War on Women

[O Really]

Yeah - well, I'm not a media basher by habit, but every once in a while something comes up that makes me wonder "why the fuck are they not reporting that what guy X said is total bullshit? Another one is Meadows trying to run a coup on Boner. It gets reported as if he could actually pull it off. A cursory look at the chances go like this:
1. He can introduce a resolution, and mark it "privileged" so that it can be taken to a vote.
2. But to get to a vote, Meadows must be "called" from the Chair by, guess who - Boner or someone he delegates to hold the gavel.
3. Boner, as a matter of protocol, asks Meadows why he wants to be called.
4. Meadows has to answer, "to get a vote to kick your ass out" so Boner does not call (recognize) him.
5. But suppose he does, Meadows still has to count on all Dems and 29 Republicans to vote out Boner. Why would the Dems want to vote out Boner in favor of somebody bound to be worse?
6. But suppose they did. The primary parts of what Meadows and friends want to do is unconstitutional anyway, or would still require a majority of House members to pass weird stuff.
7. But suppose they did. Weird stuff has to get through the Senate. Nogonnahappen, most of the time.
8. But suppose it did. Obama has to sign it or it goes back, requiring a super-majority.

So why do you get articles just following Meadows line of ummm, "thought"? Why not give it the ridicule it deserves? It doesn't take turning a news article into an editorial to report accurately, "this is an idea that has no chance whatsoever of working, and it's a total waste of time and money, and here's why."

There are many other examples.

[Vrede too]

Yeah - well, I'm not a media basher by habit ...

... Why not give it the ridicule it deserves? It doesn't take turning a news article into an editorial to report accurately, "this is an idea that has no chance whatsoever of working, and it's a total waste of time and money, and here's why." ...

I am, often linking articles from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). They frequently discuss how the journalism principle of "balance" routinely leads to presenting absolute falsehoods uncritically or, as you discuss, not ridiculing wingnutty ideas.

[O Really]

Yes, FAIR is good, but they're somewhat of a voice in the wilderness when compared to, say, USA Today or the major news wires. I understand the value of "balance" but that doesn't mean you give equal weight to fact and fiction. If you have differing opinions on the same set of facts, it's reasonable to report both (or all) sides. So if the question is "what to do about the street homeless" then you report that some say give them apartments, some say put them in jail, and some say shoot them. But if someone says "90% of all crimes are done by homeless Mexicans" then the person writing the article should point out, with appropriate cites, that that is bullshit. But that's not what happens. Somebody says something stupid and it's reported similarly to what somebody says that makes sense. If Trump wants to build a wall, fine - report what he said. But it would not turn into an editorial to point out the factual folly of that idea, such as possible cost, time to build, and that most illegals don't get here by crossing the Rio Grande anyway.

[Vrede too]

Good timing, O Really.

Graham: ‘I’m really sick of hearing’ Republicans lie to their base

But then, Graham 0.3%.

[O Really]

Good timing, O Really.

Graham: ‘I’m really sick of hearing’ Republicans lie to their base

But then, Graham 0.3%.

He says... while incorporating the Planned Parenthood ummm "edited" vids into his comment.

[Vrede too]

Tell Apple: Don't censor women's health

UPDATE: In less than 24 hours, Apple has reversed course--Hinder, the app calling out anti-women politicians, will be available to download soon!

[Vrede too]

How bad did the debate over Planned Parenthood just get? This bad, in Raleigh

This thought was actually expressed today on the floor of the N.C. House:

WRAL Gov't Coverage
@NCCapitol

Rep. Pittman just accused Planned Parenthood of giving out "contraceptives that don't work" to increase abortion business. Wow. #ncga #wral
3:28 PM - 28 Sep 2015

That’s Rep. Larry Pittman of Cabarrus County. The legislation he was debating was House Bill 297, which would ban the sale of fetal body parts after abortion.

That, by the way, is already illegal.

The bill also would require the consent of a woman before fetal tissue is donated for research. That’s also already the law.

All of which might lead you to believe that something else is going on. That something else could be the third thing HB 297 does, albeit more quietly: It bans any state family planning money going to an organization that performs abortions, even if that money is going toward other purposes, such as pregnancy prevention or education.

That’s a provision directed at Planned Parenthood, of course. It’s bad policy, because if you want to prevent abortions, which are legal, the best course to do so is to prevent pregnancies. Planned Parenthood’s programs do so.

HB 297 passed 72-29 and was sent to Gov. Pat McCrory.

Planned Parenthood has long been a target of conservatives, especially recently, thanks to a campaign of distorted videos showing medical professionals talking about fetal tissue. Then there’s the claim from Republican candidate Carly Fiorina of a video that shows a fully formed fetus moving on a table as a doctor talks about harvesting its brain.

That video is fiction, even according to people who want to believe it.

But as we learned again today in Raleigh, there are few limits to what people will believe.

[O Really]

As I said above, I found it undoable to oust Boner. I'll stand by that, but I didn't consider he'd just quit. The world is getting stranger and stranger.

[Vrede too]

GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty
Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says he's found no evidence of wrongdoing by the family planning provider.

Republicans are such gullible idiots!

[JTA]

GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty
Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says he's found no evidence of wrongdoing by the family planning provider.

Republicans are such gullible idiots!

Abortions should not only be legal, they should be mandatory.

[Vrede too]

The "moderate" choice for SotH:



Note the sheer hypocrisy in #5.

[O Really]

<sigh> I really don't like Paul Ryan. I would never consider him "moderate" and the fact that he is even presented as a pretend-moderate demonstrates what a bunch of loons the current crop of Republicans are. And I don't know who "ultraviolet" is, but I'm guessing I'd agree with most of their positions. However, IMNVHO, distorting facts that would be strong enough when presented accurately only makes us look like Republicans.

Voting for "Lily Ledbetter" really was only tangentially related to a belief women should be paid equally for the same work. It's a fairly technical piece of legislation that changes the point of occurrence from which time to the deadline is counted for a claim of discrimination. Used to be if a woman got hired at X dollars and a similarly situated male got Y, that was considered the discriminatory event. If she didn't file a discrimination charge within 180 days, she ran out of time. Following Lily Ledbetter, it is considered that each paycheck received resulting from the original discrimination is another occurrence, re-starting a new 180 days. I would have voted for it, but there are some pretty good reasons not to, not the least of which is that it is very cumbersome to enforce or defend. Ryan may very well be against pay parity, but a vote against Lily Ledbetter doesn't show it very clearly.

Ryan may *really* want to get rid of Planned Parenthood, but all the "de-funding" whoop-de-do is smoke and mirrors. Even with what they could do to "de-fund", it would not put Planned Parenthood out of business or cause "millions of women without access." Would be a significant inconvenience for them, but the amount "de-funded" would be about $132 mil, or about 10% of its $1.3 bil budget.

Ryan may or may not want to ban birth control, but that isn't what his idiotic bill said. Ryan and "legitimate rape" Akin sponsored a bill giving "personhood" to fetuses, from which a logical deduction could lead to bans on contraception. But I'd rather demonstrate what an idiot he is for introducing a bill he knows or should know is absolutely unconstitutional, just to toss red meat to the rubes.

On the family time, however - total hypocrite. Except he wasn't asking for a law allowing him time off. He just asked for a particular family-friendly schedule or else he wouldn't take the job - something any employee anywhere could theoretically do.

[Vrede too]

I hear you, but I think each element still contributes to the big picture, "distorting facts" seems a little excessive and yes, any employee anywhere could theoretically ask for a particular family-friendly schedule, but Ryan will get it if he's chosen whereas he did twice vote against federal employees being guaranteed it.

I don't know a lot about UltraViolet, but so far I like their uncompromising, action oriented, holistic style.

[O Really]

Would you prefer "blurring facts", "engaging in hyperbole", or presenting statements not supported by the evidence? If you make a statement that is true, but then present supporting evidence that is not related or accurate, you've weakened your argument. If you exaggerate the effect of your true statement, it becomes less believable. Anyway, I wish ultraviolet well in their efforts, whoever they are. What's a little hyperbole among friends?

[Vrede too]

Did you look at the sources and citations?

1) Taken in the context of his track record and that of the "bunch of loons the current crop of Republicans are", it's not a huge leap unless there's very convincing evidence that he has otherwise supported equal pay.

3) Have you actually run the figures while taking into account the secondary funding effects of a federal ban and the encouragement it would give the misogynists?

... A Romney-Ryan administration would support anti-abortion efforts like “personhood” amendments, totally defund Planned Parenthood and all federally-funded family planning services, and use government to sanction religious opposition to birth control. Their vision is a threat to women’s rights, public health and the economic security of the vast majority of people in the United States — all for the benefit of the most fortunate among us....

4)

... He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization....

I think you're splitting hairs a bit. A decent case can be made for all of the poster's assertions, even if the poster itself is not sufficient documentation since it's, well, a poster.

[O Really]

I think you're splitting hairs a bit. ...

Happily so. Generally both for fun and profit.

[Vrede too]

... secondary funding effects of a federal ban and the encouragement it would give the misogynists? ...

For example,

Texas Authorities Raid Multiple Planned Parenthood Locations, Seeking Patient Records

... The move to defund and, if the state has its way, ultimately shut down Planned Parenthood clincs across Texas comes as Texas Governor Greg Abbott continues a mission spurred by the falsified Planned Parenthood videos that continue to be debunked time and time again.

[O Really]

Yeah, well, the word "texas" is now slang for "crazy" in Norway (and undoubtedly much of the US, too.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tex ... 6a900f69bc

[Vrede too]

There have now been 5 attacks on PPs since July.

Planned Parenthood office in Claremont heavily damaged by intruder

Tell the DOJ: Investigate the terrorist attacks on Planned Parenthood

[Vrede too]

Federal court rules Wisconsin abortion law unconstitutional

Fiscally irresponsible misogynists lose yet again.

For reference during those holiday family gatherings:

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life. (Exodus 21:22-23)
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old. (Leviticus 27:6)
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons. (Numbers 3:15-16)
God sometimes approves of killing fetuses. (Numbers 31:15-17, Hosea 9:14, Hosea 9:16, Hosea 13:16)
God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents. (2 Samuel 12:14)
God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives. (Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28)
God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women. (Genesis 38:24)

Caveat: Copied, I haven't verified yet.