[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that the party will alienate young voters and women by voting for an antiabortion bill coming to the House floor next week, on the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

In a closed-door open-mic session of House Republicans, Rep. Renee Ellmers spoke out against bringing up the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortion after 20 weeks, telling the conference that she believes the bill will cost the party support among millennials, according to several sources in the room.

"I have urged leadership to reconsider bringing it up next week.… We got into trouble last year, and I think we need to be careful again; we need to be smart about how we're moving forward," Ellmers said in an interview. "The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn't be on an issue where we know that millennials—social issues just aren't as important [to them]."


The frustration comes as the GOP retreat on Thursday night hosted demographer Neil Howe, the man credited with coining the term "millennial," and as the party has been discussing how to appeal to young voters.

Other members voiced concerns in the meeting that the bill, which passed the House last year, distracts from the GOP's stated message of creating jobs and spurring economic growth.


Dear GOP,
Please do two things. A-listen to Rep. Ellmers and B-See where it says that the GOP's state message of creating jobs and spurring economic growth? Yeah, what happened to that agenda? Going after healthcare a hundred billion times and reproductive rights wasn't part of the plan. If I had been a republican that voted for you economically, I would be miffed right now that you're doing something exactly the opposite of what you said you would do.

Sincerely,
Me

Cross posted to [livejournal.com profile] we_r_the_middle
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From Ultraviolent:


Last week's Supreme Court decision gutting access to birth control was devastating -- but the good news is that something can be done.

The Not My Bosses' Business Bill was just introduced in Congress to reverse the Supreme Court's decision gutting women's right to birth control coverage -- and it has HUGE momentum. The bill states that federal laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cited by the Supreme Court, do not allow employers to refuse to cover health care -- including birth control -- guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. It would ensure women at corporations like Hobby Lobby continue to have critical access to affordable birth control.

If we shine a spotlight on this bill and bring it to a vote, we'll know which members of Congress support affordable access to birth control -- and which side with 5 men on the Supreme Court.

Tell the Senate:
"Pass the bill to reverse the Supreme Court's birth control decision."
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
The Supreme Court has been making horrible decisions lately. Frankly, I hope these decisions bite them and the supporters in the ass.

First one: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics.

“A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a majority opinion that was joined by the court’s four-member liberal wing.

The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

What is so hillarious is that the Supreme Court has a huge buffer zone itself. If you ever protested in front of the Supreme Court before, you aren't allowed to be on the steps. You have to be off the steps when you protest. I mean...it has a 35 foot buffer zone that this clinic was trying to get. Yet, I haven't heard any one tried to get this buffer zone in front of the Supreme Court taken down because it violated their freedom of speech.

More personal thought )

Then the second, more fucked up one (imo): WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. It was, a dissent said, “a decision of startling breadth.”

The 5-to-4 ruling, which applied to two companies owned by Christian families, opened the door to many challenges from corporations over laws that they claim violate their religious liberty.

I really hope this ruling comes back and bites supporters in the ass. It would suck for these people if they had relatives denied certain medical services like blood transfusions and meds for mental illness because it went against their relatives' employer's beliefs. Worst, if their relative or friend's employer was against any medical intervention. An employer has no place in their employee's health, whether if it's reproductive or general. However, I hope this costs the republicans their power in the House between this election and the one in 2016.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From NOW:
All women have the right to have the children they want, raise the children they have, and plan their families through safe, legal abortion, and access to contraception, and pre and post-natal care. For those rights to become a reality, women in all communities need to have the resources and the economic, social and political power to make health decisions about their bodies, their sexuality and their reproduction.

Sign the NOW Pledge to protect reproductive rights
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Catholic, anti-abortion Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad could soon find himself in an uncomfortable position: He may have to sign off on payments for every Medicaid-funded abortion in his state.

A bill requiring that authorization is sitting on the Republican's desk after moving through the statehouse. If Branstad signs it, Iowa is likely to be the only state that would have the unique requirement.

Iowa's Medicaid program covers a small number of abortions each year due to rape, incest, fetal deformity or to protect a mother's life. Currently handled by the state Department of Human Services, the Medicaid reimbursements cost the state less than $20,000 last fiscal year.

The change in who approves the payment is a result of Iowa's unusual political landscape. It is one of only three states with a divided legislature, with Republicans controlling the state House and Democrats the Senate. Blocking funds for Medicaid abortions has been a priority for some conservative Iowa Republicans in recent years, but past efforts to change the rules — as well as make some of the more sweeping abortion restrictions seen in other GOP-majority states —have failed to advance in the Senate.

But a split legislature can lead to unusual deal-making. In this case, the abortion plan was negotiated as part of a complex health care bill that included accepting additional federal dollars to expand low-income health care in the state — a key priority for Democrats. Republicans hope by putting the decision into the hands of an anti-abortion governor, fewer public dollars will be spent on abortions. Democrats say they expect no changes, but abortion rights advocates fear it could restrict access to abortions for poor women.


More )
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Sign the Bill of Reproductive Rights if:
-You want everyone to have the right to make their own decisions about their own reproductive health and future, free from intrusion or coercion by any goverment, group, or individual

-You want everyone to have the right to a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive healthcare. This includes pregnancy care, preventive services, contraception, abortion, fertility treatment, and accurate information about all of the above.

-You want everyone to have the right to be free from discrimination in access to reproductive healthcare or on the basis of our reproductive decisions.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan launched a broad assault on President Barack Obama in a speech to social conservatives on Friday, accusing him of pandering to extremists on abortion and emboldening U.S. enemies in the Middle East.

The Wisconsin congressman told the Values Voters Summit, an annual gathering of religious and conservative activists, that Obama had led a "reckless expansion of federal power" and waged economic class warfare.

Declaring himself "a values voter, too," Ryan mocked Democrats for their convention fight over the mention of God in the platform and questioned claims by Obama that "we're all in this together."

"How hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born," Ryan said.

"Giving up any further pretense of moderation on this issue, and in complete disregard of millions of pro-life Democrats, President Obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party," he said.

Of course Obama would choose to support those who favor reproductive rights Mr. Ryan. Didn't you miss the memo that supporting abortion, contraception, and sex ed are part of the Democrat plat form? However, considering there's only two parties to choose from in the US (that count, unfortunately), the pro-life Democrats are shit out of luck like the republicans are in your party that are pro-choice and will be until the US drops the two partied system.

Also, I'm glad he supports "the extremists" of his party regarding abortion because at least I know Obama doesn't want a woman to die if she suffers a complication during pregnancy....unlike you, Mr. Ryan. And you say you want to protect those before they are born? Well, good luck if you support a bill that will allow a woman to die...taking the fetus along with it. Who's pro-life now? Certainly not you or any one that is against abortion to save a woman's life as well as contraception.
Cross posted to [livejournal.com profile] we_r_the_middle
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
I originally got this from here, who they got the original article from National Catholic Reporter...an independent resource.

Nicholas P. Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer as well as a professor, including the former dean, at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. Here's a snippet of what he said in the article:
For example, Obama's Affordable Care Act does not pay for abortions. In Massachusetts, Romney's health care law does. Obama favors, and included in the Affordable Care Act, $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion. This support will make abortions much less likely, since most abortions are economic. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's budget, which will cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the federal plans that support poor women. The undoubted effect: The number of abortions in the United States will increase. On these facts, Obama is much more pro-life than Romney. (yes, you read that right)

More reasons why he thinks Obama is more pro-life than Romney )

Profile

prochoice_maryland: (Default)
Pro-Choice Maryland

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 12:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios