot of the little picture is still yours to paint. You still have to deal with whatever it is in your life that’s causing you whatever pain or trouble it might be. If you had a crappy childhood, for instance, then becoming a Christian doesn’t instantly resolve whatever psychological legacy with which that may have left you burdened. (I wish it did!) Everyone, Christian or not, ultimately has to take out their own garbage.

I volunteer for an organization that helps survivors of sexual violence. It’s my way of giving back the infinite amount of support I received from them as a survivor of incest, domestic violence and rape. I’d go so far as to say the group for which I now volunteer saved my life by helping me see that there was a life beyond the horror of PTSD, beyond the loss I experienced after cutting off contact with my birth family.
I have gained a lot of experience, and learned so much by reading how others have had their lives impacted spiritually because of rape, incest, and sexual abuse. In fact I came across your blog when I found the articles you wrote about defending a survivor’s right to not forgive those who have sexually abused them. [I believe she's referring to my posts Six Things to Know About Sexual Abuse and Forgiveness, Sexual Abuse and the Luck of the Draw, and As a Christian, Must She Forgive the Brother Who Raped Her?] The two things about this issue that strike me the most are:
1. Spiritual damage and spiritual abuse, in conjunction with other types of violence/abuse, are probably some of the most misunderstood and unaddressed areas where people need help when seeking healing.
2. A lot of churches—Catholic, Protestant, fundamentalist, etc.—have painted a false picture of God’s role in the healing process. You are so right: we must take out our own garbage. But so many pastors pull that “Hallelujah, the LAWD will HEAL ya!” crap. And so many vulnerable victims and survivors want to believe it’s true: that Christ will almost quite literally come straight down from Heaven and with his bare hands take their pain away.
Then, gradually, they discover the truth, which is that God doesn’t send them a lightning bolt of miraculous healing. Then they start asking themselves questions like, Why isn’t God healing me? Shouldn’t I be over it now? It’s been two months, six months, a year already. Why do I still hurt? Why am I still angry at my rapist/abuser? Why did God even allow this to happen to me at all?
Sometimes survivors are able to reconcile such gnawing questions with their own answers, and in so doing redefine their relationships with God. Other times they abandon their faith altogether. And that’s usually due to the insensitivity of a pastor or minister. Such “men of God” often pressure victims of sexual violence to forgive their abusers; they invalidate victims’ memories, negate their feelings, or give them canned, pat responses instead of something deeper and more real. And all the while these Christian leaders keep insisting on the myth that God will provide for them a direct pipeline for some sort of miracle that will instantly and completely take away their pain.
And such church leaders are often supported by a chorus of their congregants who are ever ready to let the victim of sexual violence know that it’s her fault that she’s not receiving the miracle of healing. They imply or outright tell the survivor that they would get the miracle they’re praying for if only they prayed harder, if only they admitted their sin in the whole matter, if only they’d quit childishly clinging to their pain. This leaves the poor person with tremendous shame and feelings of spiritual and emotional inadequacy. For those who are victims of childhood sexual abuse, who are already carrying so much shame projected onto them by their perpetrators and those who protect their abusers, hearing that from their trusted pastor and/or their church family can be too much for them to bear. When I see someone walk away from their faith after such invalidations, it’s impossible to blame them.
I have to wonder how many survivors would be able to reframe their perspective on faith, if, instead of the lightning bolt bullshit, their pastors were as real with them as God wants us to be real with Him. Yes, at first it’s daunting to hear that you have to take out your own garbage—that that’s not something God is going to do for you—because you want the pain to go away now. But at least the pain actually would go away if a pastor or priest would only start or help that process not by issuing useless “Christian” platitudes, but instead being real, and saying, ”Look, God can’t do it for you. However, He has provided for you wonderful tools on this earth, by way of support groups, psychologists, medication if that’s needed—not to mention our own powers of reflection and discernment, our own unstoppable will to be whole. And He expects us to use those tools, so that we can achieve healing and recovery to a degree that our shame is vanquished and no longer a stumbling block, where we have proven ourselves stronger than our oppressors, where can move into a stronger relationship with God, because hand-in-hand with God, we have become someone who can help others trust remain in relationship with God while they work through the same kinds of pain in their lives that we worked through in ours.”
Over the long term that approach would provide so much more hope and healing to those who feel helpless and trapped by their traumatic memories. It’s one of those things where, yes, the truth hurts—but only because there is no healthy way to mask or ignore the pain that’s necessary to address before real healing can begin. We can win over that which haunts and hurts us. But first we need in our corner nothing so much as honesty.
I am hoping that someday the Christian community at large will realize that it’s not shiny advertising and empty promises that draws people to Christ and makes them stay. It’s the humanity, the genuineness, the Carpenter who is covered in grime, sweat, and ultimately blood and tears. That is the Christ whom I think deep down we crave. That is the Christ that I hope will overturn the ignorance of pastors, ministers and priests, so that, when it comes to victims of sexual violence, they can become more like the Samaritan who aided the wounded man on the road when those of high and lofty stature failed to do so—so that they can, in other words, become more like the One they purport to follow.

Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law

By Daniella Silva, NBC News

When Alicia Beltran was 12 weeks pregnant, she took herself to a health clinic about a mile from her home in Jackson, Wis., for a prenatal checkup. But what started as a routine visit ended with Beltran eventually handcuffed and shackled in government custody – and at the center of a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s fetal protection law.
On July 2, Beltran, 28, met with a physician’s assistant at West Bend Clinic at Saint Joseph’s Hospital in West Bend, Wis., for her prenatal visit. When asked to detail her medical history, Beltran admitted a past struggle with the painkiller Percocet. But that was all behind her, Beltran said: She had been taking Suboxone, a drug used to treat Percocet dependency. Lacking health insurance and unable to afford the medication, Beltran had used an acquaintance’s prescription and self-administered the drug in decreasing doses. She had taken her last dose a few days before her prenatal visit.
According to Beltran, the physician’s assistant recommended she renew her use of Suboxone under a doctor’s supervision. After Beltran declined, she said she was asked to take a drug test, which was negative for all substances except Suboxone.
Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran at home and told her that she needed to continue Suboxone treatment under the care of a physician, said Beltran, who again declined. Two days later, Beltran found police officers at her home, who arrested and handcuffed her.
According to the police report, the officers took Beltran to a hospital, where she underwent a doctor’s exam. Her pregnancy was found to be healthy and normal, her lawyers say. Police then took her to Washington County Jail to await a hearing – hours later, she was led into a courtroom, handcuffed and shackled at the ankles, where a county judge ordered her to spend 90 days in a drug treatment center.
“Alicia had no idea she was giving information to the physician’s assistant that would ultimately be used against her in a court of law,” said Linda Vanden Heuvel of Germantown, Wis., one of Beltran’s attorneys. “She should not have to fear losing her liberty because she was pregnant and she was honest with her doctor.”
At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran that an attorney would not be provided for her at that time but that she could seek counsel for her next hearing in the case. And yet, a lawyer had been appointed to represent her fetus. “It’s wrong that an unborn child gets an attorney but Alicia Beltran, the mother of that unborn child did not,” said Vanden Heuvel.
Emails and phone calls to Family Court Commissioner Dolores Bomrad and her office were not returned. Assistant District Attorney of Washington County Mandy Schepper declined to comment on the case.

Courtesy of Melissa Wanta

Alicia Beltran, who was forced to spend more than
two months in a drug treatment facility despite
her insistence that she was not abusing drugs,
 talks with her attorney, Linda Vanden Heuvel
of Germantown, Wis.

At the center of Beltran’s case is a 1997 Wisconsin law that grants courts authority over the fetus of any pregnant woman who “habitually lacks self-control” with drugs and alcohol “to a severe degree” such that there is “substantial risk” to the unborn child. Beltran’s lawyers argue that she was not using any controlled substances at the time of her arrest.
In a petition filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee -- the first federal challenge of an arrest of a pregnant woman under such a statute – her lawyers claim that Beltran’s constitutional rights were violated in numerous ways. The language of the Wisconsin statute is vague and lacking in medical terminology, they argue, leaving too much room for speculation. Further, they say the statute fails to guarantee due process, as well as violates other rights, including privacy and physical liberty.
In cases like Beltran’s, “the woman loses pretty much every constitutional right we associate with personhood,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women and a co-counsel in Beltran’s case.
Experts say that criminal prosecutions of pregnant women, as well as forced drug or psychiatric treatment, have been on the rise in recent years in cases of suspected substance abuse, especially as some states adopt laws granting rights, or “personhood,” to fetuses.
National Advocates for Pregnant Women released a study this year showing that from 1973-2005, 413 pregnant women in 44 states were arrested or forced into treatment. Since 2005, there were an additional 300 cases. But these statistics are likely a substantial undercount, Paltrow said, since many of the proceedings happen behind closed doors.
As of this year, 17 states consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse under child-welfare statutes, according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute. Three of those states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota, allow pregnant women to be forced into mental health or substance abuse treatment facilities.
Other states have applied criminal charges such as delivery of drugs to a minor or fetal homicide under the same circumstances. And at least 38 states have “feticide” laws on the books, which define fetuses as persons in homicide or manslaughter cases. While these laws are often applied to cases involving violence against pregnant women, they have also been used to prosecute expectant mothers accused of killing a viable fetus.Supporters of these laws say they are intended to protect unborn children. “Child abuse is child abuse, whether it’s in the womb or out of it,” said Jennifer Mason, communication director for Personhood USA, a non-profit organization seeking personhood status for fetuses. Advocates of fetal personhood claimed a victory in January when the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of unborn children in that state’s child endangerment statute. Some experts argue that prosecuting pregnant women can ultimately put fetuses at risk, especially when healthcare providers and social workers are the ones reporting women to authorities. There is evidence indicating that women who fear criminal charges or other state intervention are less likely to seek medical care or be honest with their doctors, said Kenneth De Ville, a medical humanities professor at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who published a study on the Wisconsin law. “Prenatal care is really the best thing you can do to enhance fetal health,” he said. “And you’re driving women away from prenatal care.”
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has argued that women who seek prenatal care should not be exposed to criminal or civil penalties and calls for expanded and affordable alcohol and drug treatment services for pregnant women.
Mason said she agrees that women should be given professional treatment before state intervention, but that when there is clear evidence of fetal harm, criminal charges are often appropriate. “It’s a very fine line. The medical professional has to be aware of what puts babies in danger,” she said. “I do not think a pregnant woman’s freedoms should be taken away, but child abuse cases are child abuse cases and have to be treated the same way as a newborn in the home.”
For Beltran, the consequences of her case have hit hard. Her family struggled to visit her regularly during her stint at Casa Clare Women’s Facility in Appleton, Wis., a two-hour drive from her home. After being away from work for an extended period, Beltran lost her job in the food service industry, according to her lawyers. She was released earlier this month, but with the case still open, she is still at risk of being taken into custody or ordered into further treatment, Paltrow said.
Beltran was scheduled for a trial in a Washington County court on Oct. 29. If she is found guilty under the Wisconsin law, the court could order her into counseling, supervision by a social service agency, or mandatory drug treatment, and could terminate her parental rights once her child is born. But the trial has been removed from the court calendar -- county witnesses were unavailable on the given date, and a judge recused himself for being familiar with the witnesses, Beltran’s lawyers said -- and no new date has been set.
“[Beltran’s] happy about this baby and having a child, but she doesn’t know what’s going to happen,” Vanden Heuvel said. She added that in a recent conversation, Beltran, who is due in mid-January, told her, “This is my first pregnancy ever, and I just haven’t been able to enjoy it.”