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 |

"Just Another Republican Billionaire..."

The answer to "how do I love thee" is "let me count the ways."   The answer to "what is wrong with  Donald Trump" is the same: "let me count the ways."

Trump has a remarkable love for authority and authoritarians, going so far as recently praising Vladimir Putin because he projects strength. He is a singularly sexist politician, claiming a Fox News anchorperson had "blood coming out of her wherever."  When a few years ago he stated "I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her," it was probably far less sexist than really, really creepy (even assuming he was thinking of "dating").

He is taken to saying such things as "I have fantastic relationships with the Hispanics" (the Hispanics?) and "I am going to protect women," and bragging that he forced Ford Motor Co. to move a manufacturing plant from Mexico to Ohio. Politifact has labeled Trump's statements- plural- its "lie of the year."

Views differ on Trump's perspective on immigration and guilt by association is unfair. However, it is probably not a good sign when David Duke praises the candidate's remarks as “I’ve said from the beginning I think his campaign is good in the sense that it’s bringing these issues to a discussion which we have to have in America."(In Trump's favor, Duke disagrees with him about Israel.)

And on and on and on- but enough of that, because Bernie Sanders on CBS' Face the Nation (video below) encapsulated the biggest problem with Donald Trump, albeit one which the mainstream media and most of the Washington establishment has little problem with. Sanders noted the GOP frontrunner had maintained wages are excessive,which Trump promptly on Twitter falsely denied. The Vermont senator and most authentically Democratic candidate then explained

Donald Trump says that I’m a liar because I said he believes wages in America are too high. Really?…It appears that Mr. Trump is getting nervous that working families are catching on that his policies represent the interests of the billionaire class against almost everyone else. He refuses to support raising the minimum wage. He believes wages are too high, and he wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the very richest families in America. That’s not an agenda that ‘makes America great.’ It’s just another Republican billionaire wanting to make the very rich richer at the expense of working families.

As Sean Illing summarizes, Donald Trump is  "a fraud and a shill for the billionaire class, which the GOP dutifully represents." And like Illing, Bernie Sanders seems to recognize that Trump is a confederate in the GOP's goal of reinforcing corporate control of the economy and the culture. Take away Donald Trump's bravado and crudeness, and he's a perfect match for the Republican Party.

















Share |

And now, the Lie of the Year

Congratulations, Politifact. You are responsible for the Lie of the Year by having selected on December 20 'Republicans Voted to End Medicare' as the 2011 Lie of the Year.

In retrospect, it was predictable. (So why didn't I predict it? Oh, never mind). On December 6, the American Prospect's Paul Waldman reasoned

Giving the "Lie of the Year" award to Republicans three years in a row would just invite too much criticism from the right, and if there's one thing the right is good at, it's screaming at journalists about "liberal bias." So my bet is that they're going to go with the contention that Paul Ryan's budget plan "ends Medicare," which has the benefit of being an important assertion repeated many times, despite the fact that it's actually not a lie at all (but that's a discussion for another day).

The following day, Dave Weigel flagged an e-mail sent by Paul Ryan (R-WI) to his PAC, arguing

Politifact, a non-partisan, fact-checking website, is now taking votes for the 2011 “Lie of the Year,” and one of the nominees is the Democrats’ “Pants on Fire” lie about Republicans voting to “end Medicare.”

Click here to vote now and ensure the Democrats’ lies about the Path to Prosperity are exposed.

Remember, our budget is the only plan that actually saves Medicare. We know the stakes are high in 2012 – it’s a chance to take our country back and get us back on a path to prosperity. We can’t let lies by Democrats about our conservative solutions go unchecked.

Help me fight the lies, falsehoods, and attacks of the Left by casting a vote to show the Democrat’s lie that Republicans voted to “end Medicare” is the worst political lie of 2011.Click here to cast your vote now at Politifact.

Lending credence to the idea that Politifact was intimidated by charges of "liberal bias," Politifact charged Democrats and liberals overreached," which normally would be insufficient to reach the level of "pants on fire" or "lie of the year." However, The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway, in an article roundly critical of the art of fact-checking, slammed Politifact as biased toward Democrats. The following day, Politifact would say of those Democrats and liberals:

• They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare -- or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.

• They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

• They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.

Medicare is not a private system; it is not a system of vouchers, which the Ryan budget plan would have established. Currently, the government acts as insurer for elderly people by paying the major medical bills. As Steve Benen explained, Medicare "is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different — a voucher scheme. It would still be called “Medicare,” but it wouldn’t be Medicare." (Here, Media Matters thoroughly debunks Politico's claim that Paul Ryan's plan would not have ended Medicare. )

There is a good reason the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad (below) slammed ineffectually by Politico used elderly people: it is elderly people who would have been harmed by the GOP plan. Not the old persons of today- but those who would be old when the plan kicked in. If the Democrats had used young people in the ad, the message would have been confusing, indeed misleading; and Politico presumably would have slammed them for trying to scare youth in an ad pertaining to health insurance for individuals 65 years of age and older.

In its original analysis of the Democrats' claim, Politifact conceded "The Republicans voted on a budget resolution that states policy preferences, but the vote did not actually change Medicare, much less end it. As we’ve noted before in previous fact-checks, budget resolutions are non-binding documents that cannot be viewed as the equivalent of legislation that establishes law." But as Jed Lewison noted, "the ad did not Republicans of actually accomplishing their goal of ending Medicare. It accused them of 'voting to end Medicare.' In other words, it accused them of stating a policy preference." By Politico's logic, "if Republicans had voted to replace the FBI with a voucher program giving citizens subsidies to pay for private investigators, it would have been inaccurate to say they had 'ended the FBI.'"

As Paul Krugman quipped months ago about the Ryan Medicare plan, "you could also call an onion a rose. But a non-rose by the same name would not smell as sweet." Benen, though, following Poltifiact's designation, came up with the best analogy:

.... imagine someone owns a Ferrari. It’s expensive and drives beautifully, and the owner desperately wants to keep his car intact. Now imagine I took the car away, removed the metallic badge off the trunk that says “Ferrari,” I stuck it on a golf cart, and I handed the owner the keys.

“Where’s my Ferrari?” the owner would ask.

“It’s right here,” I’d respond. “This has four wheels, a steering wheel, and pedals, and it says ‘Ferrari’ right there on the back.”

By PolitiFact’s reasoning, I haven’t actually replaced the car — and if you disagree, you’re a pants-on-fire liar.

Share|

Targeting Medicare, GOP Makes A Fool Of Politifact


Analyzing a Politifact piece condemning Democratic claims that the vote for the Ryan budget amounted to a bid to end Medicare, on April 22 I wrote

Politico maintains "budget resolutions are non-binding documents that cannot be viewed as the equivalent of legislation that establishes law. Deeply desiring something and accomplishing it are different." According to Wikipedia

a budget resolution is a legislation in the form of a concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget. The budget resolution establishes various budget totals, allocations, entitlements, and may include reconciliation instructions to designated House or Senate committees....

The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. A budget resolution binds Congress, but is not a law. It does allow for certain points of order to be made if the President does not follow the resolution.

It is not a law. But it is more than a wish list, something they'd like to see change if only, gosh, they had a chance someday. It would bind Congress and is the beginning of the GOP effort to end Medicare- not Medicare "as we know it," but Medicare. The GOP did "vote to end Medicare"; it was a vote for the purpose of ending Medicare.

Republicans now have made a liar, or rather a knave, of Politifact by deeming the Republican budget as passed (explained by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado in video, below) by approving (over unanimous Democratic opposition) this portion of HR 2017, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012 (text, in PDF):

Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2012, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 34, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect (and).... The allocations printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered for all purposes in the House to be the allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 197 4 for the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.

There now. The House, under leadership of Speaker Boehner with the support of his caucus and opposition of the Democrats, has now voted to end Medicare. Twice.

While they're at it, Politifact may wish to acknowledge its sleight of hand when it deceivingly wrote

But to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration. All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program’s budget would increase every year.

Elderly people would be offered some coverage under the proposal. But it would be a declining proportion of their health expenditures because, although "the program's budget would increase every year," it is specifically designed to do so at a rate which is below the traditional, and expected, rate of growth in health care spending.

But look more carefully. The first sentence of the paragraph reads "but to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration." Then as if to buttress that contention, the first portion of the second sentence- after maintaining Medicare would not end- refers to the proposal, obviously Ryan's. The second portion of the second sentence then speaks of program. Medicare generally is referred to as a "program," as it is earlier in the Politifact post. But prior to this section, Politifact refers to the GOP approach on five (5)) occasions as a "plan" and on five (5) occasions as a proposal- in no case as a "program." Significantly, though, after alleging that Medicare is not ended, Politifact adds "the program's budget would increase every year."

It is an effective, though subtle, effort to imply that the Medicare program's budget would increase, though of course it is Ryan's voucher proposal to which Politifact is actually referring. Hence, Politifact has implied that the Ryan program would increase Medicare when in fact it would replace Medicare, thus abolishing it.

We (the imperial "we," or perhaps all of us who value accuracy) await Politifact's retraction. Failing that, it might acknowledge a pro-GOP bias in matters not directly pertaining to President Obama. But make sure not to hold your breath.

Share|

The Republican Media: No. 30


Brian Beutler of the liberal blog Talking Points Memo doesn't care for Politifact's analysis of a new ad (video, below) by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attacking the GOP for passing a budget resolution proposing the dissolution of Medicare. He remarks

If Democrats proposed to turn Medicare into a system that only provided free veterinary services to seniors, would Republicans be lying to say Dems wanted to "end Medicare," without including the caveat "as we know it"?

Of course not. But that's more or less the charge PolitiFact is leveling at Democrats over a new DCCC ad (below) which flatly charges Republicans with proposing to "end Medicare." The House GOP budget, which passed with all but two GOP votes over unanimous Democratic opposition, would over time replace the single-payer, government-run Medicare program with a different system that subsidizes private insurance plans for beneficiaries. Those subsidies would work like vouchers -- they would increase in value year-on-year at a much slower pace than the rate of the rise of health care costs, thus leaving seniors exposed to increasing costs as time goes on.

Republicans call this new health insurance system "Medicare." But it's a completely different program from today's Medicare. PolitiFact doesn't see it that way.

"But to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration," PolitiFact writes. "All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program's budget would increase every year."
But that elides the fact that Medicare currently guarantees specific services, which the private insurers won't be bound to provide under the GOP plan. Indeed, the law President Lyndon Johnson signed in 1965 created a national health insurance system that entitled the elderly to have a defined array of health care services paid on their behalf by the government.

Nonetheless, PolitiFact calls the caveat "as we know it" -- as in "end Medicare as we know it" -- an important qualifier. And they conclude that because the DCCC eschewed this qualifier, and because the House vote on a non-binding budget resolution doesn't have the force of law, Democrats have told a "Pants on Fire" lie by stating "Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Beutler is too kind, as is Digby, who writes

Politifact also goes far beyond its mandate by telling the Democrats the terms they are allowed to use. (They say it would be ok if they say "end Medicare as we know it.") Message approval isn't their job. Their job is to apply a thick-headed literalism to everything they see. And it makes them useless.

It isn't clear Politifact is applying "a thick-headed literalism." It is more likely trying to mislead.

Politifact quotes an elder law expert arguing "Nobody voted to end it. They voted to hopefully change it one day, when they get a chance, but they would need a Republican-dominated Senate and a Republican president, neither of which they have."

So there we have Politifact's argument: The GOP did not vote to end Medicare because it won't be approved in the Senate. It's as if Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan had introduced a single-payer health care bill in the U.S. Senate, it passed on a party line vote, and Politico had concluded that the Democrats did not vote to create a single-payer system. Or as if Congress voted to end all military action in Libya or Afghanistan and Politico determined Congress did not vote to end the war- President Obama will veto it, anyway.

Politico maintains "budget resolutions are non-binding documents that cannot be viewed as the equivalent of legislation that establishes law. Deeply desiring something and accomplishing it are different." According to Wikipedia

a budget resolution is a legislation in the form of a concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget. The budget resolution establishes various budget totals, allocations, entitlements, and may include reconciliation instructions to designated House or Senate committees....

The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. A budget resolution binds Congress, but is not a law. It does allow for certain points of order to be made if the President does not follow the resolution.

It is not a law. But it is more than a wish list, something they'd like to see change if only, gosh, they had a chance someday. It would bind Congress and is the beginning of the GOP effort to end Medicare- not Medicare "as we know it," but Medicare. The GOP did "vote to end Medicare"; it was a vote for the purpose of ending Medicare.

A recent ad by the pharmaceutical front group, "60+ Association," reflects the understanding that the House vote was more than a symbolic resolution. An announcer claims of three Philadelphia-area congressmen "The House passed a budget that protects and preserves Medicare for years to come. And our congressmen -- Pat Meehan, Mike Fitzpatrick and Jon Runyan -- voted to protect Medicare and keep it secure for future retirees." Of course, they did precisely the opposite, joining an effort to kill Medicare- but you get the point.

Of course, even if Politifact were right technically, linguistically- as Digby too generously is willing to concede- it hardly would merit the "Pants on Fire" designation. Apparently, it earns that in part because

Still another problem with the ad involves who’s immediately affected by the Republican proposal. In one scene, the ad shows a senior citizen pushing a walker behind a lawn mower. A teenager looking on eats an apple and says, "You missed a spot." In reality, people 55 and older won’t see changes under the Ryan plan. It’s actually that teenager -- or anyone else 54 or younger -- who would pay extra money when they are older.

Right. But they would pay more when they are older- and the ad depicts an old man. The GOP plan would affect an individual when he or she is elderly, and the ad presented an elderly individual. Would Politifact have preferred a young person in the ad being harmed by the proposal? That would have been, at a minimum, misleading, disingenuous, and confusing.

Politifact, perhaps in a valiant effort to appear bipartisan, does quote approvingly President Obama, a putative Democrat, stating the proposal would end Medicare "as we know it." But that is grossly insufficient in a piece condemning an ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which is largely, if not completely, factual.

Share|