Michigan about to require women to buy "rape insurance" based on petition signed by 4.2% of voters

Michigan about to require women to buy "rape insurance" based on petition signed by 4.2% of voters

by EclectablogFollow

The War on Women continues...

Graphic by Anne C. SavageCross-posted from Eclectablog.
Thanks to a petition drive that resulted in 4.2% of Michiganders voicing their minority opinion, Michigan is about to become a place where women have to plan ahead for their abortions. If you become pregnant accidentally or if you are raped and become pregnant and haven't purchased a separate abortion coverage rider on your health insurance, you won't be covered. This isn't just for state government insurance plans or those purchased on the health insurance exchange. It's for EVERY insurance plan available in the state.

Apparently no government is too small to get between you, your doctor, and your health insurer.

A controversial initiative that would require women to buy an additional rider on their health insurance if they wanted abortion coverage is one short step away from going to the Legislature, where it is likely to easily become law. Because no one filed a challenge by Monday’s deadline to the more than 315,000 signatures turned in to the Secretary of State, an initiative that would prohibit abortion coverage from being included in standard insurance policies will go forward.
And the Secretary of State certified Monday that Michigan Right to Life, which spearheaded the petition drive, has more than enough valid signatures to start the ball rolling on the new state law. A minimum of 258,088 valid signatures were needed. The anti-abortion activists turned in 315,477 signatures. And the Secretary of State’s elections division estimated that 299,941 of the signatures are valid.
The state Board of Canvassers will meet at 9:30 a.m. Dec. 2 to certify the signatures and then the petition moves to the state Legislature, which has 40 days to approve, reject or do nothing with the legislative ballot initiative.

If Republicans vote it down or fail to act on it, it will be a ballot iniatitive in the next general election. Neither of these is likely given their ideologically extreme views. If they pass it, it becomes law. The other 95.8% of us won’t have a say and neither will Governor Snyder. Don't tell me there isn't a War on Women in Michigan being waged by religious conservatives in our state. The evidence is right before you.
If you want chime in, Planned Parenthood has a petition going asking legislators to allow ALL Michigan voters to have a say in this. You can sign the petition HERE.

Originally posted to Eclectablog - eclectic blogging for a better tomorrow on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:24 AM PST.

Also republished by Motor City Kossacks, Your Government at Work, State & Local ACTION Group, and Michigan, My Michigan.

Read More

Twelve Times Scott Walker Was Terrible

Twelve Times Scott Walker Was Terrible

Oh, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, how are you terrible? Let us count the ways….  

posted on October 23, 2013 at 6:33pm EDT

emilyslist

BuzzFeed User

This post was created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone can post awesome lists and creations." Learn more or post your buzz!

1. When he signed the mandatory ultrasound bill into law

tumblr.com

Walker signed into law a bill that will require “women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound and ban doctors who lack admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from performing the procedures.” Essentially, it would make it harder for a woman seeking a safe, legal abortion to get one. His law could force clinics to close and is being challenged by reproductive health advocates.

2. When he repealed the law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to press charges

tumblr.com

So basically, if you’re one of the women in Wisconsin who earns $0.75 for every dollar that your male colleagues make and you want to do something about losing that $4,000 every year, Scott Walker has made it more difficult. THANKS.

3. When he eliminated collective bargaining rights for all of Wisconsin’s public employees

tumblr.com

Scott Walker is no friend of unions. In 2011, he signed into law a bill that abolished collective bargaining rights for 175,000 public union employees in Wisconsin, leading to an attempt to recall him.

4. When he specifically targeted women workers while sticking it to unions

tumblr.com

As we mentioned, in 2011, when Scott Walker was stripping unions of their right to collective bargaining, he did exempt some groups: firefighter, police and state trooper unions. The majority of Wisconsin public workers are actually women, (teachers, nurses, child care workers, home health care workers, etc.) but the exempted groups were overwhelmingly male.

5. When he banned abortion coverage for policies in the ACA’s new health insurance exchange

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

This is just another example of Scott Walker’s extreme, anti-woman agenda.

6. When he ruined Wisconsin sex education

tumblr.com

tumblr.com

Scott Walker signed legislation that required teachers in schools that offered sex education to “stress abstinence as the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” The legislation also declared that sex ed teachers were not required to address contraception. So that’s helpful.

7. When he eliminated all state funding for family planning services

tumblr.com

In 2011, Scott Walker proposed a budget that would have eliminated all state funding for family planning services for low-income residents, putting 50 clinics in jeopardy. 52,000 women in Wisconsin who received contraceptive care from those clinics would have to find alternative means.

8. When he forced 92,000 people off their health insurance and cost the state $119 million

tumblr.com

Scott Walker could have accepted federal money under the Affordable Care Act that would have expanded BadgerCare Plus insurance, which covers adults with children under 19 in households with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty threshold, or $47,100 for a family of four. Instead, he rejected the money, kicked 92,000 people off their health insurance and forced them to buy a more expensive plan.

9. When he led Wisconsin to below-average job growth rates

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

The Republican Party says they’re about jobs jobs jobs - except when Scott Walker runs things and the state ranks 34th in job growth. And consider this: Walker’s #1 campaign promise was to add 250,000 private-sector jobs by the end of his term. At last count, nearly three years later, he’s only about 25% there.

10. When he signed an unconstitutional voter ID law

tumblr.com

This law would require poll workers to immediately begin asking voters to show state-issued IDs before they vote - even though voters wouldn’t be required to show them until the next year. Yeah, we’re not sure either - but basically, Walker wanted to make it harder for people to vote.

11. When he was BFFs with the Koch Brothers

tumblr.com

The Koch Brothers are long-time Scott Walker supporters. With a $43,000 donation, their PAC was the second highest donor to Walker’s 2010 campaign. They also gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which streamed spending into Wisconsin on behalf of Walker. Ew.

12. When he wanted to pay teachers less

tumblr.com

Not only did Scott Walker nix the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin teachers, but he capped future pay raises. Under Walker’s administrative rule change, he changed the pay schedule for experienced teachers. Some teachers could lose as much as 30% of their current salary under Walker’s targeted attacks.

So, in short, Scott Walker is the worst.

Luckily, EMILY’s List has endorsed Mary Burke for governor of Wisconsin

Mary Burke is an insightful problem solver who has worked in the private, government, and nonprofit sectors to grow Wisconsin’s economy and increase educational opportunities. Mary has an impressive commitment to economic justice and improving the lives of children and working families. Her intense and selfless commitment to her community will make for a striking contrast with Governor Scott Walker’s extremist agenda. Mary’s been quietly changing the world for the better for years - by breaking barriers herself and by making opportunities for others to get ahead.

lh3.googleusercontent.com

This post was created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. Learn more or post your buzz!

Read More

WI-Gov: Scott Walker (R) Says It's "Insulting" That Dems Keep Tying Him To The GOP's War On Women

WI-Gov: Scott Walker (R) Says It's "Insulting" That Dems Keep Tying Him To The GOP's War On Women

by poopdogcomedy

 

Received this e-mail today from the Wisconsin Democratic Party.  Apparently, it hurts Governor Scott Walker's (R. WI) feelings when you remind people that he's a foot soldier in the GOP's War On Women:

Scott Walker says “it’s insulting” that Democrats keep calling him out for his radical War on Women. Well I say it’s women who should be insulted that Walker thinks we can't make our own healthcare choices and that he would force us to undergo unnecessary, invasive transvaginal ultrasounds.
No matter what Scott Walker says we won’t stop fighting back against his attacks on women’s rights. Say you’re with us by adding your name to our petition today and sharing it with your friends:
http://grassroots.wisdems.org/...
It’s kind of incredible that Governor Ultrasound is doubling down on his extreme attacks on women and their rights.
What's even more incredible is the fact that so many people here in Wisconsin and across the nation don't know  how radical Scott Walker is when it comes to his positions on birth control and reproductive healthcare. Just last night, Politico reported that, "Walker is conservative but has never been known as a bomb-thrower on social issues."
As governor, Walker has gutted pay equity protections for women, was silent on an act of terrorism at a women’s health clinic, and defunded Planned Parenthood, leaving tens of thousands of women without access to family planning services or life-saving breast and cervical cancer screenings. This guy is a Five-Star General in the War on Women.
It's imperative that we spread the word on Scott Walker's real record and his history of attacking women's rights.  You can help right now by adding your name to our petition and sharing it with five friends:
http://grassroots.wisdems.org/...
Thanks,
Julie

You can click here to add your name: http://grassroots.wisdems.org/...

Read More

These Two Anti-Abortion Protesters Should NOT Have Harassed This Man’s Wife (VIDEO)

Author: Justin Acuff August 1, 2013 10:21 pm

Clinic protestors are some of the lowest forms of right-wing idiocy in the country. Why? Because A), they harass women that aren’t getting an abortion or visiting a clinic for anything to do with one, and B), harass women that are making one of the most difficult decisions in their lives, and are going through nearly unimaginable emotional turmoil. Furthermore, they’re protesting the wrong thing — if they really wanted to help lower abortion rates, they’d help educate young people about safe sex and contraception as well as abstinence as the safest choice, and they’d help mitigate other factors, such as lack of access to proper health care and contraceptives due to poverty. When they harass Aaron Gouveia’s wife, he goes back to confront them — and the video below is the result.
Here’s the video:
 

Read More

Vatican Unveils Frescoes In Catacombs of Priscilla With Images Some Say Show Early Women Priests

By NICOLE WINFIELD 11/19/13 05:37 PM ET EST






ROME (AP) — The Vatican on Tuesday unveiled newly restored frescoes in the Catacombs of Priscilla, known for housing the earliest known image of the Madonna with Child — and frescoes said by some to show women priests in the early Christian church.
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, presided over the opening of the "Cubicle of Lazzaro," a tiny burial chamber featuring 4th century images of biblical scenes, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and one of the early Romans buried there in bunk-bed-like stacks as was common in antiquity.
The labyrinthine cemetery complex stretching for kilometers (miles) underneath northern Rome is known as the "Queen of the catacombs" because it features burial chambers of popes and a tiny, delicate fresco of the Madonna nursing Jesus dating from around 230-240 A.D., the earliest known image of the Madonna and Child.
More controversially, the catacomb tour features two scenes said by proponents of the women's ordination movement to show women priests: One in the ochre-hued Greek Chapel features a group of women celebrating a banquet, said to be the banquet of the Eucharist. Another fresco in a richly decorated burial chamber features a woman, dressed in a dalmatic — a cassock-like robe — with her hands up in the position used by priests for public worship.
The Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests, which includes women who have been excommunicated by the Vatican for participating in purported ordination ceremonies, holds the images up as evidence that there were women priests in the early Christian church — and that therefore there should be women priests today.
But Fabrizio Bisconti, the superintendent of the Vatican's sacred archaeology commission, said such a reading of the frescoes was pure "fable, a legend." Even though the catacombs' official guide says there is "a clear reference to the banquet of the Holy Eucharist" in the fresco, Bisconti said the scene of the banquet wasn't a Eucharistic banquet but a funeral banquet. He said that even though women were present they weren't celebrating Mass.
Bisconti said the other fresco of the woman with her hands up in prayer was just that — a woman praying.
"These are readings of the past that are a bit sensationalistic but aren't trustworthy," he said.
Asked about the scenes, Ravasi professed ignorance and referred comment to Bisconti.
The Vatican has restricted the priesthood for men, arguing that Jesus chose only men as his apostles.
The Priscilla catacombs are being featured in a novel blending of antiquity and modern-technology: For the first time, Google Maps has gone into the Roman catacombs, providing a virtual tour of the Priscilla complex available to anyone who can't visit the real thing.
___

Read More

Embarrassing New Poll Shows Practically Nobody in Texas Wants Rick Perry as President

November 19, 2013 By Allen Clifton



As a Texan, I’ve seen the enigma that is current Governor Rick Perry first hand.  Trust me when I say that most people don’t like him in this state, and that includes many Republicans.  His favorability rating seems to hover anywhere between the low to mid-40′s with the number of people who disapprove of his job performance almost always being higher.
These numbers obviously weren’t helped during his 2012 presidential bid that can only be described as a total embarrassment.
Well, the rumor mill continues to churn pointing to the very real possibility that Perry is contemplating yet another presidential bid.
Something which I’m sure gets comedy writers excited, but it seems very few Texans actually want to see happen.
Recently, Public Policy Polling did a survey where they asked Texans who they’d like to see as the GOP nominee in 2016 — and almost nobody chose Rick Perry.
In what should surprise absolutely no one, Ted Cruz led the field, garnering 32% of the vote.  As for the rest of the field, 13% picked Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, 10% chose Rand Paul, 6% favor Bobby Jindal and 5% like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
Three percent chose Rick Perry.
Think about that for a moment.  The governor of Louisiana ranks higher among Texans than our own governor.Hell, Rick Perry ranked so poorly that if the presidential race were between himself and Hillary Clinton—he would lose Texas.  
It just goes to show what an epic embarrassment Rick Perry has been to the state of Texas.  The only reason he’s been our longest serving governor is because he’s never really faced a true Republican challenger and Democrats in this state stand almost no chance at winning a state-wide election.
Granted, such strong opposition to the thought of him being the 2016 GOP candidate probably isn’t entirely based on his track record as governor.  I’m fairly certain his disastrous run in 2012 plays a significant part.  It’s not every day you see a presidential candidate unable to name the three agencies of government he would eliminate if he were president.

Seriously, every time I watch that video I get a good chuckle.
The sad part is, I highly doubt these numbers would have any impact on Perry’s decision to run.  In his mind, I’m sure he believes he stands a real shot at not only winning the GOP nomination, but actually becoming president.I hate to break it to Governor Perry (actually, I don’t), but if the people in your state would rather see the Governor of Louisiana as the GOP nominee or would choose a Democrat for president over you—you don’t stand a chance in hell. 

About Allen Clifton
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Read More

The Incomplete Gospel of Biblical Womanhood

Posted on November 18, 2013 by Kate

The weekend was coming to a close.

It had been a challenging and uplifting conference, packed with Christians and non-Christians with many different view points. At dinner time, I quickly grabbed my food and searched for an empty seat. Two young men found their places next to me. We introduced ourselves and they told me that they were both on the pastoral staff of a large church in the States. This led to a conversation about where they went to seminary and, eventually, why they chose the largely conservative school that they did. One of them explained,
“Given the growing problems of the Church, I decided to attend a seminary that taught good theology to those who should be in leadership. You know, godly men who know right from wrong.”
Noticing the curious look on my face, he went on.
“I’m not sure if you are aware, but many churches are teaching that it is acceptable for women to take on leadership roles. So, I chose my seminary because it was the first one to teach the important message of what is called ‘biblical manhood and womanhood’. You’re probably not familiar with what that means…”
After he explained gender roles in his own words, he finished with, “Maybe I shouldn’t have said all that … well, you don’t look like a feminist so I guess it’s ok.”
Now, I have to say that this young man was very nice, despite the fact that he thought it was appropriate to tell a random woman that he doesn’t think her fit to do his own job. I actually did appreciate hearing about his views, because I don’t normally hear them explained thoroughly by people who are not popular pastors. But, with his last comment, I couldn’t help myself.
“I have a question for you,” I said honestly. “This idea of ‘biblical womanhood’ seems to apply only to married women with children, who have the financial ability to stay home with their kids. I am a single Christian woman who is working to support myself. What does the biblical womanhood message say to someone like me?”
Now this was a question I had been wondering about for a long time, so I was actually very excited to be able to hear an honest answer. He thought about it for a little while and replied, “Well, it says that the best plan for your life is to find a good Christian man who will lead your family and provide enough that you can stay home.”
So the “biblical womanhood” message says that a single woman is not living the best Christian life because she is not married.
I pushed his line of thinking farther. “And what about women who are married, but are poor or who are simply not wealthy enough to stay home? What does the ‘biblical womanhood’ message say to them?”
His answer came quicker this time. “That they are not in the most ideal situation, and that their husband is failing them because they aren’t able to stay home with their kids,” he replied.
So the “biblical womanhood” message says that poor, working, married women are not living the ideal Christian life because their husbands don’t make enough money.
I pushed a little farther. “And what about married women who cannot have children?”
This thought caught him a bit off guard. “I’m not sure,” he said, “I guess they don’t really fit the mold.”
So, the “biblical womanhood” message tells women who are not able to have children, that they do not fully fit into what it means to be a Christian woman.
I appreciated his honesty. After thanking him for talking with me, I explained that I was an egalitarian. He told me he would think about what I had said. We changed the subject and finished our meal.
I have thought about that conversation many times over the last year.
It comes to my mind almost every time I hear a popular patriarchal/complementarian pastor remind women of “their place”. It pops up in my memory every time I read a blog praising the traditional homemaker for doing her womanly “duty”. I think about that conversation when I hear people referencing “true womanhood” and “biblical womanhood”.
What about the women whose lives look different? What about the women who don’t fit?
When I hear the “biblical womanhood” message, I worry that such a gendered gospel takes away from the meaning of what Christ actually did on the cross. The Bible doesn’t have one gospel for men and another for women, so why do we teach about scripture as if it did?

Being single in the Church is hard enough.

Many in the Church have elevated the nuclear family so much that singles hardly have a space in Christian community anymore. Add on the fact that, if you are a single woman you aren’t considered to be a true “biblical woman,” and walking into a church without a husband feels like walking into a country club wearing jeans:
You shouldn’t be here looking like that.
Don’t you know the rules?
I am a single, educated, working, Christian woman, and the “biblical womanhood” message doesn’t really apply to my life. I simply don’t fit into the patriarchal/complementarian teaching of what a woman should be. I may fit better in the future, if I get married and have kids, but what if my life doesn’t take that path? What if I am unable to have kids? What if I’m poor? What if my future husband leaves me? What if I remain single?

“Gospel” or “American Dream” ?

As I learn more and more about the “biblical manhood and womanhood” movement, I can’t help but think that it sounds more like the American dream than the upside-down Kingdom that Jesus taught about. This patriarchal/complementarian message seems to apply best to people whose lives are “successful” in the 1950s, American, social definition of that word; people with a spouse, 2.5 kids, and a savings account. But when I read scripture, I find no basis for this “biblical womanhood” gospel. What I do find is Jesus saying that it is ok that I don’t fit in:
Because in His Kingdom, the poor are called blessed.
Because in His Kingdom, those without food are filled.
Because in eternity, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage.
The Gospel isn’t supposed to reflect the American dream. It isn’t supposed to apply better to wealthy, healthy, married people with children than to the rest of us.
Our example of Christian living is a poor, single, Jewish, carpenter-turned-preacher, who walked away from the conventional in order to preach the unconventional, who gave up authority in order to be the servant of all, who surrounded Himself with women and men, rich and poor, married and single, educated and uneducated, and who died for them all.
As a single woman in the Christian Church, I have a choice. I could strive to fulfill the patriarchal message of “biblical womanhood.” I could make finding a spouse a priority, put myself under my future husband’s authority, follow his lead, have babies, and stay at home.
Or I could acknowledge that I don’t know the whole of God’s plan for me. I could strive to walk each day by faith. I could stay under Christ’s authority and follow His lead. I could learn to serve God and love others, no matter where my life takes me; as a stay at home mom, as a member of the workplace, as a preacher, as a writer, as a wife, or as a single Christian woman.
I don’t know what God has in store for my life, but I know from reading scripture that there is more than just one example of what it means to be a woman. I know that Jesus defended women who chose to be unconventional. I know that we are never called to be “biblical women” and “biblical men”, but to make disciples of all nations.
Scripture never promises us that we will get married and have kids. It never promises us that we will be wealthy or well fed. But the Good News is that, no matter who you are and no matter what your life looks like, Jesus died for you, and that He rose again!
That is the Gospel I choose to build my life around.
That is the Gospel I choose to tell others.
That is why I do not buy into the “biblical womanhood” gospel, and why I cannot be a part of that movement – because it preaches a “to do list” instead of freedom; because it is gendered when scripture is not; because it demands uniformity instead of celebrating diversity; because it elevates married life over single life; because it doesn’t apply to everyone.
——————————————————————————————–

If you are interested in exploring this topic further, I recommend Rachel Held Evans’ “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” and “Discovering Biblical Equality” by Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee.

*Note: The definition of “biblical womanhood” that is assumed in this blog is the one laid out in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. This post also takes into account the more popular interpretation of Piper and Grudem’s teaching as seen in the “True Woman” movement and the more general “biblical womanhood” movement.

Photo Credit: http://marshill.com/2010/09/02/wife-of-a-noble-character

You might also like:

Book Review: A Year of Biblical Womanhood

Biblical Manhood…or Biblical Jesus?

Are Christians Called to Culture War?

No Middle Ground for Women in the Church

Don’t Be Like Tech Support to Me: On Smashing Categories

LinkWithin

Read More

Fox Business host ponders ‘the female brain’

11/18/13 05:00 PM

By Steve Benen

 

A woman uses a smartphone in New York City,
in this picture taken November 6, 2013.

Mike Segar/Reuters

When Twitter readied its IPO, we learned what many had long assumed: the company’s executives are mostly men. It led Fox Business host Stuart Varney today to ponder the implications of gender diversity and the tech industry.

“Should tech companies feel obligated to put women on the board or to make women top executives just to be politically correct?” Varney asked the Tea Party News Network’s Scottie Hughes on Monday.

“No business should ever be obligated to bring on a woman,” Hughes insisted. “They should want to, but you’re not seeing this in Silicon Valley for some reason.”

“But why is that?” Varney wondered. “It’s a very difficult question to ask because it’s politically incorrect. Is there something about the female brain that is a deterrent for getting on board with tech? Is there?”

Yep, that’s what he said. Media Matters posted the video.

When considering the question of gender diversity and the tech industry, there’s no shortage of possible explanations – from sexism to institutional biases to social expectations and gender norms that go back generations – and the root cause is ultimately going to be the result of more than one factor. The industry would be wise to invest time and energy into understanding why and taking constructive steps to improve the status quo.

That said, those who want to know if there’s “something about the female brain that is a deterrent for getting on board with tech” probably aren’t contributing anything helpful to the conversation.

Read More

Pilgrims, Perkins, and the Pill

By Steve Benen

"The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth" (1914)
By Jennie A. Brownscombe

For reasons that defy political comprehension, Republican opposition to contraception access appears to be intensifying. GOP lawmakers in Congress included anti-birth control demands in their government-shutdown scheme; conservatives continue to fight contraception access in the courts; and as Rachel noted on the show last night, we still see Republican policymakers trying to make it harder to get birth control at the state level.

But it’s not just a policy push; there’s also a rhetorical argument underway. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, for example, made the case yesterday that government should make it easier for employers to block access to contraception – because 17th-century Pilgrims would approve.

“I think this administration has a very narrow view of the First Amendment, that first freedom, the freedom of religion,” Perkins told Fox News’ Elisabeth Hasselbeck during a segment on the birth control mandate and its possible future before the Supreme Court. “I think they see religious freedom as fine with it as long as it’s in the four walls of a church. But if it comes into workplace, the marketplace, if it comes into the public square, it’s not welcome.”

“But the reality is, the founders saw us with an aggressive ability to live our lives according to our faith,” he continued. “I mean, that’s why the Pilgrims came here.”

Katie McDonough joked, “What a great argument, Tony Perkins. Please, let’s base all laws governing women’s access to reproductive healthcare on the ambitions of a group of radical Protestant separatists from the 17th century.” I’d add that if U.S. policy in any way forced Americans to buy contraception they do not want, this would be a very different kind of debate. But that’s simply not what’s at stake here. At issue is a policy that gives American consumers a choice: if you want contraception, you should have access to it as basic, preventive health care. If you don’t want contraception, that’s fine, too. Our “aggressive ability to live our lives according to our faith” remains unaffected. But what about anti-contraception employers who want to dictate their workers’ choices? First, it really shouldn’t be any of your bosses’ business whether or not you want birth control – their freedoms matter, but so do yours. Second, the White House already created a compromise for business owners so that they wouldn’t have to cover contraception costs directly through their insurance plans. Keep these details in mind as the right’s fight against contraception continues apace. UPDATE:

Related video:

Read More

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal

February 18, 2012 By Fred Clark 

 

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.
Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.
Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.
That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.
That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.
At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.
Even more interesting is how thoroughly the record has been rewritten. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Click over to Dr. Norman L. Geisler’s website and you’ll find all the hallmarks of a respected figure in the evangelical establishment. You’ll see that Geisler has taught at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Dallas Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary. You’ll see a promotion for his newest book, Defending Inerrancy, with recommendations from such evangelical stalwarts as Al Mohler and J.I. Packer, as well as a link to an online store offering some of the other dozens of books written by Geisler. And you’ll see a big promo for the anti-abortion movie October Baby, because Geisler is, of course, anti-abortion, just like Mohler and Packer and every other respected figure in the evangelical establishment is and, of course, must be.
But back in the day, Dudley notes, Geisler “argued for the permissibility of abortion in a 1971 book, stating ‘The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.’” That was in Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, published by Zondervan. It’s still in print, kind of, as Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. And now it says something different. Now it’s unambiguously anti-abortion.
I don’t mean to pick on Geisler. He’s no different from Packer or Graham or any other leading evangelical figure who’s been around as long as those guys have. They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. They believe this absolutely, unambiguously, firmly, resolutely and loudly. That’s what they believed 10 years ago, and that’s what they believed 20 years ago.
But it wasn’t what they believed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.
Again, that’s interesting.
I heartily recommend Dudley’s book for his discussion of this switch and the main figures who brought it about — Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, Richard Viguerie, etc. But here I just want to quote one section about the strangeness of this 180-degree turn, and how it caught many evangelicals off-guard:

By the mid-1980s, the evangelical right was so successful with this strategy that the popular evangelical community would no longer tolerate any alternative position. Hence, the outrage over a book titled Brave New People published by InterVarsity Press in 1984. In addition to discussing a number of new biotechnologies, including genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization, the author, an evangelical professor living in New Zealand, also devoted a chapter to abortion. His position was similar to that of most evangelicals 15 years prior. Although he did not believe the fetus was a full-fledged person from conception, he did believe that because it was a potential person, it should be treated with respect. Abortion was only permissible to protect the health and well-being of the mother, to preclude a severely deformed child, and in a few other hard cases, such as rape and incest.
Although this would have been an unremarkable book in 1970, the popular evangelical community was outraged. Evangelical magazines and popular leaders across the country decried the book and its author, and evangelicals picketed outside the publisher’s office and urged booksellers to boycott the publisher. One writer called it a “monstrous book.” … The popular response to the book — despite its endorsements from Carl F.H. Henry, the first editor of Christianity Today, and Lew Smedes, an evangelical professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary — was so overwhelmingly hostile that the book became the first ever withdrawn by InterVarsity Press over the course of nearly half a century in business.
The book was republished a year later by Eerdmans Press. In a preface, the author noted, “The heresy of which I appear to be guilty is that I cannot state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation. This, it seems, is being made a basic affirmation of evangelicalism, from which there can be no deviation. … No longer is it sufficient to hold classic evangelical affirmations on the nature of biblical revelation, the person and work of Christ, or justification by faith alone. In order to be labeled an evangelical, it is now essential to hold a particular view of the status of the embryo and fetus.”

The poor folks at InterVarsity Press, Carl Henry, Lewis Smedes and everyone else who was surprised by the totality of this reversal, by its suddenness and the vehemence with which it came to be an “essential” and “basic affirmation of evangelicalism” quickly got on board with the new rules.
By the time of the 1988 elections, no one any longer spoke sarcastically of “the heresy” of failing to “state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation.” By that time, it was simply viewed as an actual heresy. By the time of the 1988 elections, no one was aghast that a strict anti-abortion position was viewed as of equal — or greater — importance than one’s views of biblical revelation or the work of Christ. That was just a given.
By the time of the 1988 elections, everyone in American evangelicalism was wholly opposed to legal abortion and everyone in American evangelicalism was pretending that this had always been the case.
We have always been at war with Eastasia. Everyone knows that.

Read More

See How These Texas High School Students Slam A Sexist Christian Speaker

See How These Texas High School Students Slam A Sexist Christian Speaker (VIDEO)

Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr. November 16, 2013 3:36 am 

Christian ‘motivational’ speaker Justin Lookadoo got way more than he bargained for when he agreed to speak at Richardson High School in Texas on Wednesday. Does THIS guy look “dateable?” Photo from Justin Lookadoo’s facebook page.

A Christian “motivational” speaker got way more than he bargained for when he agreed to speak at Richardson High School in Texas on Wednesday.

Christian speaker Justin Lookadoo was rejected by students at Richardson High School for being a sexist

As he spoke to an assembly full of students, Justin Lookadoo had no idea that he was being totally rejected and humiliated on Twitter by the very students he was talking to. But that’s exactly what happened.
Most of the students didn’t even want Lookadoo to speak, but the school and the PTA hired him to do so anyway. Their decision came back to bite them in the ass. Lookadoo’s website is called RUDateable.com. The contents of the site were made available to the student population. Unfortunately for Lookadoo, the young men and women didn’t appreciate it. As part of the site, Lookadoo and his co-author Hayley DiMarco created a list of incredibly sexist that harken back to a by-gone era in American history and encourage rape culture.

For instance here’s a few of the so-called “rules” that Lookadoo would like boys and girls to adhere to.

1. “Dateable girls know that guys need to be needed. A Dateable girl isn’t Miss Independent.”
2. “God made guys as leaders. Dateable girls get that and let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. They relax and let guys be guys. Which means they don’t ask him out!!!”
3. “Men of God are wild, not domesticated. Dateable guys aren’t tamed.”
4. “Being a guy is good. Dateable guys know they aren’t as sensitive as girls and that’s okay. They know they are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous and that’s okay. Dateable guys are real men who aren’t afraid to be guys.”
5. “Keep it covered up. Dateable guys know that porn is bad for the spirit and the mind. They keep women covered up.”
6. “Dateable girls know how to shut up.”

Sounds like the kind of list one would find tacked to the wall of an Iranian government building, or in Rick Santorum’s bathroom.

Students rejected Lookadoo’s sexism and humiliated him via Twitter.

But as noted earlier, the students didn’t appreciate Lookadoo’s “rules” and promptly gave him hell throughout his presentation. How did they do this? Through Twitter of course.
Lookadoo had no idea that while he was speaking, students were live-tweeting the assembly. Students criticized Lookadoo’s sexism and created a hashtag that will follow him to any school he goes to in the future. And that tag is #lookadouche. It’s got a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
Here are some images of the student’s tweets via Huffington Post:

Richardson students also bravely confronted Lookadoo and his sexism after he spoke.

Wait, there’s more! After the assembly, students confronted Lookadouche, er, Lookadoo about his sexism and asked him why he tells girls “to get out of abusive relationships instead of telling guys not to be abusive in the first place?” The question surprised Lookadoo. It’s allegedly the first time he’s been challenged by students.
Here’s the video report from KDAF Dallas:

Parents are outraged that Lookadoo was allowed to speak.

According to the Dallas Observer, parents weren’t given all of the details about the assembly or the speaker. One parent, Dr. Jaime Clark-Soles, expressed outrage after learning more after the event had already taken place.
“I am extremely troubled by the fact that Richardson High School would bring in an ‘expert’ speaker who holds the dangerous, misogynistic views that advance a rape culture such as those expressed on his website,” Clark-Soles stated. “I was given no information about an unnamed speaker on an unnamed subject.”
The assembly had actually been postponed, but then school officials had the bright idea to simply make it optional and let the show go on. Hence, the backlash that Richardson High School administrators are currently facing.

Richardson students were smarter than the adults who hired Lookadoo but these kinds of assemblies happen all too often.

Principal Charles Bruner has since apologized to parents, but it’s simply amazing that school officials would allow such a speaker to interact with the students in their care. Clearly, the students at Richardson High School know more about right and wrong than the supposed “adults” who run it. Religious-based sexism is running rampant in this country, especially within conservative circles. It’s the belief that men can do whatever the hell they want while women have to be pregnant and chained to an oven. Such views may have been acceptable in the 1800′s, but they are not in today’s world.
Yet, Christian fundamentalists show up in schools around the country in an effort to push their agenda upon the young minds who are subjected to such events.
In April 2013, students at a high school in Mississippi were forced to listen to what amounted to a Christian sermon led by local church officials. Teachers blocked the exists as the presenters attempted to indoctrinate students into the Christian right-wing agenda. This blatant violation of liberty resulted in outrage and a lawsuit has been filed.
A year earlier, a Christian rock band spoke at an Iowa high school. The band separated the girls and boys into different rooms. The boys learned about drug overdose. The girls, however, were told to not have sex until marriage and to be submissive to their husbands. The band also bashed homosexuality. Parents and students were both equally outraged.

These students rejected slut-shaming in favor of sexist-shaming.

So the question is, why do schools hire such people to speak to their students? Even though these wonderful Richardson High students did their research and had the courage to stand up against the Christian speaker at their school, there are other students out there that are vulnerable to this kind of teaching. It destroys the confidence of young women and enables men to be assholes toward them. Such sexist attitudes are responsible for the culture of rape that has plagued this country for decades. Rather than hiring sexists like Lookadoo, schools should be hiring rape counselors and women’s rights advocates to speak to students. If we want sexism and rape culture to end, we have to strip people like Lookadoo of their speaking platform. In other words, don’t hire them. Thankfully, the students at Richardson High didn’t buy in to his bullshit. Instead, students turned the tables. They rejected slut-shaming in favor of sexist-shaming, and the world is better for it.

Read More

The Gospel Of Ayn Rand

Read More

GOP Conspiracy to Commit Rape

Read More

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.
  

Read More

What’s the matter with motherhood?

What’s the matter with motherhood? 

 

 

E.J. Dionne Jr.

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: November 10

If you’re a conservative strongly opposed to abortion, shouldn’t you want to give all the help you can to women who want to bring their children into the world? In particular, wouldn’t you hope they’d get the proper medical attention during and after their pregnancy?
This would seem a safe assumption, which is why it ought to be astonishing that conservatives are positively obsessed with trashing the Affordable Care Act’s regulation requiring insurance policies to include maternity coverage.

Never mind that we who are lucky enough to have health insurance end up paying to cover conditions we may never suffer ourselves. We all want to avoid cancer, but we don’t begrudge those who do get it when the premiums we pay into our shared insurance pools help them receive care.
Yet critics of Obamacare apparently think there is something particularly odious when a person who might not have a baby pays premiums to assist someone who does. It’s true that men cannot have babies, although it is worth mentioning that they do play a rather important role in their creation. In any event, it is hardly very radical to argue that society is better off when kids are born healthy to healthy moms.
Yet the conservatives’ ire over this issue knows no bounds.
“And so what if a health policy lacks maternity care?” wrote Deroy Murdoch on National Review’s Web site , the italics on that impatient “so what” being his. “Not all women want to bear more children — or any children at all. . . . And how about lesbians who do not want kids, and are highly unlikely to become pregnant accidentally?” It’s touching, actually, to see such concern for lesbians in a conservative publication. Behold the miracles Obamacare already has called forth.
On “Fox News Sunday” this month, host Chris Wallace was very worked up as he pressed Zeke Emanuel, a former health-care adviser to President Obama, over how unfair it is that a single woman with a 24-year-old son would be forced to pay for such coverage. “She’s not going to have any more children,” Wallace said with great certainty. “She’s not going to need maternity services.”
Writing on the FreedomWorks Web site, Julie Borowski declared, unhappily: “Maternity coverage will be mandatory — even for men. . . . Adding coverage for things that some people do not want will only increase insurance costs for everyone.”
Well, not exactly. But you get the drift. Who knew that supporting motherhood was suddenly controversial?
All of which ought to present members of the right-to-life movement with a challenge. In the name of consistency, they need to break with their conservative allies and insist that maternity coverage be included in all health-care plans. Shouldn’t those who want to prevent abortion be in the forefront of making the case that a woman will be far more likely to choose to have her baby if she knows that both she and her child will get regular medical attention?
For too many politicians on the right, what they say about abortion is at odds with what they say about so many other issues. They speak with great concern and compassion for the unborn, and I respect that. You don’t have to support making abortion illegal to think that there are too many of them in the United States.
To their great credit, some right-to-lifers really do follow the logic of their position and support expanded health coverage, food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children feeding program and other measures that help parents after their kids are born. This reflects a consistent ethic.
But many other conservatives would make abortion illegal and leave it at that. Thus we have the spectacle in Texas of right-wing politicians trying to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to obtain an abortion while proudly blocking the state’s participation in the expansion of Medicaid to cover the near-poor. Does it serve the cause of life to keep more than 1.8 million Texans from getting health insurance?
President Obama apologized last week after all the criticisms of what’s happening in the individual insurance market. But where is the outrage over governors and legislators flatly cutting off so many lower-income Americans from access to Medicaid? The Urban Institute estimates that 6 million to 7 million people will be deprived of coverage in states that are refusing to accept the expansion.
If health coverage — yes, including maternity care — isn’t a right-to-life issue, I don’t know what is.

Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Read More