For Some, It's Turmp, Not Republicans

This tweeter is on the right track but makes one major error.

If I wanted a Republican in office or in power, I would have voted for them! Democrats are perpetual losers who continually insist Republicans are fascists that want to take away our rights, while also saying how proud they are to have them in their administration. https://t.co/ymSrbh3Jd9

— AshleyStevens (@The_Acumen) October 8, 2024

Democrats do not continually insist Republicans are fascists. Democrats- several, anyway- insist Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

Consider the widely-acclaimed, and beloved among Democrats, acceptance speech in Chicago by Kamala Harris.  The nominee invoked the name "Trump" (or "Donald Trump") sixteen times. She invoked the word "Republican" (actually, "Republicans") one time.

If we thought that Harris instead referred to "Congress" or the "House of Representatives" as shorthand for "Republican," we need to think again.  She stated "as a part of his agenda, he and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress." 

There was no suggestion that it is Republicans aiming to "limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban." It is the generic "Congress."

A moment later, she would add "and when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law." There was not even a hint that there is no chance Congress would pass such a bill if it is not controlled by Democrats, nor even that Democrats are the ones who would like to make this a reality.

And not only abortion rights because soon thereafter Ms. Harris would remark

Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades. The border patrol endorsed it. But Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign, so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal.

It wasn't Republicans, to hear Harris explain it. It was Trump's allies, with no mention that they were Republicans. It was all Donald Trump, with no accountability assigned to his party.

And then there was the 60 Minutes interview aired on Monday, October 7. Vice President Harris was asked about her economic plan, with that segment beginning at 2:50 of the first, complete, video below (abridged video at end). At 5:10, CBS correspondent Bill Simmons asks her "how are you going to get this through Congress?"  After fifteen seconds of empty words by the guest, Simmons states/asks (at 5:29) "Congress has shown no inclination to move in your direction." Harris responds

I disagree with you. There are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts blew up our federal deficit. None of us- and certainly I- cannot afford to be myopic in terms of how I think about strengthening America's economy. Let me tell you something. I am a devout public servant. You know that. I am also a capitalist and I know the limitations of government.

("I have my principles but don't expect me to do anything with them.")

   

Congress passed President Trump's tax bill (promptly signed by the President) in November, 2017 with opposition from every Democrat, yet with a mere twelve Republicans. Every Republican member of the Senate voted for the bill. No Democrats did.  Like size, the partisan breakdown of Congress matters.

Nonetheless, the Democratic nominee says "there are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts" harmed Americans. She might have stated "there are plenty of leaders in Congress, including a few Republicans..." or :"there are plenty of leaders in Congress, especially Democrats...."

But, no, of course she didn't. Inform Kamala Harris: like size, partisan breakdown of Congress matters.

She would know that, obviously, but doesn't want to be associated with the Democratic Party as she continues her courtship with Republicans. And that is why the tweet above is accurate only up to a point. Democrats, and especially Harris, are very good at calling out Donald Trump for what he is. However, the party's presidential nominee is negligent, even grossly averse to, criticizing Republicans. That may work for her while down-ballot Democrats pay the price for a self-centered candidate.

 

Share |

Unstated But Real

On Real Time with Bill Maher, comedian Larry Wilmore was criticizing the Republican Party for its long-standing opposition to women by avidly opposing abortion rights, when host Bill Maher (at 35:14 of the video, unfortunately now removed) contended "Yeah, but it's not because they hate women. It's because they think it's murder."

At least Larry Wilmore was there to inject some sense into the cacophony of testosterone flowing on the Overtime portion of Real Time with Bill Maher.

Keep that in mind when viewing the Overtime segment. Maher stated "brawn is not valued as much as" it once was. A United States Representative from Florida who recognizes an opportunity when he's handed one, Byron Donalds, remarked

I'm with you. Young boys, really, the last two decades in America. We got a real problem, masculinity is important. It's important not just (for) cultural reasons. It's important for your development from a boy to a man, to realize what is important, to realize that you have a responsibility to go out there and gather, and work hard, and earn and you know, you gotta have that grit and toughness to be a leader, to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision you choose to make in your own personal life but those, those traits are important for masculinity and for men. To take them away rally hurts not just men, it hurts women as well.

Applause followed, suggesting Trump may have made a mistake in bypassing Donalds for J.D. Vance (probably not, though). The "to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision to make in your own personal life" is first cousin to "must be a husband and a father" but at least a little more subtle than the then-Ohio senatorial candidate who in 2022

for a solid week in July kept using the term "childless" in an effort to insult his foes on the left.

"We're effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too," Vance told Tucker Carlson at the time.

I didn't see the interview and therefore cannot vouch for the response, though odds are prohibitive that there was no objection from Carlson, who spoke at the past week's convention.

If there had been a thoughtful woman on Maher's panel, perhaps she would have asked why women are not to "work hard, and earn." Better yet, arguably, would be to have asked Donalds what on God's earth a "responsibility to go out and gather" means. In Donald Trump's world, would that have been a reference to sultry women or to loyal subjects?

Representative Donalds, he of the masculinity, grit and toughness references, had not been prompted by a social science exchange about the difference between the sexes but in a discussion about the attempt on the life of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, though, Wilmore was there at the Overtime desk explaining to Donalds "Although, I don't think it's fair to put the shooter in that particular category because that thing has turned up many times in the past..." It's not as if Thomas Matthew Crooks had been a feminist wimp when he purchased a semi-automatic rifle, climbed onto a roof, and decided to incur his own violent death by shooting at a presidential candidate. 

This (phony) projection of uber-masculinity has become a thing in the G.O.P.; witness the Hulk Hogan "speech," more a performance, in Milwaukee. We don't yet know whether Crooks was plagued by mental illness but Republican messaging may be gradually and subtly shifting from blaming craziness to blaming feminized society for high-profile shootings.

And yet Maher, in the main portion of Real Time and on an earlier date, had endorsed the idea that opposition to reproductive rights stemmed from a heartfelt belief that the procedure is killing/ murder.  If it is, then surely pro-life states would punish not only the doctor performing an abortion but also the individual who has sought, requested, and paid for this horrific crime.

Surprise, not surprise. The forced-birth advocacy organization Charlotte Lozier Institute summarized the status of abortion law in each state and the District of Columbia and concluded "some states have no criminal abortion statues at all and among those that do, only tow (Nevada and Oklahoma) appear to have statutes allowing the prosecution of mothers."

Of course, most laws not only can be interpreted in more than one manner but also are written ostensibly to allow lawmakers on both sides of an issue to claim some vindication. And the Charlotte Lozier Institute is eager to persuade all parties that there is nothing for women to fear in current state law or proposed state law. 

There is. Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews in March of 2016 whether he "believe(s) in punishment for abortion, yes, or no, as a principle," Donald Trump responded "the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment." When Matthews responded "for the woman.?" the presidential candidate replied "yes, there has to be some form."

The interview was taped hours before it was broadcast, and Trump's statement recanting the Kinsley Gaffe was released even before the interview was broadcast. Honesty is not the best policy, at least not when running for President.  

Trump's cleanup on aisle 4 included the preposterous notion that when the procedure takes place, "the woman is a victim in this case." This mirrors what other conservatives have claimed over the years in the rare instances in which they've been asked the fundamental, and critical, question which Matthews posed. In the rationale of the forced-birth advocates, the woman acts with no agency; she is not a thinking, rational being but helpless and hopeless without a man's direction.

The official position of the unquestioned, heavyweight champion of the Republican Party is that a woman is an unshaped piece of clay, while two of his important subjects, Byron Donalds and J.D. Vance, are on that page, with barely concealed contempt for men who are childless and women who prefer to be childless.  They, as well as the vast majority of pro-life advocates, will tell you that their opposition to abortion is rooted in abortion (allegedly) being murder. Nonetheless, there is something darker at play, one whose implications may be broad, deep, and destructive. 

Share |

GOP Profiles in Cowardice

Texas law bans abortion after detection of fetal cardiac activity, generally around the sixth week of pregnancy. Katie Cox, suffering from the deadly genetic condition Trisomy 18 ("Edwards Syndrome"), which "her doctors say threatens" her future fertility and even her life. Cox had filed a lawsuit to end the pregnancy and left the state. It was a good move because the Texas Supreme Court, siding with Attorney General Ken Paxton, ruled against her.  

The case has produced a display of cowardice, and something beyond cowardice. First up: cowardice:

What a coward & phony. @tedcruz may be the most unTexan-like Texas elected official. Weaselly and weak, skulking away when his false bravado is challenged even a little bit. https://t.co/vVY2buZ28s

— Matt Angle (@LSPmatt) December 15, 2023

Next up: cowardice that exceeds all cowardice.

 

Haley is contending

We have to humanize the situation and deal with it with compassion. I think that Texas should go back and have their medical board deal with this and say how should we deal with this. I think every state should do this.

Even Chris Christie (Chris Christie!) was having none of this, remarking

“I think it’s really, really difficult for me to understand why Gov. Haley won’t answer that question, why she says things like, ‘We should be compassionate,’” he told reporters Wednesday. “What the hell does that mean? Are you for it or against it?”

Christie said it’s “not pro-life to prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy which is doomed to end in death of her child and may risk her own health.” He emphasized that he would not enact a federal abortion ban and would instead leave it to voters in the states.

It's difficult to make the failed former governor of New Jersey appear bold but we live in an age in which the leading advocate for democracy among politicians is- wait for it- the daughter of Dick Cheney.

Of course, Christie is wrong about leaving reproductive freedom up to the states. Legislation is needed to codify Roe v. Wade or to establish a national right to terminate pregnancy through the first two trimesters without exception. Nonetheless, he was right to call out Haley.

But Democrats had a responsibility to their voters and to the country to respond aggressively on this situation.  In the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, the right to choose is popular among the American people, who have a compassionate side. Even heartless Haley invoked the need to be compassionate while nonetheless refusing to defend a pregnant woman whose health was endangered by continuation of an unwanted pregnancy.

Less cowardly than unimaginative was President Biden, who should have sent Air Force One to Texas to pick up Katie Cox and fly her to state in which she could have safely procured an abortion without controversy. That simultaneously would have put the Administration on the side of reproductive freedom, women, compassion, and strength of conviction. 

It would have elevated a winning issue for Democrats and, if they were lucky, Republicans would have engaged on the issue and raised the stakes. Instead, individuals such as Ted Cruz can avoid the issue entirely while opportunists such as presidential candidate Nikki Haley can grandstand as "compassionate conservatives" while cruelly denying agency to women.

Share |

First Term a Dry Run

The key word is "military." Miles "Anonymous" Taylor makes a good point, then a very important one when he remarks

Post 9/11, we got really, really good at counterterrorism. What do I mean by that?

Watch-listing bad guys, going after them with lethal force and tacking them. And we wanted to use tools against migrants. And so I had people telling me about how in a second term, Trump would designate migrant groups as foreign terrorist organizations. he would deploy the military and give them authorization to use lethal force. Really shocking things that again, I have to be clear are not legal for President of the United States to do.

That doesn't line up well with  the Constitution, statutes, or tradition  As Miles continues, the key word is "forces." 

But beyond the border, a number of officials who were there until the end of the Administration, long after I had left, said that Trump had an interest in deploying US counterterrorism forces into US cities, especially Democratic cities, to exert control. 

We saw a sample of that in Portland during the riots in Portland. But I had one official tell me in a second term that Donald Trump would deploy DHS forces to the polls during elections to try to intimidate voters- in other words to scare Democratic voters away from the polls. And we've seen a sample of that with so-called poll watchers in places like Arizona, showing up with weapons.

Ex-Trump official and national security expert Miles Taylor warns of how Trump would weaponize the DHS to target migrant groups and intimidate voters in a second term. @MilesTaylorUSA @MichelMcQMartin pic.twitter.com/JfvtikdiMW

— Amanpour and Company (@AmanpourCoPBS) July 26, 2023

When Donald Trump talks about the "Deep State," he's projecting onto others his own plans: the military against migrants; Department of Homeland Security officers to ensure no Democrat gets elected to any significant position, including a potential third Trump term (whatever the Constitution proscribes).  

It's not as if Trump hasn't given much thought to this. Thom Hartmann has written of

Trump’s first run at following in his mentor (and possibly owner) Vladimir Putin’s footsteps and becoming America’s first dictator involved corrupting the Department of Justice, gaining the loyalty of the nation’s oligarchs with a massive tax cut and numerous corrupt government no-bid contracts, and gutting federal regulatory agencies.

But then there is the military. Trump

succeeded in getting his “acting” defense secretary, Chris Miller, to turn down the acting Secretary of the Army’s (Ryan McCarthy) request for National Guard troops to protect the US Capitol against the violent mob McCarthy’s intelligence people saw forming on social media in the weeks between Trump’s December tweet and January 6....

Trump’s first run at following in his mentor (and possibly owner) Vladimir Putin’s footsteps and becoming America’s first dictator involved corrupting the Department of Justice, gaining the loyalty of the nation’s oligarchs with a massive tax cut and numerous corrupt government no-bid contracts, and gutting federal regulatory agencies.

What he hadn’t counted on was that the military would stop him.

He succeeded in getting his “acting” defense secretary, Chris Miller, to turn down the acting Secretary of the Army’s (Ryan McCarthy) request for National Guard troops to protect the US Capitol against the violent mob McCarthy’s intelligence people saw forming on social media in the weeks between Trump’s December tweet and January 6.

At the possible request of the White House or his assistant, Kash Patel, Miller issued a memo explicitly saying the Guard, for January 5-6 only, was:

— Not authorized to be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, batons, or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets and body armor.

— Not to interact physically with protestors, except when necessary in self-defense or defense of others.

— Not to employ any riot control agents.

— Not to share equipment with law enforcement agencies.

— Not authorized to use Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets or to conduct ISR or Incident, Awareness, and Assessment activities in assistance to Capitol Police.

— Not allowed to employ helicopters or any other air assets.

— Not to conduct searches, seizures, arrests, or other similar direct law enforcement activity.

— Not authorized to seek support from any non-DC National Guard units.

As a result, Trump nearly succeeded in decapitating the federal government by having Vice President Pence and House Speaker Pelosi assassinated by his militia buddies. Combined with a proclamation of a state of emergency, allowing him to completely repudiate Posse Comitatus, Trump could have become America’s Putin in a matter of hours.

What prevented him was resistance from the military itself, which appears to be why Trump was trash-talking Joint Chiefs’ head General Milley when he was showing off top-secret Iran war plans to reporters at Bedminster. He knows how close he came to overthrowing our democracy, and is still bitter and angry that Milley refused to go along with him.

Next time he won’t make that mistake. His first step in office will be to replace the Joint Chiefs and secretaries of the military branches with “acting” (no Senate confirmation) men who will do his bidding, no questions asked.

He’s already telling us this: six months after he left office he was still calling for Milley’s head.

His second step will be to follow through on what General Michael Flynn was pretty much begging him to do on January 6: declare a national state of emergency, freeze government functions, and suspend elections.

And then in what is ostensibly about abortion policy in the military

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville is waging an unprecedented campaign to try to change Pentagon abortion policy by holding up hundreds of military nominations and promotions, forcing less experienced leaders into top jobs and raising concerns at the Pentagon about military readiness....

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that holding up the promotion of military leaders, most of whom have dedicated their lives to protecting the country, “is one of the most abominable and outrageous things I have ever seen in this chamber, witnessed by the fact that no one has ever had the temerity, the gall to do this before.”

This is about abortion, but it's also about the military. The more promotions held up, the more promotions the next President- who could be Donald Trump- will be able to make. At the very least, Tuberville is showing Republicans a way in which a President Trump can fill more vacancies. And if there are enough military officials who, unlike General Milley, will not question an order from the President of the USA,  

If likely Republican nominee Donald Trump becomes President again, there probably will be no need for an attempted coup or insurrection as was seen on January 6, 2021. Local, state, and federal law enforcement will do as expected and the military will play a prominent role. It's what Trump planned to do if re-elected in 2020, and he won't waste any time establishing authoritarian rule.

Share |

Standard Disinformation

Robert Lee Vander Plaats, the culture warrior who has long been influential in GOP politics in Iowa, is on to something here. However, he then goes on to lie because, well, it's the Republican Party circa 2023.

Plaats: There are more pro-life Americans today than ever

Acosta: What you said is not true.

Plaats: Americans disagree with Biden’s position with abortion up until the time of birth..

Acosta: Democrats are not in favor of abortion up until the moment of birth pic.twitter.com/IefHM7a6eC

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 9, 2023

Vander Plaats cites Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Florida governor Gavin Newsom in his claim that Democrats support "abortion on demand up to the time of birth and the government subsidizes and pays for it." 

Shouse California Law Group notes that Proposition 1, approved in California on 11/8/82, codified a woman’s right to an abortion in the state constitution but “does place some limitations on when a pregnant woman can terminate her pregnancy.”  It does not appear that Newsom, particularly active in the medical abortion space, ever has advocated a right to abortion up to the time of birth.

Vice President Harris, who “has eagerly embraced a role as the face of the Biden administration’s efforts on abortion access and reproductive health,” appears focused on GOP efforts throughout the country to deny women the right to choose.  There is no indication that she ever has addressed whether abortion should be legal until birth. Advocating such a right would be put her well beyond support for reproductive rights articulated by her boss, President Joe Biden.

A similar situation presented itself eleven years ago, when Vice President Biden came out in favor of same-sex marriage, which President Obama still opposed. That spurred Obama to declare his support, which benefited the incumbent’s re-election bid.. However, same-sex marriage was an either/or matter while support for abortion can run the gamut of views of mild support to full support. Therefore, in the current instance, it would be unnecessary for Vice President Harris (or President Biden) to support abortion up till birth to maintain and reinforce the pro-choice bona fides of the Administration

Through ignorance or deceit, Vander Plaats is, respectively, confusing or conflating the positions of "Democrats" and, specifically, Biden, Harris, and Newsom, with that of the House caucus of the Party

.If what Vander Plaats says makes any sense at all, he’s referring to a bill passed 219-210 passed in July, 2022 by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.  At the time, the AP explained the bill

would prevent abortion bans earlier than 24 weeks, which is when fetal viability, the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus, is generally thought to begin. It allows exceptions for abortions after fetal viability when a provider determines the life or health of the mother is at risk.

The Democrats’ proposal would also prevent states from requiring providers to share “medically inaccurate” information, or from requiring additional tests or waiting periods, often aimed at dissuading a patient from having an abortion.

The bill, if somehow the House version it had been introduced in, and passed by, the Senate, evidently would have permitted an abortion in the third trimester if the life of the health of the mother was at risk absent termination of probation. Allowing the procedure if the health- rather than merely the life- of the woman was at risk would have significantly expanded the conditions in which abortion was permissible. Nevertheless, it did not allow termination of the pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, which is the charge of Vander Plaats- and of other Republicans who claim that Democrats support abortion up till birth.

But it's not only that. Vander Plaats contends that Biden, Harris, and Newsom support "abortion up the time of birth and the government must subsidize and pay for it."  Recognizing that many Republicans and Independents are primarily pro-choice but don't like the idea of any of their tax money paying for it, Vander Plaats says "the government must subsidize and pay for it," thereby raising the specter of taxes covering the entire cost of an abortion for anyone at anytime. The state of the law is far more complicated and virtually no Democrat is pushing the envelope on funding.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the threat to women's reproductive health became clearer to tens of millions of Americans. The interview by Jim Acosta of Robert Lee Vander Plaats is a reminder of the importance of misinformation to the forced-birth movement.

Share |

God's Conversation with Lindsey Graham

The apostle Paul would like a word with Lindsey Graham. About sexuality and closets, sure; but more importantly, this:

Remember when they said abortion should be a state issue?

Lindsey Graham now advocates for a national abortion ban: “God is with us.”

pic.twitter.com/JEmPXmKcms

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) June 23, 2023

The problem arises upon reading First Corinthians (or as Donald Trump would say, “One Corinthians”). The money quote is in verse 11 of chapter 2 but for fairness and context, herewith verses 6 through 11, from the English Standard Version:

 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,

    nor the heart of man imagined,

what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Instead of bragging "God is with us," the Closet King could have cited Scripture on behalf of his advocacy of forced birth. However, Lindsey Graham may not be the best guy to start quoting biblical passages. In Romans 2:26-28, the apostle Paul remarked

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

There is Jude 1:7, in which Jesus’ brother Jude (Hey, Jude!) reportedly stated

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The New Testament was a little rough on homosexuality, though not as much as was the Old Testament’s Moses, who in Deuteronomy declared “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” In Leviticus, he laid out the remedy, maintaining “if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Fortunately, we’re a little more enlightened now and do not impose the death penalty upon individuals of one sex having intercourse with someone of another sex. Progress!

We make up our own minds, some people being informed by Scripture and some not, some claiming dishonestly that they are being informed by Scripture.  At this year’s Faith and Freedom Conference, the senior Senator from South Carolina was wise enough not to quote either Testament and arrogant enough to claim he knows the mind of God. The Bible says what the Bible says, and can be evaluated; suggesting we know the mind of God is frowned upon in that very same book.

Of course, I am not boldly asserting that Lindsey Graham is not a practicing heterosexual, for none of us (or almost none of us) knows of his behavior behind closed doors. And when the Senator acknowledges that he does not know what God wants us to do about reproductive freedom, our own speculation about him will be less relevant. The holding of breath is not recommended.

Share |

And So, Idaho

Almost, but not quite this bad.

BREAKING NEWS: Idaho Governor Brad Little has signed legislation that will prevent pregnant women from crossing state lines. Next up, women's menstrual cycles will be monitored & public. Contraceptives including provolactics banned. Failure to have a child by 19 will be a felony. pic.twitter.com/6wQG5F18k1

— Staff Sergeant Johnson (@PatMaguire10) May 29, 2023

In early April, the CBS affiliate in Boise reported

Minors in Idaho can no longer cross state lines to get a legal abortion without parental consent.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 242 (HB242) into law on Wednesday, five days after the state House sent it to his desk for approval. Under this new law, anyone who helps a pregnant minor obtain a legal abortion in another state without the permission of the minor's parents may face jail time.

HB 242 also makes it illegal for someone to obtain abortion pills for a minor without parental consent; it also prohibits “recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor" without parental permission. If someone is convicted of "abortion trafficking," they face two to five years in prison, according to the bill text. The bill also allows prosecutors to bring forth charges within four years after the action. No other state has enacted this type of legislation, and would make Idaho the most restricted state for any abortion access.

Therefore, this pertains only to pregnant girls crossing state lines for an abortion without parental consent. For now. And it's bad enough because, as Moira Donegan of The Guardian noted before passage of the bill, it

would criminalize an aunt or grandmother who drives a teenage girl over the border for a legal abortion in Oregon. It would make a felon of the school friend who lends her money for a bus ticket, or the older sister who takes her to the post office to pick up a package with secretly mailed pills. The legislation also contains a provision giving the Idaho attorney general the ability to override the jurisdiction of local prosecutors on this charge – so if a local DA doesn’t want to prosecute those who help scared and desperate teenagers, the state can enforce its sadism anyway.

Last year, Idaho's state legislature passed, and the Little guy signed, three bills, described here as "one regarding Idaho’s law to ban nearly all abortions that will take effect Aug. 25; one similar ban that allows abortions up to six weeks of pregnancy that will take effect Aug. 19; and a Texas-style civil law that allows family members to sue medical providers who perform an abortion." A suit filed by the Justice Department against one of the measures is pending.

The tweeter quoted above may be on to something beyond what he is alleging. A little over a year ago, Human Rights Watch published a report entitled "Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States After Dobbs." Despite noting "pregnant individuals themselves are also at risk of criminalization," HRW could identify only one state in which prosecuting the woman securing abortion can be prosecuted. 

That state is Idaho. in which a 1973 (the year of Roe v. Wade, coincidentally or otherwise) statue was enacted reading "every woman who knowingly submits to an abortion or solicits of another, for herself, the production of an abortion, or who purposely terminates her own pregnancy otherwise than by a live birth, shall be deemed guilty of a felony." It authorizes a prison sentence of up to five years, has not been recently addressed and thus appears still to be in effect.

So as it turns out, Idaho is different. Among the many states which are virtually abolishing a woman's reproductive freedom, it is the one in which lawmakers are so thoroughly misogynistic that they have not rescinded legislation which enables possibility of punishing an individual who pursues, pays for, and willingly submits to an abortion. Idaho may maintain this dubious distinction because the pushback upon states which have imposed various, even punitive, restrictions upon reproductive rights is nothing compared to what would transpire if states extend punishment to the pregnant woman.

 

Share |

So Very Reasonable

In an otherwise good paragraph in an otherwise good post, Steve M. makes a minor, yet telling, mistake when he writes

In other words, the audience was the contemporary Republican electorate. Why do you think Governor Sununu chose not to run for Maggie Hassan's Senate seat last year? It was probably for the same reason Charlie Baker of Massachusetts -- also a moderate Republican governor with strong support from Democrats -- didn't run for reelection last year: he might not have survived his own party's primary.

I thought it was bad enough when last June former Chris Christie and Donald Trump strategist Bill Stepien characterized a group of Republicans as "Team Normal."  It's questionable whether a few Republicans these days are "normal"- but they certainly aren't "moderate."

And so it was that Jen Psaki (video below) on Sunday interviewed the relatable New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu,  who is one of many Republicans reportedly considering running for President. Sununu is no fire-breathing demagogue, surely would be considered among the "normal," and was labeled a "moderate" by Steve M.

When asked, Sununu stated that he would not sign a bill outlawing abortion nationwide, preferring to leave it to states to establish their own policies, presumably pro-life in some jurisdictions, pro-choice in others.

Sununu maintained that "with training," teachers should be allowed to take firearms into schools and in 2014 vetoed a bill which would have barred firearms on school property He stated "I believe the way the laws are now are pretty good."

Sununu declined to agree to any cuts in defense spending when Psaki turned the interview toward debt reduction. When she mentioned Social Security, he Governor contended it's "really about creating up other opportunities, options for the individual in terms of how they invest their dollars." That's privatization, at least partially, while avoiding the toxicity of the term.

Sununu mentioned "fiscal discipline"- Republican talk for cutting the taxes of the wealthy and slashing the safety net- and remarked "I don't mind increasing the debt limit as long as there are some cuts." He likes Kevin McCarthy's hostage-taking.

The most important pressing issue is lifting the debt limit to pay off bills already accrued. Spending has been approved and appropriated, and we need the money to pay the bills. In October, 2021 . As explained in October, 2021

The debt limit is a ceiling imposed by Congress on the amount of debt that the U.S. Federal government can have outstanding... 

It is also important to note that the debt limit is not a forward-looking budgeting tool that reveals what policymakers think are ideal levels of spending and revenue. Rather, it reflects the spending and revenue decisions debated and enacted in prior years by prior Congresses and Administrations;

If the debt ceiling is not raised, government services would be slashed, unemployment might skyrocket, interest rates would jump, and the stock market might plummet.

Social Security can be gutted, the USA could become a deadbeat nation, and school shootings can continue unabated as long as John Sununu can continue his 90%+ rating with the National Rifle Association. Failing to identify anything he disagrees with Donald Trump on, Sununu can argue only that the 45th President could not be elected again. This is today's "moderate Republican."

When my Master Card bill comes, I'm going to call the bank, advise that I will do as a Republican by imposing fiscal discipline upon myself in the future without paying the current bill. That will go well.

 

Share |

Then and Still, Abortion

Lindsay Graham made a telling claim about abortion rights to Dana Bash on Sunday's "State of the Union" on CNN.

Pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, no federal funds can be used for abortion unless the pregnancy occurs because of rape or incest or endangers the woman's life. Thus, there is something impressively slick- and tactically significant- about "abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded." On Sunday's State of the Union on CNN, Dana Bash interviewed South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham and this exchange about abortion transpired:

BASH: Senator, I have heard you say both on this issue, that it is a state issue, but now you do support a federal ban. So who's right here?

GRAHAM: Right.

Well, I have been supporting a limit on late-term abortions for -- since 2015. I had a bill to limit abortions at 20 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. Seventy percent of Americans support limiting abortion when the -- when the unborn child can feel pain; 50 of 53 European nations limit abortion at 15 weeks or less.

BASH: But my question is, is it a federal issue or a state...

GRAHAM: The modern Democrat -- yes, it's a human rights issue. Does it really matter where you're conceived?

At 15 weeks, you have a developed heart and lungs. And to dismember a child at 15 weeks is a painful experience. It's barbaric. It's out of line with the rest of the civilized world. Only North Korea and China allow abortion demand up to the moment of birth, except the Democratic Party.

Of course, there is no "abortion on demand." No one can walk into the office of a doctor, even one who performs abortions, and "demand" an abortion. It's not only a brazenly dishonest claim, but one which trivializes both the heightened stress of asking for termination of pregnancy and the risk undertaken by the medical professional in performing the procedure.

Aside for that, the Democratic bill, which passed the House of Representatives on July 15, 2022, only indirectly addresses the issue of when termination of pregnancy would be permitted.  The Poynter Institute's Politifact analyzed the veracity of the remark of U.S. Representative Marianette Miller-Meeks, two days after passage in her chamber of  the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, "I also spoke this week against the radical left’s abortion bill that would permit abortion up until delivery." It noted  

Miller-Meeks’ newsletter comment has a point that the bill "would permit abortion up until delivery." However, she glosses over a crucial qualifier: The bill would allow such abortions only under extreme circumstances, in which medical professionals determine that the mother’s life or health is at risk.

It’s worth noting that late-term abortions — the kind that would need to be approved under these circumstances — are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in its latest count from November 2021 that of the 629,898 abortions performed in 2019, almost 93% of them were at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. About 6% were performed between 14 and 20 weeks, and less than 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy.

The figures are based on reports by health agencies throughout the U.S., although California, Maryland and New Hampshire did not report.

So under the Democratic bill which died, women would have been allowed to terminate their pregnancy up to the time of birth- but only if their physician determined that continuation of pregnancy would have jeopardized her life or health. And such late term abortions constitute far fewer than 1% of all abortions.  Federal funds could be used only if the woman's life is threatened.

Personally, I would have preferred a bill focused on reproductive health of women without language satisfying the id of LGBTQIA and anti-racist advocates:

The terms “woman” and “women” are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services...

Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations; medical experimentation on low-income women’s reproductive systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children. Access to equitable reproductive health care, including abortion services, has always been deficient in the United States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and their families.

It's striking that the Republicans evidently lack a political strategist who would tell them how to target references to "people with the capacity for pregnancy- cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals" and "enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black women," language which could not have been more off-putting if it were specifically phrased to alienate voters. Nonetheless, this was ignored by the GOP.

Thus, on Monday morning, in an interview unrelated to the 2022 bill, South Carolina's Nancy Mace told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that Democrats support abortion up to the moment of birth. Most voters, if they were made aware of the language of the proposal, would have recoiled at this wokiest of woke depiction of American society and indictment of Americans themselves. Instead, Republicans reinforce their image as the anti-choice party in a country now decidedly pro-choice.

It is telling that Mace, whose views of reproductive rights are the most moderate of nearly any GOP member of Congress, would repeat the grossly misleading claim that Democrats are fine with abortion as the baby comes through the birth canal. Lindsay Graham did the same 24 hours earlier.  Meanwhile, Ron DeSantis chooses a different emphasis, brags that "Florida is where woke goes to die," and his prospects of becoming the party's 2024 presidential nominee plunge.  It's a testament to the power of the evangelical base of the Republican Party that GOP politicians, offered a tempting political target, instead distort Democratic views of abortion whenever and wherever they can.

Share |

Unity Now a Four-Letter Word

This is the big, obvious, and immediate problem.

Watch what's happening in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho & other red states that are rapidly becoming fascist dystopias--denying women, people of color, voters, retirees, families, and children their rights. This is America's nightmare now. It is much bigger than Trump.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) April 6, 2023

Nonetheless, there is another big problem, though far less obvious and immediate.

A survey conducted on a wide range of issues by Quinnipiac in March, 2023  found 73% of respondents believing abortion should be legal in "all" or "most cases (question #22). Only 25% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, with a mere 2% undecided.

That's a great and liberal response! But curtail they eagerness or, as Larry David would put, curb your enthusiasm. The same survey disturbingly found

Americans are divided on a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Forty-seven percent support a ban, while 48 percent oppose it. This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in July 2022 when 49 percent supported a ban and 45 percent opposed it.

As the cliche has it, "let that sink in." More Americans oppose a nationwide ban on assault weapons- which are easily trafficked from one state to another- than who favor it. Assault weapons. That's a firearm which refers

to a semi-automatic gun designed for military use and quick, efficient killing. Assault weapons are uniquely lethal because of their rapid rate of fire and high muzzle velocity — coupled with large-capacity magazines, which attach to an assault weapon to allow dozens of gunshots without needing to reload. A large-capacity magazine is typically defined as any magazine or drum that is capable of holding more than either 10 or 15 rounds of ammunition.

Yet, respondents who on the whole overwhelmingly in favor of abortion rights were (albeit by a tiny margin) opposed to a nationwide ban on assault weapons. 

It's speculation, but perhaps quite a few individuals may have been stuck on the "nationwide." This would be odd because it is illogical.  Banning assault weapons is unlike some issues, such as marijuana legalization, which individuals may oppose nationwide on principle, but  be supportive because of the economic benefits to their own state. By contrast, people armed with assault weapons and bent on murder are not discouraged from crime if they'd have to cross state lines and there is no rational reason to oppose a ban nationwide while supporting it locally.

There may be an instinct in that which is present in a new abortion law in Idaho, where Republican governor Brad Little on Wednesday 

that bans minors from traveling out of state for abortions without parental consent. The law creates a new felony crime called “abortion trafficking,” which the legislation defines as an “adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an abortion-inducing drug” for the minor.

“Recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking,” according to the legislation. The crime of abortion trafficking carries a felony offense punishable by two to five years in prison.

The law criminalizes anyone transporting a pregnant minor without parental consent within Idaho to get an abortion or abortion pills, which means it could apply to a grandmother driving a pregnant minor to the post office to pick up a package holding medication abortion or target an older brother driving a pregnant minor to a friend’s house to self-manage an abortion at home...

Although the legislation does not specifically discuss crossing state lines, most pregnant people in Idaho are not traveling in the state to get an abortion. Most are traveling to get legal abortions in neighboring states like Washington or Oregon. This law criminalizes the act of anyone driving a minor without parental consent to the border of Idaho with the intent of crossing state lines to get an abortion outside the state...

State Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R), one of the sponsors of the abortion trafficking law, told HuffPost last month that the intent of the legislation is to limit minors’ ability to travel out of state without parental consent, despite the text of the bill only discussing intrastate travel.

“It’s already illegal to get an abortion here in the state of Idaho,” Ehardt said. “So, it would be taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that’s where we’ll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent’s right."

Maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene is onto something, a bad policy suggestion but in capturing a little of the mood of the country.

We need a national divorce.

We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government.

Everyone I talk to says this.

From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are…

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) February 20, 2023

 

 We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Obviously, a nationwide ban on assault weapons, of which there are mixed opinions, would require an act of the federal government. Abortion legal "in all" or "in most" cases would not.  

And more: we once tried separating by red states/blue states or, rather, slave and non-slave, states. It did not work out well. Yet, the squeamish about a national assault weapons ban, Greene's advocacy of a separation of states from each other, and the travel ban upon (some) pregnant women in Idaho suggest  a weakening concept of union.  

There is a trend toward localism reflecting a growing preference for insularity.  Leave us alone, the sentiment runs, to implement a gun ban if we want; prohibiting the mobility of women; and, ultimately, carving out two countries from one. Even the support for the right to choose, a proper instinct, is one which has something in common with the other perspectives: leave us alone to do as we choose in response to our own values. 

The inclination is constructive when when applied to a right to do as she wishes, within reason, with her own body.  In most ways, however, it is damaging.  A dystopian future, indeed.

Share |

Another Reason to Ask "Why Kamala"?

There must be a nationwide shortage of Kamala Harris flavored Kool-Aid because this guy is hoarding and drinking it all.

Warren stops short of backing Harris for VP in 2024

So many of us have pointed out the problems with Elizabeth Warren for years. Her response here is indefensible. https://t.co/hynQ9K1kGo

— @david_darmofal@mstdn.social (@david_darmofal) January 27, 2023

WGBH in Boston on January 27 reported that upon being asked, Senator Warren stated that President Joe Biden should run for re-election. However

Her response to a follow-up question of whether Harris should be his running mate was less concrete.

 “I really want to defer to what makes Biden comfortable on his team,” she said. “I’ve known Kamala for a long time. I like Kamala. I knew her back when she was an attorney general and I was still teaching and we worked on the housing crisis together, so we go way back. But they need — they have to be a team, and my sense is they are — I don’t mean that by suggesting I think there are any problems. I think they are.”

Whatever Warren's reasoning, that was not only a defensible answer, it was the only answer that would make any sense. Speaking in the Florida capital of Tallahassee on January 22 to honor the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Vice President had remarked (at 2:28 of the video below)

So we are here together because we collectively believe and know America is a promise.  America is a promise.  It is a promise of freedom and liberty — not for some, but for all.  

A promise we made in the Declaration of Independence that we are each endowed with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Be clear.  These rights were not bestowed upon us.  They belong to us as Americans.

  

Harris is correct that the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness- however they exist at varying times and in varying contexts- were not bestowed upon us but belong to us specifically as Americans. In most nations they do not exist or do so only in limited measure.

Nevertheless, Harris' statement was an unforced error and politically tone-deaf. It enabled the right wing to jump on her for leaving out a portion of the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Of course, opposition to abortion rights is not grounded in a pro-life sensibility but in a preference for forced-birth. Nevertheless, conservatives label themselves "pro-life" or "for life" and the media gladly obliges them this myth. 

As transcribed above, the Vice-President's first and the third paragraphs were good while the second should have been promptly flagged as seriously problematic. With her periodic gaffes and mediocre record before becoming Vice President, an obvious question is "why, Kamala?" or as Elizabeth Warren may be- and should be- thinking "why Kamala?" 

Share |

A Different Story in Europe

In the Real Time "Overtime" segment on January 20, Bill Maher was joined by author and blogger Andrew Sullivan, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and US Representative Nancy Mace, Republican from South Carolina. Mace made an interesting remark, at the 13:04 mark of the discussion but in fairness to her and the need for context, I began at 11:46 when the congresswoman remarked

You know, when Roe vs. Wade was overturned, we just turned our backs on women across the country and that's an issue. I was raped at the age of 16 and something I've been very passionate about. I'm pro-life but I also see that we got to find middle ground and with Americans about 89% of people are in the middle and we've got to protect women's rights and the right to life and there's a way to work together on many of these issues.

It's difficult to determine how Mace got the notion that nearly 9 of 10 Americans are "in the middle" on abortion rights. Soon after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, Forbes noted that an Ipsos poll in May 2021 found "66/% of Americans believe abortion should be permitted in at least some circumstances." Assuming the poll's accuracy, nearly 34% of individuals opposes abortion in all circumstances, and at least a few of that 66% no doubt supports a right to the procedure in any circumstance. Clearly, something over a third of Americans is nowhere near the middle on abortion. Mace continued 

Cannabis is one other issue. I have a bill called the States Reform Act on that and uh, takes, takes that issue and makes it one way that's bipartisan that Republicans and Democrats can get on. Republicans have been on the wrong side of cannabis. We've been on the wrong side of Roe vs. Wade. We- on birth control and gay marriage and all these issues that are important. Environmental issues.

I can't argue with the congresswoman on the GOP being on the wrong side of Roe vs. Wade. However, when Maher asked her what she would support regarding abortion, Mace responded

Well, I think gestational limits should be part of that conversation. In Europe, if you're even allowed to have one, it's twelve to fifteen weeks on average. That would be where you would....

That simplifies and misrepresents the state of the law and the practical reality of abortion in Europe.  In an opinion piece in The Washington Post in September, Leah Hoctor explained

Apart from the very few European nations that retain highly restrictive laws on abortion — Andorra, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco and Poland — no other European country “bans” abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Instead, almost all European countries allow abortion throughout pregnancy on a range of grounds, including where there are risks to a patient’s physical or mental health, and in situations involving severe or fatal fetal impairment.

Elective abortion is only one of the grounds on which abortion is legal in most of Europe, and time limits for this differ per country. When these time limits end, abortion almost always remains legal for a much longer period on other grounds, such as broadly framed socioeconomic or health grounds, or grounds of severe or fatal fetal impairment.

In support of calls for a 15-week ban on abortion — with carve-outs merely for highly restrictive exceptions, extending only to situations of physical risk to a patient’s life and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest — U.S. lawmakers referred to six European countries in particular (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway and Spain) and falsely stated that such a ban in the United States would be similar to policies in these nations.

Although these countries set a first-trimester time frame for elective abortion, they all allow abortion thereafter on other grounds. For example, laws in Denmark and Norway allow abortion for social, economic or family reasons until fetal viability (the definition of which is not specified). German law allows abortion on grounds of serious risk to health throughout pregnancy, explicitly noting that this covers both physical and mental health.

Moreover, unlike in the United States, many of these countries include abortion under national health insurance policies, as do most other Northern and Western European countries, meaning that patients do not have to finance the costs of abortion care themselves.

Even more problematic is the underlying assertion that new bans and restrictions on access to abortion dovetail with a European approach to abortion. This is highly disingenuous.

The fact is that most European countries are moving to expand access to abortion, not limit it. In the majority of countries, European lawmakers have moved steadily forward for decades on the issue of access to abortion. They have removed bans, increased abortion’s legality and taken steps to ensure laws and policies on abortion are guided by public health evidence and clinical best practices.

Honestly or not, Nancy Mace tries to portray herself as "in the middle" on several issues, a loyal Republican but not at odds with the 21st century, a potential darling of the mainstream media.  She doesn't stimulate the erogenous zones of the Republican base but, if she continues to be dishonest about abortion, she may sometime emerge beyond the First Congressional District of South Carolina.

 

Share |