Showing posts with label Roe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roe. Show all posts

July 3, 2022

In Case You Missed It (v96)

It was another slow week for writing here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of the three posts that made it out the door.

Nothing really caught my eye in the classroom, so I didn't make you work for Sunday School or Extra Credit. I did, however, tempt you with another chapter in the Journal of Unpopular Opinions about the SCOTUS decision to give the decision on the legality of abortion to the states. And where many people have been posting RBG memes, I posted an article quoting her saying that Roe was the right decision for the wrong reason. It's not a privacy issue, it's an equality issue. 

There's also a lot about it that's discriminatory; I gave some examples, including these:

  • Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 
  • Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.
  • Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 
The unpopular ones? You can read those in the post. 

I didn't publish again until it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, which was after both Cassidy Hutchinson's in-person testimony before the January 6th Committee, and my home state's gubernatorial primary. 

Here's a bit of wondering on the former, in response to the seeming millions of Trumpworld denizens who've added expertise in all matters judicial to their already-impressive resumes, which include expertise in infectious diseases, immigration, foreign policy, economics, hamberders, golf, taxes, health insurance and more.

Hearsay - or 'Hear-Say' or 'Hear Say' or 'stuff she made up that people didn't say' - you pick - was a big topic in the Interwebs, and it got me wondering.
Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 
So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th CommitteeAnd I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

On the latter, the candidates leading in the polls won, pretty easily, in both the D and R primaries. Which means that Andrew Giuliani, did not win. He did win most of the NYC vote, which is fine - he can go back there and not interrupt me here in that vast expanse called Upstate New York. He did prompt some wondering, though.

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

And, before you know it, I turned 64, it turned July, and it was time to make the TGIF lists. In addition to SCOTUS shenanigans, and insurrection insights, there was some Biden bluster that needed to be added to a list.
President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement  on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.
  • Good week: no one.
  • Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

See you later - I've got a couple of drafts I hope to get out of purgatory, and I'll give Sunday School a shot as well. 

July 1, 2022

TGIF 7/1/22

It's list-making time again; here are a few of the likely suspects for good week or bad ween mention.

Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Mark 'That's Me in My Rusty Trailer, Yes Siree Bob!' Meadows, former president Trump's fourth Chief of Staff, has been attacked practically since she began her testimony under oath before the January 6th Committee. Which, if you've paid any attention over the last several years, usually is a sign a person's doing some damage in Trumpworld.

The attacking, of course, is coming from anonymous sources, or from right-wing commentators, and from the former president himself. I think he actually paid her a compliment: he said he hardly knew her, which means that what she said she observed or heard while working just steps from the door of the Oval Office, or while she was in the tent at the Steal the Damn Election rally, is probably true. 

She cannot be held to account for what she said she was told by others, but surely if they think she lied or misrepresented them, their lawyers can probably figure out how to get hold of Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Liz Cheney, or any other member of the Committee. 

And no, for the folks in denial, the committee hearings are not a trial, the House is not a courtroom, and if you wanted to have the chance to cross-examine someone, maybe your guy Kevin 'I Might Not Be Your Speaker Much Longer' McCarthy hadn't played his cards so badly, you might not be in this situation now. 
  • Good week: Hutchinson, until someone contradicts her under oath.
  • Bad week: Meadows, Trump.
  • Mixed week: Cheney, for her unforced error of hugging Hutchinson after her testimony.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

  • Good week: no one.
  • Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.
Finally, the 2021-2022 term of the Supreme Court has come to an end, with many late decisions that, while not unexpected, sent shockwaves throughout the country. There was joy in Mudville, and there was mud in Joyville. There were some strange crossover decisions, with conservatives joining the liberals, and vice versa which confused a lot of people. Justice Stephen Breyer officially retired, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in, ready to start on the first Monday in October.
  • Good week: the Religious Right, the NRA, and Mitch McConnell, who is probably most responsible for two of Trump's justices being on the Court.
  • Bad week: women, government as we know it, well-regulated militias, and people who don't think religious coercion is a good thing.
  • Mixed week: immigration and climate policies.
On the above, we may not yet know the real impact of this term, what the new "conservative" majority means, and how much further backward, or sideways, we'll go in the 2022-2023 term.

TGIF, everyone.

June 26, 2022

In Case You Missed It (v95)

It seems like last week was extra-long, doesn't it? Or, is it just me? 

I was surprised I managed to get four posts out; if you had asked me how the writing went, I'd have guessed two posts made it out the door - the week was a blur.

Here's a recap of the posts that made the cut. 

Sunday was the day I confronted Father's Day 15. And it's the day I confronted the moodiness that often overwhelms me three months of the year when I feel his absence most dramatically.

I know, now, reflecting on 15 Father's Days without you, that it's not out of my control. It's within my control, within my capabilities, t0 react better to January, the month we lost you; February, the month you were born; and June, the month with a day to celebrate you.

Well, maybe not react better - but to react differently. To focus differently: on what's present, not on what's missing. On the fullness, not the emptiness. To remember, rather than trying to forget. So many ways of saying basically the same thing, right? Darn words...

Darn words, indeed. 

Moving on to your Sunday School lesson, I covered three interviews; here are highlights from Dana Bash's conversation with Sen. Fred Upton (R-MI). One of the ten Republican senators who voted to impeach Donald Trump, Upton is not running for re-election. 

Among the topics they covered was the January 6th Committee hearings; he felt they are making a difference, but he also 

expressed frustration with folks who are talking to the committee now, saying

...where have they been for the last year-and-a-half? Why weren't they saying what they're saying now a year-and-a-half ago, particularly to those of us that actually witnessed what was going on, to back us up a little bit?

The other two interviews? George talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in the This Week classroom, and in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the network's go-to guy for COVID stuff, about the newly authorized vaccine for kids five and under. 

I was going to devote your Extra Credit to Juneteenth, but there was so little discussion on that topic in the classrooms, there wasn't a post. Personally, I think that's sad.

There was Wondering on Wednesday, last week, including this piece about free speech, the NFL, and the horrible Rep. Jim Jordan.

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 
And there, was a piece on Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who's currently #3 in the House Republican leadership. She's more "conservative" than most NY pols. 
I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. 

There was more wondering, too, of course. 

And, almost before I knew it, it was Friday, and it was time for your TGIF entry. I didn't do a standard good week/bad week list; it was more like a future bad week list. Here's a bit of the post.

 If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer... 


You see what's happening, right? Remove one right, and removing the next one is easier. The one after that is easier, and the next is even easier... The question is, where does it end? 

At what point will a government so small it fits in a uterus stop trying to fit into smaller and smaller places? And at what cost?

I'll be back later, with Sunday School, or something else - you just never know.

May 15, 2022

In Case You Missed It (v89)

Back from a quick getaway to Cape Cod, which limited my posting last week. Here's what did make it out, in case you missed anything.

For Sunday School, I sat in on abortion-related discussions with a Republican governor and member of Congress and a Democratic senator and a state AG. Here's a bit of the conversation with the governor, Mississippi's Tate Reeves, who was in the CNN State of the Union classroom with Jake Tapper in the driver's seat.

Part of their conversation focused on the state's dismal statistics on poverty, infant mortality, paid maternity leave, Medicaid expansion and a federal lawsuit over Child Protective Services failures to protect children. Reeves said

It's due in large part to poverty. And so, we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us... when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them... We have got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs for these individuals. But to do that, they have got to improve the quality of their skills. And we as a state are investing heavily in that.

I did a little noodling around and found some additional statistics that Tapper didn't mention, and tossed a question into the air. 

In 2012, Mississippi was 47th in spending on education; in 2022, the state is ranked 46th; it plans on investing $49M in American Rescue Plan funding in education over the next couple of years. And, the state has only the $7.25 federal minimum wage. Notably,

The 2019 Mississippi Minimum Wage Act, or Senate Bill 2150, aimed to gradually increase the Mississippi minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2022, but this proposal died in committee. In 2021, Mississippi lawmakers continue to debate if and how the state should go about increasing the minimum wage. With Mississippi being the last state to not have a law requiring equal pay for women and men, there is still much discussion to be had.

Seems there's a tough row to hoe there... Maybe taking care of those other things first would make sense? 

For your Extra Credit, I tried to find something else that's relevant these days, and stumbled on Margaret Brennan and former AG Eric Holder talking in the Face the Nation classroom about redistricting. Holder's running an organization called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and he's written a book, too.  

They talked about redistricting around the country, and about maps drawn by both the Rs and the Ds. He draws distinctions between what's happened in various states.

I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.

He gave some examples, including Texas, where the Hispanic population increased, giving the states additional Congressional seats, but 

they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

That's not the same as what happened in NY, where the map 

reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So, there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.

And he's not buying the Florida Man's maps, either, which he says are "certainly race conscious." 

They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.

And Alabama's even stranger, with the court saying it's too close to the election to change the maps - which is pretty much the opposite of what's happening in other states.  

It was an interesting discussion, and not just on redistricting.

I did have a little Wondering on Wednesday fun, part of it stemming from things we saw - or didn't see - on the trip to the Cape. 

There was wonderment about making sure trucks can go slowly down steep grades, but not making sure they can go fast up the same hills, and about the seemingly always-closed truck weigh stations, no matter what state we're in, and no matter what state the trucks or their drivers are in. On the latter, I've made a blanket deal with my husband - if we ever see one of these inspection ramps open, I'll give him $20. 

And then it got a little more serious, with wondering on the Senate's failed like it was guaranteed to vote to codify abortion protections, and whether there were any possibilities to work on a passable vote. Not that the Dems were interested in doing that, anyway.

I wondered about Elon Musk (that's become de rigueur, right?) and Twitter, and I wondered about abortion-related protests.

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like what women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

I wonder, I do, about this stuff and more, and about what I'll find this week, when I'm back in the swing of paying attention to things.

I'll see you next for Sunday School.

May 11, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 5/11/22

 


Ready... Set... Wonder!

We'll start with some random wondering today, and see where we end up.

For example, you know how when you're on an interstate or even some other highways, and there's a long, steep hill, and as you near the crest of the hill, there are signs advising truckers to check their brakes and use a different gear as they progress down the hill? Well, did you ever notice any signs as you near the bottom of the same long, steep hill, going in the opposite direction, advising trucks to check their accelerator or shift into a gear that'll help them get up the hill faster?

Me neither. And I wonder why that is?

And speaking of traveling on interstates and other highways, have you ever noticed how often the weigh stations are closed? I'd guess, in all our years of traveling, it's got to be at least 97%  of the time. In fact, they're closed so often we cheer when one's open. And what's got me wondering is, how are we supposed to be protected on the road if no one's inspecting or weighing the trucks? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

On a more serious note, the US Senate's GOP minority, plus one blocked an attempt by the Senate Dems (minus one) to codify the abortion protections in Roe. What's interesting here is that the plus and minus one, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-I'm in it to Win it for Coal!) would have supported a narrower bill. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R- I Can't Believe Kavanaugh Lied to Me, the Bastage!) also would have supported a narrower bill. But the Dems wouldn't have any of it, and so it failed, to advance, 49-51. 

The point of the vote, which was guaranteed to fail, was to get every senator on record for where they stand on abortion in advance of the midterm election this fall. And the wondering I have here is, will it make a bit of difference, in the overall scheme of things? Only time will tell, but I have my doubts - serious doubts. 

What else? Oh, Elon Musk. We must talk about Elon Musk, because it's in the code of conduct somewhere, I know I've read it. Musk says that Twitter's permanent ban on The Former Guy was wrong. Actually, what he said was 

I would reverse the perma-ban. ... Banning Trump from Twitter didn't end Trump's voice, it will amplify it among the right and this is why it's morally wrong and flat out stupid.

At the same time, Musk says he is  very much of the same mind with proposed new standards for content moderation for EU countries. And, at the same time, TFG says he won't go back to Twitter if his account's reinstated; he'd rather stay on his own platform, Whateveritscalled. So, what am I wondering on all of this? Well, will Musk really go along with local content moderation, causing his teams to do massive amounts of work to meet the standards, which, if we adopt anything like that here, will mean that Trump won't be able to tweet anyway, so what's the point of reinstating him? And does anyone believe him when he says he won't go back on Twitter as soon as he has the chance? I sure don't.

Another random thought... how much did it cost, I wonder, for folks to wash the chalk off the sidewalk in front of Sen. Collins' house in Maine? And, I further wonder, will they wash it off again, now that new messages have appeared? 

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like that women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

What are you wondering about tonight?

May 9, 2022

Sunday School 5/8/22

A governor, a state official, a member of Congress, and a US Senator walk in to a classroom - well, four classrooms - to talk about abortion. We'll take them in that order.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves talked with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom. Mississippi has a 'trigger law' that will make all abortions illegal, except in cases of rape or where the mother's life is at risk; currently around 3500 abortions are performed annually. 

Reeves said that his state has "started doing the hard work of what a post-Roe-Mississippi will look like," and that if a majority of the SCOTUS justices are going to overturn Roe

we must understand that, while this is a great victory for the pro-life movement, it is not the end. In fact, it is just the beginning. And the beginning is we must show that being pro-life is not just about being anti-abortion. And so, in our state, that -- the work that is being done goes in two directions.

He said they have to do whatever they can to "make it easier on those moms who may be in unwanted pregnancies" and so, 

...I have signed legislation to provide help and resources and money to the 37 pregnancy resource centers that are located in every region of our state. We want to make sure that we get those individuals, ladies and women and expectant mothers, the help that they need from a health care standpoint, but it's not just about the health care. It's about other resources that are available to those moms.

And, the other piece of making things better while forcing women to bear unwanted children is about "the next phase of the pro-life movement."

And what we're trying to do is focus on making adoption easier in Mississippi. We're focusing on improving our foster care system... we're investing in that system over $100 million to improve technology at the Department of Human Services and at our Child Protection Service (CPS).

Tapper gave some grim Mississippi stats: the highest rates of infant mortality and child poverty in the country; no guaranteed paid maternity leave; a rejection of extended paid post-partum care through Medicaid; and a "long-running federal lawsuit" against CPS. He asked why anyone should believe Reeves saying he's concerned about taking care of these babies, or the women. Reeves said he didn't want to hide his state's problem, he wanted to fix them.

It's due in large part to poverty. And so we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us... when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them... We have got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs for these individuals. But to do that, they have got to improve the quality of their skills. And we as a state are investing heavily in that.

In 2012, Mississippi was 47th in spending on education; in 2022, the state is ranked 46th; it plans on investing $49M in American Rescue Plan funding in education over the next couple of years. And, the state has only the $7.25 federal minimum wage. Notably,

The 2019 Mississippi Minimum Wage Act, or Senate Bill 2150, aimed to gradually increase the Mississippi minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2022, but this proposal died in committee. In 2021, Mississippi lawmakers continue to debate if and how the state should go about increasing the minimum wage. With Mississippi being the last state to not have a law requiring equal pay for women and men, there is still much discussion to be had.

Seems there's a tough row to hoe there... Maybe taking care of those other things first would make sense? 

Down the hall in the Meet the Press classroom, Michigan's AG Dana Nessel talked with What's-his-name. Her state also has had an abortion ban on the books since 1931; the ban would go into effect when Roe is overturned. Nessel has said she won't enforce that law, but she can't prevent the 83 prosecutors in the state from doing so. She called the law "incredibly draconian and strict," saying it has "virtually no exceptions - no exception for rape, for incest, no exception for medical emergencies." 

Not only that, but there's also a law against selling any drug or combination of drugs "designed expressly for the use of females for the purpose of procuring an abortion," with misdemeanor penalties in play. There's a registry requirement (name of purchaser, date of sale, and the name - and residence - of the prescribing physician.) Nessel also agreed with What's-his-name that even when a woman has a miscarriage, doctors may not want to perform the standards procedures to remove the fetus for fear they could end up in prison. 

To protect female Michiganders of child-bearing age, 

... I think each and every eligible voter in the state should be signing on to the you know, Reproductive Rights for All petition, and then coming to the polls and voting on it in November and voting for every pro-choice Democrat up and down the ticket, whether it's for federal office or for state office.

She'll also fully support lawsuits going to her state's Supreme Court arguing that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right in the Michigan Constitution "under our equal protection clause, under our due process clause...even if the US Supreme Court decides otherwise.  

She'd like to see both a constitutional amendment and a favorable decision from the state Supreme Court.

Let's be clear: women in my state, and in states all over America are going to die because of this position. And I heard the Mississippi governor when you interviewed him, he refused to answer the question of whether or not he would sign a bill completely outlawing the use of birth control. That is not in line at all with how Americans see their rights. And politicians do not belong in our doctor's offices. They don't belong in our bedrooms. And they should not be making these kinds of decisions on behalf of the American public and on behalf of women across America.

Moving south down the hall we meet Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who talked at length with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. Grace has been outspoken about being molested at 14 and raped at 16, and that she's pro-life, with exceptions for rape victims. Mace said the fetal heartbeat bill that South Carolina passed has exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, in part because she told her story.

I felt it was really -- a really important story. A story that's often missed and not told because women are afraid. And you can even see in public comments and on social media when I talk about it, the ways in which that I get attacked for telling that story. And one of the things that I think, you know, partially that's missing in this conversation is that, when you have victims... And it's important for -- for some of us to step forward and tell those stories that are often missed in all of this as well.  

She said she would support Congress passing a bill with those protections, but that what people are missing is that if Roe is overturned, 

it's not an all-out federal ban on abortion, but it puts it back into state legislators and into Congress. You saw Congress a couple of years ago ban late- term abortions, for example. And so, what this does is it puts it back to the states, it puts it back into Congress to deal with and figure out.

They talked about polling; Brennan noted national polling shows "a majority of Americans want to kind of keep the status qu0, but "more than two-thirds of Republicans say abortion should be generally available or available with stricter limits" and wondered if it's a mistake to "just paint this as pro-life, pro-choice?" 

Mace (correctly, I believe), pointed out that "some of the polling is murky, too." It depends on "how you ask the question and who's paying for the polling." And, she gave examples of where we're more liberal on this than they are in Europe, and that it seems, based on some polls, that only 25% - 30% of Americans support abortion without restriction.

Finally, we turn to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who stopped by the This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom to talk with Martha Raddatz about some of the political aspects of the Alito Draft. You know, things like "Do you believe there should be a litmus test? The Democrats have several candidates who do not support abortion rights." Klobuchar didn't gasp, which is more than I can say for myself. 

Instead, she talked about the Dems being a party where people recognize the difference between their personal beliefs and the rights of women to make their own personal choice. And, she added,

I think what you see in our party, is a party that is clearly pro-choice. It believes that a woman should have a right to make her own reproductive health decision when it comes to abortion. That is a position of our party and I think you see it in primary (after) primary. That matters to our voters, certainly now more than ever.

Next question? Senate Dems are going to push for a vote to codify abortion rights, "but it's almost certainly going to be blocked..." That being the case, Raddatz wondered about the options abortion rights advocates - and Democrats - have. Klobuchar said

If we are not successful, then we go to the ballot box. We march straight to the ballot box. And the women of this country and the men who stand with them will vote like they've never voted before because this is 50 years of rights in a leaked opinion where Justice Alito is literally not just taking us back to the 1950s, he's taking us back to the 1850s. He actually cites the fact that abortion was criminalized back when the 14th Amendment was adopted. And so this is a really extreme thought.

And, Raddatz asked if abortion rights should be "the principal issue for Democrats at the ballot box." The senator said "it will not be the only issue." She mentioned the economy, the president's leadership vis-à-vis Ukraine, preserving our democracy, and the extremism the Rs are showing as issues that matter to voters.

But, clearly, when... especially a new generation of women are looking at this and saying, wait a minute, my mom and my grandma are going to have more rights than I'm going to have going forward? I'm going to have to look at a patchwork of states laws with 15 of them already looking to ban medication abortion, which is what people do online and things like that. They're going to look at this and say, what world do I live in?

So, yes, "it's going to be a major issue going into the fall." 

And the final question from Raddatz: in states where abortion would "almost immediately be banned" if Roe is overturned, polling shows most adults "believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases." Doesn't that mean the laws reflect what the people want?

Klobuchar said, like many people, she thinks 

why should a woman in Texas have different rights and a different future and a different ability to make decisions about her body and her reproductive choices than a woman in Minnesota?

She asked, rhetorically, about putting yourself in someone else's shoes, no matter how hard it might be, and thinking about "a waitress in the middle of Texas who has to make a decision...she's going to quit her job to get on a bus and go 250 miles" to have an abortion.

Those are the kinds of things that are going to be happening. It's especially going to fall on the backs of poor women, women of color. This is just wrong. And that is part of why Justice Blackmun, who is a Republican-appointed justice no less, made that thoughtful decision, looked at the Constitution and said, the right to privacy includes the right for women to make a choice like this.

Four people, all coming from different places, talking about one of the most contention issues we have. 

See you around campus. 

May 8, 2022

In Case You Missed it (v88)

I'm not sure why I was so busy last week, but I only managed three posts. Here's your week in review, in case you missed anything. And if I missed anything important last week, someone give me a heads up? Thanks!

For Sunday School, I dropped by three classrooms: Meet the Press, where Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) talked about COVID funding; Face the Nation, where Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) talked about the January 6th Committee, and State of the Union, where Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) talked about all kinds of fun stuff. Here's a bit of that. 

He said that cancelling student debt is a bad idea. Bash asked if doing that wouldn't be helpful to Arkansas families that are hurting now, even though he said his state is generally doing OK. 

Well, sure it'd be helpful to them. It would be helpful to cancel rent for them. It'd be helpful to pay all their utility bills. It'd be helpful to help on mortgage payments. But the question is, what is the right solution?

He also said that he's in the game for 2024, no matter what a certain orange-haired menace decides to do.

That's why he went to New Hampshire, and why he plans on being engaged this year in the national conversation, not just on the economy but on border security, going after the cartels, helping the states, and so on. And, what Trump does or doesn't do has no impact on Hutchinson. 

I have made it clear I think we ought to have a different direction in the future. And so, I'm not aligned with him on some of his endorsements, but also the direction he wants to take our country. I think he did a lot of good things for our country, but we need to go in a different direction. And so, that's not a factor in my decision-making process.

Also in the classrooms on Sunday? Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. His interview with  with Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom, and one with What's-his-name on Meet the Press were featured in your Extra Credit. I wasn't that impressed, but I would have to give him an A+ for consistency, that's for sure.

He talked a lot about what's going to happen when Title 42 ends later this month, and he also talked about the latest free-for-the-asking talking point the Dems have put on the silver platter for the Republicans. I'm talking about the Disinformation Governance Board, or, as the GOP is calling it, The Ministry of Truth. Bash asked exactly what it'll do, and specifically if it will be monitoring Americans. On the latter, he said it will not be monitoring us, as it has no "operational authority or capability."

And so, what will it do? Well, after saying that they "probably could have done a better job of communicating" about the program, he delved into the whys and the whats.

So, what it does is, it works to ensure that the way in which we address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence are addressed without infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy. And the board, this working group, internal working group, will draw from best practices and communicate those best practices to the operators, because the board does not have operational authority.

...What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years.

And, in response to What's-his-name's same general question?

So, we've set up essentially an internal working group. And I must say that we could have done a better job in communicating what it is and what it isn't. It's a working group that takes best practices with respect to our work that has been going on for years. Best practices on how to do that work, the work of addressing disinformation that presents a threat to the security of our country, how to do that work in a way that does not infringe on free speech, does not infringe on civil liberties. So, this working group takes best practices and disseminates those best practices to the operators.

He was bad; the interviewers were worse, I think, focusing on the stuff that doesn't matter much at all, other than for sound bites, and not asking hard questions about what the hell the administration's going to do about immigration - not because of the midterms, but because we need to do something about immigration... Of course, if anyone really cared about that, other than for the midterms, we'd be doing something. So a pox on all their House and Senate seats, or something.

Finally, I was Wondering on Wednesday about the leak heard 'round the world - and for a change, it wasn't anyone's January 6th texts. 

No, I'm talking about the Alito Draft, the "it probably shouldn't be released, except that we have to make sure the conservative justices toe the line, so we'll leak it and clutch our deeply rooted pearls and everyone on the Right will blame a clerk for one of the liberal justices, and that'll work for us too, so what the heck, drop the darn thing and let's sit back and watch" bombshell opinion eviscerating Roe and Casey and all of the other abortion-related cases of the past nearly 50 years.

I offered two quickly conceived and silly brain dumps of how it got out, because, as we know, wonderment and entertainment begin at conception and, on a more serious note, wondered

What else will fall? If the standard is things that are deeply rooted in our history, clearly additional attacks on voting rights will be affirmed, and encouraged.

Interracial marriage, and marriage equality, of course, are obvious targets. but there's more.

Another issue about which we can wonder? Can any of the alleged privacy protections in the Constitution actually protect women who want to use contraception? I mean, think about it. 

Is it really beyond our wildest imagination, I wonder, for some red-state pseudo-religious legislature to decide that what we need more than anything is more cute white babies, and act to make sure that happens by restricting access to contraception?

I know Alito said, in the draft, that this was just about abortion, but we know we can trust that about as far as we can throw him, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett.

That's all I had for you - hope your week was otherwise full. 

Happy Sunday, and Happy Mother's Day to those who celebrate. 

May 4, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 5/4/22


Ready... Set... Wonder!

If you're like many folks, no matter where you stand on the opinion outlined in the Alito draft suggesting that Roe v. Wade is being overturned, you're probably wondering who leaked the darn thing in the first place. 

Many on the right assumed it was a liberal justice's clerk, trying to rally the troops and get folks riled up to either (a) change the presumed outcome of the decision, or (b) change the presumed outcome of the midterm elections. And, of course, they did the whole "we're the victims here" because someone stole their thunder, or something. 

Me? I wondered which of the justices leaked the draft. My first guess? 

I think it was Ginni Thomas in Clarence's office with a spatula who flipped the Roe-killing draft out the window into the hands of a reporter who had been snooping around trying to figure out if there was any medical reason for Clarence to have spent a week in the hospital at the exact time that Ginni was in the headlines because of her life-and-death January 6th text messages to Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the guy who wants us to believe his permanent address is a rusty old trailer on top of Scaly Mountain.
That the reporter happened to be there with an open catcher's mitt is pure chance.
And now we'll have to wait to see how long before Clarence goes back into the hospital - or until Ginni goes into the hospital, leaving Clarence to text his CPAC friends for some suitably conservative recipes to cook while Ginni is indisposed.

And my second? 

Or, maybe it was Kavanaugh, by the keg, who used the draft to mop up a mess created by his leaving the tap open when he went to check his calendar from 6th grade to see whether he needed go to the gym on the first Monday in May.
Finding out that was not the case - it's the first Monday in October that's relevant now - he over-served himself, and tossed the damp draft and a bunch of Red Solo cups into the trash on his way to bed, where soon dreams of Renate danced in his head. He might have even sung the Renate Alumni fight song in his stupor, but I can't say for sure.
And that's where the draft was found - in the dumpster with the cups and their residual draft -by the reporter from Politico, who had a nose for news - and beer - and sniffed out the story of the year.

If you had to wonder, who do you think let the draft see the light of day? And, perhaps more importantly, why?

Other wondering on this week's big story? What else will fall? If the standard is things that are deeply rooted in our history, clearly additional attacks on voting rights will be affirmed, and encouraged.

Inter-racial marriage? It's hard to imagine that surviving, right? Consider our 'deeply rooted history' of enslaving blacks to do the work that was beneath us, and how young black girls became the sexual targets of their white overseers. And who could forget the murder of blacks for the offense of looking at white women, or speaking to them? How could we possibly allow them to marry into our families, with this deeply rooted history of ours?

Similarly, I wonder how long before we say that marriage equality has no deep roots in America? Any bets on that? And, I wonder, do people know how many states still have laws on the books banning and/or refusing to recognize same-sex marriage? Sure, they're being ignored since the Obergefell decision, but they're still on the books.

Another issue about which we can wonder? Can any of the alleged privacy protections in the Constitution actually protect women who want to use contraception? I mean, think about it. 

Is it really beyond our wildest imagination, I wonder, for some red-state pseudo-religious legislature to decide that what we need more than anything is more cute white babies, and act to make sure that happens by restricting access to contraception?

I know Alito said, in the draft, that this was just about abortion, but we know we can trust that about as far as we can throw him, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett.

What's got you wondering tonight?