Mr. Narrow-Minded!

Rick Santorum does not believe in contraception.  Rick Santorum does not believe in abortion.  Rick Santorum does not believe in insurance fully paying for prenatal tests like amniocentesis which can determine fetal problems in the womb.  Rick Santorum does however, believe in medically induced miscarriage.

Do you know what that means?

That means that Rick Santorum doesn't have to take contraception, get an abortion or any prenatal tests.  It means that his wife's medically induced miscarriage in 1996, was supported by Rick Santorum. It also means that a medically induced miscarriage, by any other name, is an abortion.

In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complications while she attempted to go full term.

Two days later, she became severely feverish. She was rushed to the hospital and placed on intravenous antibiotics, which reduced her fever and bought her some time, but could not eliminate the source of infection: the fetus.

Karen was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor began as a result of the antibiotics and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter. Once the Santorums had agreed to the use of antibiotics, they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would not survive outside the womb.[...]

The procedure, whereby labor is induced to remove the fetus before it has any chance of surviving on its own, is considered by Mr. Santorum to be a ‘partial-birth abortion’, and he is correct. He also personally authorized one to save his wife, whom he loves.

But Rick Santorum is now a candidate in the Republican Tea Party primary for the presidency.  He is taking a very strong stand against every other woman's rights to contraception, medically induced miscarriages/abortion, partial-birth abortion and prenatal tests. Now, Santorum doesn't  care if the reason for an abortion is incest, rape or to save the life of the mother. His opinions stem from his belief that these rights were not God given and therefore cannot be given at all. That means he wants to take them away. This is what Rick Santorum has to say on these issues:

ABORTION: I have my own views on these things. They are deeply held beliefs. But not everything that I disagree with morally should the government be involved in. Only where there are real consequences to society or to the rights of individuals do I feel a need to speak out and that's why I do on the issue of abortion, because we have another person involved in the decision. But in the issue of contraception that's certainly not the case.

CONTRACEPTION: The whole conception of sexual liberation, sexual freedom had had its downside — and certainly birth control is part of that — with dramatic increase in sexually transmitted diseases, dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births and dramatic increase in the number of abortions."

PRENATAL TESTS: One of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America. Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

Rick Santorum is a political operative who sees the issues from his own religious world view. His message is now being championed by his followers and broadcast by the media without in depth scrutiny.  However, when scrutiny is applied, what is left is misinformation, falsehoods and arrogance. The TRUTH:

ABORTION:  This is a difficult decision that is made by a woman who is pregnant. She does have the right to consult others but the decision to abort or have a "medically induce abortion" is hers and hers alone.   When Santorum says there is "another person involved" he is referring to what he believes is a living being inside the mother.  That is his belief and therefore, he should not have an abortion and he alone can decide not to have an abortion, if he ever finds himself pregnant!


CONTRACEPTION: Santorum has a right to his belief system. But Rick Santorum also needs to understand the facts about contraception.  It does not dramatically increase "sexually transmitted diseases." It does not dramatically increase "out-of-wedlock births". It does not dramatically increase the number of "abortions." If properly used, contraception does just the opposite. Maybe Mr. Santorum needs some instruction on the use of contraception!

PRENATAL TESTS:  Prenatal testing does NOT end up "in more abortions."  Santorum's statement implies that the prenatal testing is the 'cause' for the abortion.  In reality it is just the opposite. Prenatal testing is done for a variety of reasons regarding the health and safety of both mother and child.  But many women who have prenatal tests, have already made the decision that they would terminate the pregnancy if the test determined that the fetus had a genetic fetal problem. Many women who would not have an abortion, no matter what the test result showed, might therefore decide not to even have prenatal testing. The test does not determine the decision.  The choice is the mothers!  

Mr. Santorum's conclusions belittle the difficult and painful decision of the mother.  He should know.  His  wife, Karen, was in that situation.  She made the decision by consulting with her husband, as she had a right to do. It was their decision.  No one second guessed them.  No one tried to take away that right. Rick Santorum is now working very hard to take away every woman's right to these individual medical choices.  

So who would vote for him?

The Phony Arguments

 

Garry Wills takes a realistic look at the Republican Tea Party in hi s article Contraception's Con Men.

By a revolting combination of con men and fanatics, the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office. Take the controversy over contraceptives. American bishops at first opposed having hospitals and schools connected with them pay employee health costs for contraceptives. But when the President backed off from that requirement, saying insurance companies can pay the costs, the bishops doubled down and said no one should have to pay for anything so evil as contraception. Some Republicans are using the bishops’ stupidity to hurt the supposed "moderate" candidate Mitt Romney, giving a temporary leg up to the faux naïf Rick Santorum; others are attacking Barack Obama as an "enemy of religion."

Pusillanimous Catholics - Mark Shields and even, to a degree, the admirable E. J. Dionne - are saying that Catholics understandably resent an attack on "their" doctrine (even though they do not personally believe in it). Omnidirectional bad-faith arguments have clustered around what is falsely presented as a defense of "faith." The layers of ignorance are equaled only by the willingness of people "of all faiths" to use them for their own purposes. Consider just some of the layers:

The Phony Religious Freedom Argument 

The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a "conscience exemption." It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.

Contraception is not even a religious matter. Nowhere in Scripture or the Creed is it forbidden. Catholic authorities themselves say it is a matter of "natural law," over which natural reason is the arbiter - and natural reason, even for Catholics, has long rejected the idea that contraception is evil. More of that later; what matters here is that contraception is legal, ordinary, and accepted even by most Catholics. To say that others must accept what Catholics themselves do not is bad enough. To say that President Obama is "trying to destroy the Catholic Church" if he does not accept it is much, much worse.

To disagree with Catholic bishops is called "disrespectful," an offense against religious freedom. That is why there is a kind of taboo against bringing up Romney’s Mormonism. But if Romney sincerely believed in polygamy on religious grounds, as his grandfather did, he would not even be considered for the presidency - any more than a sincere Christian Scientist, who rejects the use of medicine, would be voted for to handle public health care. Yet a man who believes that contraception is evil is an aberrant from the American norm, like the polygamist or the faith healer.

The Phony Contraception Argument

The opposition to contraception has, as I said, no scriptural basis. Pope Pius XI once said that it did, citing in his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) the condemnation of Onan for "spilling his seed" rather than impregnating a woman (Genesis 38.9). But later popes had to back off from this claim, since everyone agrees now that Onan’s sin was not carrying out his duty to give his brother an heir (Deuteronomy 25.5-6). Then the "natural law" was fallen back on, saying that the natural purpose of sex is procreation, and any use of it for other purposes is "unnatural." But a primary natural purpose does not of necessity exclude ancillary advantages. The purpose of eating is to sustain life, but that does not make all eating that is not necessary to subsistence "unnatural." One can eat, beyond the bare minimum to exist, to express fellowship, as one can have sex, beyond the begetting of a child with each act, to express love.

The Roman authorities would not have fallen for such a silly argument but for a deep historical disrelish for sex itself. Early Fathers and medieval theologians considered sex unworthy when not actually sinful. That is why virgin saints and celibate priests were prized above married couples. Thomas Aquinas said that priests must not be married, since "those in holy orders handle the sacred vessels and the sacrament itself, and therefore it is proper (decens) that they preserve, by abstinences, a body undefiled (munditia corporalis) (Summa Theologiae, Part 3 Supplement, Question 53, article 3, Response). Marriage, you see, makes for defilement (immunditia). The ban on contraception is a hangover from the period when the body itself was considered unclean, as Peter Brown overwhelmingly proved in The Body and Society (1988).

The Phony "Church Teaches" Argument

Catholics who do not accept the phony argument over contraception are said to be "going against the teachings of their church." That is nonsense. They are their church. The Second Vatican Council defines the church as "the people of God." Thinking that the pope is the church is a relic of the days when a monarch was said to be his realm. The king was "Denmark." Catholics have long realized that their own grasp of certain things, especially sex, has a validity that is lost on the celibate male hierarchy. This is particularly true where celibacy is concerned.

There was broad disagreement with Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical on the matter. Pope Paul VI set up a study group of loyal and devout Catholics, lay and clerical, to make recommendations. The group overwhelmingly voted to change the teaching of Pius XI. But cardinals in the Roman Curia convinced Paul that any change would suggest that the church’s teachings are not eternal (though Casti Connubii had not been declared infallible, by the papacy’s own standards).

When Paul reaffirmed the ban on birth control in Humanae Vitae (1968) there was massive rejection of it. Some left the church. Some just ignored it. Paradoxically, the document formed to convey the idea that papal teaching is inerrant just convinced most people that it can be loony. The priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley said that Humanae Vitae did more damage to the papacy than any of the so-called "liberal" movements in Catholicism. When Pius IX condemned democracy and modern science in his Syllabus of Errors (1864), the Catholic historian Lord Acton said that Catholics were too sensible to go crazy every time a pope does. The reaction to Humanae Vitae proves that.

The Phony "Undying Principle" Argument

Rick Santorum is a nice smiley fanatic. He does not believe in evolution or global warming or women in the workplace. He equates gay sex with bestiality (Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum). He equates contraception with the guillotine. Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being "sincere" and "standing by what he believes." He is the principled alternative to the evil Moderation of Mitt Romney and the evil Evil of Newt Gingrich. He is presented as a model Catholic. Torquemada was, in that sense, a model Catholic. Messrs. Boehner and McConnell call him a martyr to religious freedom. A young priest I saw on television, modeling himself on his hero Santorum, said, "I would rather die than give up my church’s principles." What we are seeing is not a defense of undying principle but a stampede toward a temporarily exploitable lunacy. Acton to the rescue!

  This is just another example of religion being used to destroy the freedoms of those who don't agree.

'Hell No' To Obama on Everything!

John Cory sees the outrage that is fomenting by the GOP Tea Party against President Obama is merely a cover up for reality.  Cory accurately says, "Maybe it's just me, but getting lectures on morality from the Catholic Church is like getting cooking lessons from cannibals. The broth smells so good until you realize that you are the prime ingredient." John Cory knows, "What It's All About."

Can we stop the nonsense about contraception and morality and call this crap what it is? Politics.

Attack Obama.

This has nothing to do with a war on religion or religious freedom. This is all about attacking, blocking, and otherwise hindering President Obama from accomplishing anything that could be interpreted as successful or popular with the people. This is politics, and politics trumps God in this country. Mitch McConnell made it perfectly clear when he said that the priority of the GOP was "for President Obama to be a one-term president." Everything else is just tinsel.

These people are shills for their own self-interests and political gain. It's all a scam, a game of Three-card Monte on the corner of Church Street and Pennsylvania Avenue run by Bible-thumping Bunco artists looking to fleece the voting public.

Maybe it's just me, but getting lectures on morality from the Catholic Church is like getting cooking lessons from cannibals. The broth smells so good until you realize that you are the prime ingredient.

Let's be honest, all these voices howling about "freedom of religion" are the same shrill voices that denounce mosques in America. These are the same folks who claim that the religion of a billion people in this world is not a "religion" at all, and see nothing wrong with allowing one group of citizens to vote on whether or not the other citizens should be allowed to build a house of worship in their city. Religious freedom? Really?

These are the Grand Poobahs of Piety and their sanctimonious Sisters of the Smelling Salts running hither and yon as they flap their lips and arms to draw nearer, not to heaven, but to the holy wallet of Our Lady of Campaign Cash in order to vanquish that heathen radical liberal centrist Obama.

This is shadow theatre - sleight of hand and misdirection - with a twofer value. While the holier-than-thou players shout and jump for Jesus onstage, the real show is backstage. Attack Obama and put women in their place. Is God great, or what!

These heroic hypocrites battle big government and valiantly strive to shrink it down to a size that will fit in your bedroom, or more importantly, in a woman's uterus or other lady parts. Of course, they fight equally hard (forgive me) to free penises everywhere in order to preserve a true manly America. Viva Viagra!

The right-wing Christian conservative movement has been courted and embraced by the GOP. United, they move forward to weaken the Violence Against Women Act, push state laws to loosen domestic abuse and defund Planned Parenthood. And, on a subtle and chilling note, consider how Ron Paul recently responded to Piers Morgan when questioned about rape and medical treatment to prevent pregnancy. Paul said: "No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room ..." And no, Piers Morgan never asked Ron Paul to define what he meant by "honest rape," or what constitutes an "honest rape."

Most Americans have more common sense than the holy trinity of politicians, pundits, and priests. Just look at what happened recently with the Ellen DeGeneres fiasco. If you saw Ellen defend herself on her show, it was a moment of class and humor and humanity. The audience roared approval. Damn those suburban lesbian housewives! Damn tolerance and equality!

JC Penney refused to buckle to the One Million Moms (not really one million), and publicly stated that Ellen shared their values and their employee's values and they looked forward to a successful partnership with Ellen. Fans inundated the One Million Moms with indignation and disgust, so much so that apparently that hateful group has now taken down its Facebook page and skulked off to dark coven meetings in search of their souls. (One Million Moms is not the same as or affiliated with Million Moms Challenge, which is a worldwide health-oriented endeavor to help moms around the world.)

Damn the free-market!

And what about Obama? He announced a compromise on this contraception brouhaha as of Friday. How's that working out? Everybody feel better? Didn't think so.

It doesn't matter what President Obama tries, concedes, or compromises on any issue. The hucksters of hypocrisy will turn out to cast stones because that's what they do. They think that the spelling of G-O-D and G-O-P is divine intervention and not merely the separation by ten letters of the alphabet. It is a heavenly omen that designates them as the only and righteous descendents of power over our world. No one else is ever allowed to touch the throne.

This is about power and greed and the hypocritical call of freedom to force others to live and think and do as instructed by those who have elected themselves as the Chosen. Obey without question. God only speaks to me, and those who fund my politics. You have freedom of choice - as long as you choose the right way.

The fear of true democracy, equality, tolerance and choice has never been so obvious as it is today. There is panic in the golden streets of DC.

Washington State just passed marriage equality. The California courts ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. More and more Americans don't believe that one group of citizens has the right to limit the unalienable rights of other citizens or to define them as less than. The military has overturned Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Churches are opening their doors to gay members and allowing marriages.

Women are slowly winning the battle for equal pay for equal work. They are uniting in the belief that they own their own bodies, not the state or the church or the man in the gray flannel suit. Women are finding ways to run for public office and to become part of the political process so they can have an equal say in how this country works.

Let's face it, women have power and should be feared. It was Ida Tarbell who exposed the unfair market practices of Standard Oil and helped force the Trust-Busting of President Roosevelt. Emma Goldman took on the causes of poverty and child labor and union issues. Suffragettes brought women the vote. Harriett Tubman, Rosa Parks, Betty Frieden, Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem and Angela Davis and Billy Jean King and Oprah. >From 1900 to the present, women have moved American politics and culture and art. Woman Power is real.

And this sends a ripple of fear through the great patriarchal order of things. That is why these yahoos of masculinity and righteousness push so hard for the spiritual enslavement of women while pretending to be the protectors of the feminine citizen.

Power and politics. That's what all this mess is about.

I think America still has more good, more empathy and compassion and tolerance than these guys want us to know. Knowledge is a dangerous thing, my friend.

And there is nothing worse than someone with enough knowledge being able to point at the naked emperor in all his shortcomings and say: That guy is naked! And he's no emperor!

-PEACE-

 The true reality is power and politics. "That's what all this mess is about."

Oh Lord!

The State of Indiana is pursuing several bills which deal the issue of abortion, unions and education. Indiana now has some of the strictest anti-abortions laws in the country.

ABORTION
Highlights of the Indiana abortion policies that are in effect include:

• Women must be informed that human physical life begins at fertilization.
• Indiana will opt-out of abortion coverage in any state health exchange required under the new federal health law passed by Congress in 2010.
• Pain-capable children beginning at 20-weeks gestational age will enjoy enhanced protections.
• All abortions on girls under the age of 14 must be reported to child protective services within three days of the abortion in order to facilitate prompt investigation into child sexual abuse.
• Women must be informed that abortion may increase the risk of infertility, infection, or hemorrhaging.
• Doctors who do abortions in Indiana must have local hospital admitting privileges, provide medical licensing numbers, and provide emergency contact information to women having abortions.
• Women considering abortion must be informed about Indiana’s safe haven law that allows for mothers who decide to carry their children to term but are unable to care for their children to leave them with safe haven providers such as local police without criminal repercussions.

Ken Falk, an ACLU attorney representing Planned Parenthood, said the new anti-abortion law, which cuts public funding for Planned Parenthood, makes Indiana the first state to deny Medicaid funds for general health services such as breast exams and pap smears.

UNIONS
Indiana has right-to-work legislation which is presently before Indiana's House of Representatives. If it passes the House, where Republicans hold a 60-40 majority, it will go to the Senate, where Senate Republicans outnumber Democrats 37-13.

If the right-to-work proposal is approved, Indiana would be the first state in the industrial heartland of the United States to adopt such a law. It is in force in 22 other states, mostly in the South and West.

Indiana is home to numerous manufacturing plants for the auto industry that produce vehicles or components, including non-union and union-represented facilities.

Under the proposal, employees at unionized private workplaces would not be required to pay union dues. Supporters say the move would attract jobs to Indiana. Critics call it union busting.

EDUCATION

Legislators in Indiana have proposed a bill which would allow the reciting of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the school day.

Three Republican state senators in Indiana have a plan to fix public education in the state: Have someone recite the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of every school day.

Really. It’s Senate Bill No. 25 (PDF):

In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer may be recited by a teacher, a student, or the class of students.

In case you’re unfamiliar with what they’re talking about, this is the kind of Christian prayer the senators believe schools need:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

That’s Matthew 6:9-13.

The Lord's prayer? Really, who's Lord are we talking about. Is this legislation referring to the Lord of the Christians? What about the Lord of the Jews? Maybe the Lord of the Muslims? Do Buddhists or Hindu's have a Lord? Could it be the Lord of the Flies? Or possibly the Lord of the Rings?

In Name Only

Sally Steenland at the Center for American Progress has an interesting article, Abortion is Slowly Becoming Legal in Name Only. She suggests that is is occurring more frequently because state laws seek to deny women their reproductive rights.

When does a legal right become theoretical instead of real? If you want to know the answer, take a look at what’s happening to reproductive rights. States across the country are denying women what they need to protect their health and plan their families. And they’re often doing so in the name of religion and God. The laws, which we review below, should concern any American who cares about women’s reproductive health.

Antichoice laws on the rise

More than 900 antiabortion laws have been introduced since the midterm elections last November, and more than 60 have been passed. For instance, in Kansas a new licensing law for abortion clinics mandates what size and temperature clinic rooms must be, requires that staff dressing rooms have toilets, that clinics stock particular medical equipment and supplies, and that they be connected to nearby hospitals. Antichoice legislators came up with 36 pages of regulations, which one doctor called “bizarre” and “out of date with modern medicine.”

Right now there are only three abortion clinics in the state of Kansas. Soon there may be none.

South Dakota enacted an antiabortion law with requirements so onerous they essentially deny a woman her legal right to an abortion. The bill mandates a waiting period of 72 hours before a woman can have an abortion and requires two separate visits to a doctor. It also requires that a woman get counseling at a “crisis pregnancy center,” a place explicitly created to oppose abortion. On top of these obstacles, South Dakota spreads across nearly 755,000 square miles and has only one abortion clinic. A doctor is flown in from out of state once a week to see patients.

Indiana recently defunded Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the state. The new law makes any organization that performs abortion ineligible for state funds. Lack of clarity in the state’s antiabortion law is affecting hospitals, too. Since its enactment, doctors in hospitals have stopped terminating pregnancies that pose a high risk to the health and life of a woman for fear of losing Medicaid patients.

According to Elizabeth Ferries-Rowe, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Wishard Memorial hospitals, the law has “tied the hands of physicians attempting to provide medically appropriate, evidence-based care.”

Dr. Ferries-Rowe gives this example: A woman loses her amniotic fluid at 16 weeks of pregnancy. If her pregnancy isn’t quickly terminated, she risks serious infection that can damage her organs and cause brain damage or death. Given Indiana’s law, however, doctors would not be able to terminate her pregnancy.

Twenty-week bans: An extremist trend

Among the most dangerous laws are those that restrict or ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. So far, six states—Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma—have passed 20-week laws, and more are likely to follow. Only about 1.5 percent of all abortions occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but those that do are often medically necessary.

Danielle and Robb Deaver felt the consequences of Nebraska’s law last fall. As reported by The New York Times, Danielle was 22 weeks pregnant when her water prematurely broke. Before passage of the law, it would’ve been routine for a doctor to induce labor to prevent serious infection. At 22 weeks the fetus is not viable outside the womb.

But the Nebraska law defines “inducing labor” as “abortion” if the goal is not to save the fetus. Danielle’s doctor and hospital lawyers determined that the procedure she needed would be illegal under the new law, so nothing was done. Danielle eventually did go into labor. The baby died within 15 minutes, and she developed an infection that required antibiotics.

What happened to Danielle Deaver could happen to women in other states that passed bills restricting abortion after 20 weeks.

Antichoice activists promoting the 20-week ban have a clear, determined strategy. Their alleged reason for the law is that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, though doctors strongly dispute such a notion. Their real strategy is to invalidate Roe v. Wade without actually having to overrule it. They hope that one of the state laws will be challenged, make its way to the Supreme Court, and be upheld. Linda Theis, a former president of Ohio Right to Life, believes her state’s so-called “heartbeat bill” offers the Supreme Court “an engraved invitation to overturn Roe.”

Once a threshold of fetal pain at 20 weeks is established, they believe it is only a matter of time before they can “prove” that fetuses can feel pain at 12 weeks, or four weeks, or three days. Indeed, the Ohio Assembly just passed legislation that would prohibit abortion after a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, which happens at six to seven weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant.

After the bill was passed, Janet Folger Porter, former legislative director of Ohio Right to Life, said, “For every battle-weary pro-lifer who didn’t see how children were going to be protected in our lifetime, come see what God is doing in Ohio.”

Attacking access to contraception

But it’s not just abortion that the radical right is attacking. Family planning is also under the gun.

Arguments that we need to cut the budget and prevent pregnancies by defunding programs like Planned Parenthood are wrong on both counts. Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s work is abortion services. Most of it involves prenatal care, family planning, PAP smears, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and more. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive health research and policy group, every dollar spent on family planning saves the government $4 in childbearing and child care costs for low-income women. What’s more, a bill in Louisiana to defund Planned Parenthood is clearly part of a larger campaign against women, since Planned Parenthood clinics in Louisiana don’t provide abortions at all. And common sense tells us that cutting funding for family planning increases unwanted pregnancies—and abortion.

Fighting back against extremism

It’s important to take a reality check amid such extreme attacks. Abortion is a common medical procedure. Nearly one in three women will have had an abortion by age 45. And virtually all (99 percent) sexually active women have used contraception at some point in their lives, including Catholic women (98 percent).

Unfortunately, such realities don’t fit right-wing rhetoric that equates moral complexity with sin, demonizes abortion and the women who have them, and claims a monopoly on conscience, family, and God.

But it may be that reality is catching up with the zealots endangering women’s health and lives. When conservatives in Congress threatened to defund all Planned Parenthood clinics as part of a budget-cutting deal, the public rose up, President Barack Obama stood his ground, and the provision was dropped.

The types of reproductive health services Planned Parenthood provides enjoy strong public support. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that a solid majority of Americans support access to contraception, and 6 in 10 believe abortion should be both legal and available.

People of faith are among these majorities. That’s because they understand what it means to wrestle with moral issues and to rely on prayer and conscience for guidance in matters of deep importance. Many mainline Protestant churches and Jewish faith traditions formally support women’s moral decision making when it comes to abortion. But even women from faith traditions that oppose abortion have unwanted pregnancies that they prayerfully decide to end. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute recently reported that the majority of women who have abortions are religious.

That’s why it should be no surprise that reproductive rights and justice groups are working with faith communities to reclaim moral language on sexual and reproductive health and be vocal advocates on behalf of women.

We must also call out extremists who are using religion for their own narrow ideological ends. Until now they have been counting on the fact that they are more fervent in their cause even though their numbers are smaller. But their junk science and extremist agenda have triggered fervor in the rest of us to stand up for women’s health and moral decision making. The truth is that most Americans do not live on the extremes of the abortion debate but in the complicated middle, where abortion is more than a slogan or bumper sticker.

It is neither compassionate nor morally justified for politicians to intrude into the most intimate matters of conscience and the heart. And it is deeply wrong to do so in the name of religion. There is a better way.

Rabbi Dennis Ross has a suggestion that is compassionate and morally sound. “Once a woman weighs all her options, (adoption, carrying to term, abortion) and comes to her conclusion,” he says, “we should make sure she has the best medical care and the support that she deems right for her.”

What is a constitutional right for women is being chipped away and is being legislated against by a majority of men in the name of women's health, in the name of religion and in the name of God. But abortions will happen either by a doctor in the cleanliness of the abortion clinic or by a hanger in the filth of the back alley abortion mill. Unfortunately, women's health is once again been victim to the precepts of somebody's religion and God.

Religion and the Media

John Cory thinks the so-called "media" is a joke especially when talking about Muslim Madness.

Exhibit A: Chuck Todd told Andrea Mitchell that maybe the "President needs to be seen going to church more publicly." And another man said the same thing to Norah O'Donnell on her program. This was in response to a poll that showed 18 percent of Americans think Obama is a Muslim.

Pundits like Todd think the President should wear his religion on his sleeve so everyone knows he's not "THE OTHER." Why not a yellow Star of David with a Jesus Fish Emblem on his lapel so everyone in the media will recognize him and report honestly? Sorry, didn't mean to be snarky with that "honestly" remark. Yes, I did.

Exhibit B: CNN's John King allowed Franklin Graham to babble uninterrupted, "... He was born a Muslim, and his father gave him an Islamic name ... he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done, I cannot say that he hasn't."

John King mumbled something sage and wise, I'm sure.

Religion and Politics

I question why the president's religion is an issue at all for pollsters or pundits or the public? It's been awhile since I've read the Constitution, but I recall something about "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or position of public trust under the United States."

That would be the same Constitution that protects freedom of religion, whether for Catholic presidents, Christian and Jewish politicians or Muslim people. That would be the same Constitution that does not see "Muslim" as a smear, but as a right of citizens to practice their religion.

Let's understand that this is nothing but a cynical ploy by political operatives to tar the president as illegitimate and distract the public from the real issues.

Fox News, Saudi Arabia and Muslims

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Muslims. The second largest investor of News Corp (7% ownership) is Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, nephew of King Abdullah and a Muslim. News Corp. owns FOX News. FOX News is a major source of anti-Muslim and anti-Obama fear-mongering and hateful propaganda. Why would "real" Americans believe anything FOX News says? Is Muslim money okay when it pays FOX News salaries for Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck?

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to "Crazy like a FOX" doesn't it?

Healing the Wound or Pouring on Salt

Maybe the media should look at this in our military. "Onward Christian Soldiers" is no longer just a hymn, but an anthem. How long before Army recruiters ask new troops, "Are you now or have you even been anything other than a Christian?"

The Cordoba House could have been and still could be a powerful healing force for good, an educational tool, and a wonderful symbol of tolerance and inclusion of true American values. It won't happen. If it goes forward, the Cordoba House will become a target of hate-mongers instead of a symbol of peace. It will be defaced and vandalized, and the media will rush to cover the incidents while asking, "Was this a good idea? Should they move somewhere less offensive, say, Tennessee or Kentucky or California?"

You see, you can lead a mob to a tree, but the hanging doesn't count unless the media is there to give context and ask the proper question: "Is It a Dead Body or Just an Ornament? We report - you decide. Keeping them honest."

There was a time when the nightly news was based on professional fact finding. Today, major network news and 24 hour cable channels provide entertainment and sensationalism masquerading as news.

Read complete article HERE.

Cartoon of the Day!

The Words of Newt Gingrich and Osama bin Laden

A recent Slate article, Sheikh Your Newtie, compares the intent and words of Osama bin Laden with the intent and words of former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich.

In the years since 9/11, Osama Bin Laden has issued more than 20 audio and video statements to spread his view of the conflict between the United States and al-Qaida. According to his worldview, the United States represents Christianity, al-Qaida represents Muslims, Christians won't protect Muslims, the West hates mosques, peaceful coexistence is a fraud, and the "war on terrorism" is really a war on Islam. By spreading this message, Bin Laden works to turn Muslims against the United States and rally them to al-Qaida.

Now Bin Laden has an ally in this propaganda campaign, Newt Gingrich.

Over the past two weeks, in a series of articles and speeches, Gingrich has declared a religious war that suits al-Qaida's agenda almost perfectly. While denouncing "Islamists" rather than Islam, Gingrich has blurred the distinction by selecting as his initial target the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Everything Bin Laden says about the United States, Gingrich validates.

The Atlantic Wire took five unsourced quotations in order to "see if you can guess which belong to the world's most notorious terrorist and which to the former U.S. Speaker of the House."

This is a struggle with [religious adherents] in both their militant and their stealth form. … The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [power], but their end goal is exactly the same.

The [group of people] is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others' beliefs or feelings. The [group of people] still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations.

[Our culture] is experiencing a [foreign religion's] cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could. No [foreign religious structures]. No self deception. No surrender.

The intentions of [their people] have also been clarified in statements about the need to change the beliefs, curricula, and morals of [our people] to become more tolerant, as they put it. In clearer terms, it is a religious-economic war.

[He approvingly quotes a man who prayed solemnly before launching a famous military strike.] This was not a man who was confused about what the stakes were, nor was he confused about what the goal was.

Newt's words and Osama's agenda can be synchronized with each other for the same purpose of fomenting hate. To fully see the similarities, click through these side by side statements.

BIN LADEN	GINGRICH
[N]ow that senior U.S. officials have spoken … every Muslim should rush to defend his religion. … They came out to fight this group of people who declared their faith in God and refused to abandon their religion. They came out to fight Islam in the name of terrorism. (Oct. 7, 2001)	One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. (July 28, 2010)
This war is fundamentally religious. … Those who try to cover this crystal clear fact, which the entire world has admitted, are deceiving the Islamic nation. … It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism, as Bush and Blair try to depict it. … Fear God, O Muslims and rise to support your religion. (Nov. 3, 2001)	Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia, but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.(July 28, 2010)
It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. … A few days ago, they ... dropped—in what they said was a mistake—a radio-guided bomb on a mosque where ulemas were praying. They targeted the mosque, killing 150 Muslim worshippers. It is the hatred of crusaders. (Dec. 27, 2001)	[T]he Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate. … It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. (July 28, 2010)
The intentions of the Americans have also been clarified in statements about the need to change the beliefs, curricula, and morals of the Muslims to become more tolerant, as they put it. In clearer terms, it is a religious-economic war. (Jan. 4, 2004)	America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could. No mosque. No self deception. No surrender. (July 21, 2010)
The West is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others' beliefs or feelings. The West still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations. … How can we explain France's stance on the headscarf and the banning on wearing it at schools ... This is a Zionist-Crusader war. (April 23, 2006)	[T]hey proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred. Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy. … [F]or radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization. (July 28, 2010)
So what is the sin of the Afghans due to which you are continuing this unjust war against them? Their only sin is that they are Muslims, and this illustrates the extent of the Crusaders' hatred of Islam and its people. (Nov. 29, 2007)	This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [power], but their end goal is exactly the same. (July 29, 2010)
"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." … Similar are sophistries like "dialogue of religions," "freedom of opinion," "freedom of speech," "peaceful coexistence." … (March 14, 2009)	President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as our troops were landing in Normandy, went on national radio at 10 o'clock at night and actually led the nation in six and a half minutes of prayer, something very few modern liberals appreciate. This is part of what he said: "Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set up on a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity." This was not a man who was confused about what the stakes were, nor was he confused about what the goal was. (July 29, 2010)
So, who stood by America the Christian, and who supported it? Isn't that Zardari and his government and army? … Obama has walked like his predecessors in increasing hostility towards Muslims. … I encourage my Muslim nation to stand by the side of the mujahideen and support them everywhere. ("Speech to the Pakistani Nation," June 3, 2009)	President Roosevelt said the following: "We must remember what the collaborative understanding between Communism and Nazism has done to the processes of democracy abroad. Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same civilization. They oppose democracy because it is Christian. They oppose Christianity because it preaches democracy. Their objective is to prevent democracy from becoming strong." Again, this is hardly a man who's confused about what's at stake. Winston Churchill, at the very peak of the Battle of Britain, said, "Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization." (July 29, 2010)
The war which has been taking place on your soil these past years is a war between Islam and the International Crusade. – ("Fight On, Champions of Somalia," March 19, 2009)	There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over. (July 21, 2010)

Hate in any language is about destruction and control.

Biblical Ouotes

This segment from an episode of "West Wing" is apropos in light of Judge Walker's opinion overruling California's Proposition 8.

Did you know that Judge Vaughn Walker was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan. Also, it is common knowledge in San Francisco that Judge Walker is himself gay. So why didn't the defenders of Proposition 8 ask for him to recuse himself? To answer these and other questions, Melissa Block interviewed law professor David Levine of the U.C. Hastings College of the Law about Judge Walker's ruling.

BLOCK: I've been reading some analysis of this ruling, and folks are concluding that this was an opinion that was specifically targeted at the U.S. Supreme Court and specifically at Justice Kennedy. What does that mean?

Prof. LEVINE: Well, because I think so many people assumed that this is going to be a five-four opinion if it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Justice Kennedy is going to have his now-familiar role as the swing vote, you have to write an opinion that's going to appeal to Justice Kennedy. And Justice Kennedy, after all, has written a couple of pretty gay-friendly opinions. And a lot of the language in Judge Walker's opinion kind of echoes what Justice Kennedy did in those opinions. And so, if Justice Kennedy is kind of true to what he did before, he will vote with the four liberal justices in this case and affirm this opinion.

BLOCK: Let's talk a bit about Judge Walker. He is a Republican appointee to the federal bench. Opponents of gay marriage are calling him an activist judge. What can you tell us about him?

Prof. LEVINE: Well, you know, when he was first appointed, nobody thought he was going to be an activist judge in the sense of - the way the conservatives mean it. The gay community in San Francisco vehemently opposed him because, very famously, he represented the Olympic Committee in a case that stopped the gay games from calling themselves the Gay Olympics. And so, as a result, the feeling was that he would be anti-gay when he got on the bench, and indeed he's been anything but.

He is certainly - I mean, he's a - I would call him a libertarian Republican. He has not hesitated in some cases to rule in favor of criminal defendants. He certainly has an independent streak about him. And the way he went about handling this case certainly was completely reminiscent of the way in which he tends to run his courtroom.

BLOCK: And he is, according to numerous published reports, himself gay.

Prof. LEVINE: Yes. Certainly, that's common knowledge in San Francisco. It was in the San Francisco Chronicle. And when that came out in the newspaper, all the lawyers in the case, you know, I think it's fair to quote "Seinfeld" and just say, they all thought, not that there's anything wrong with that. The defenders of Proposition 8 certainly could have raised that to the court as a basis for disqualifying Judge Walker, and they just let the issue of his sexuality slide.

I mean, everybody has a sexuality. You have one. I have one. And you have to be able to decide cases.

Sharron Angle's Angle

Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada

What is the Republican Party Senate candidate Sharron Angle proposing to outlaw in her bid for the Nevada Senate seat? She would like the State of Nevada to outlaw pot, booze, pornography and homosexuality. What does she support? Angle is a strong supporter of gun rights and for restoring American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations. That is because in the 1990's Sharron Angle was a member of the Independent American Party.

For at least six years in the 1990s before she held state-level elective office, Angle was a member of the little-known Independent American Party, a right-wing party that combines elements of Ron Paul's doctrinaire libertarianism -- pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-bureaucracy, pro-states' rights -- with Christian social conservatism and fear of the "North American Union" and other forms of "global government." The small party attracted considerable controversy in 1994 when it took out a newspaper ad titled "Consequences of Sodomy: Ruin of a Nation," which suggested HIV could spread through the water.

Three members of the Independent American Party tell TPM that Angle, a Nye County, Nevada, school board member at the time, was an active member of the party in the 1990s. They say she only left the Independent American Party and became a Republican out of political expediency when she decided to seek a seat in the state assembly, to which she was elected in 1998.

According to the their website, the Independent American Party is the official Nevada State affiliate of the National Constitution Party. The Constitution Party's platform states that "the goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."

Also, the Constitution Party is closely linked to Christian Reconstructionism.

What’s Christian Reconstructionism? Well it’s a theocratic intellectual and political movement founded by the late Armenian theologian R.J. Rushdoony, and it burst onto the American political scene in 1992 with the founding of the US Taxpayers Party, later renamed the Constitution Party. Founder of the two parties Howard Phillips was a member of Rushdoony’s inner circle and called the theologian “my wise counseler” according to journalist Frederick Clarkson, a noted authority on Christian Reconstructionism.

Rushdoony wanted to base American law and government on Old Testament scripture. He advocated stoning to death adulterers, women who have intercourse before marriage, active homosexuals, and people who strike or curse at their parents (the full list of miscreants who according to Rushdoony should be bashed to death with rocks is much longer than this.) Why rocks ? As Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North, another leading Christian Reconstructionist, put it, “There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.” North has described executions-by-stoning as “community projects.”

R.J. Rushdoony had a number of other notable views – he was a Holocaust revisionist who claimed in his master work The Institutes of Biblical Law that less than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War Two and that most of those died from cold rather than execution.

The most interesting aspect of these events is that Senator Jim DeMint is now raising money for Angle using the mailing list of the Christian Reconstructionist organization American Vision. Their website states that "American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation."

Not everyone is supporting Angle's Republican bid. Some Independent American Party members are quite bitter about her switching party allegiance.

Christopher Hansen, brother of party founder Daniel Hansen and himself a former chair of the party, tells TPM that "I think Sharron in her heart is a very good person." But he remains upset that "she decided to go over and join with the fascist Republicans."

"The national Republicans are going to come in here and teach her how to be a good Republican stooge," he predicts. "She'll just be another dyed-in-the-wool stooge Republican."

DeMint is appealing to the far-right in an effort to defeat Harry Reid in November. He is willing to support a candidate who comes from a party that thinks he's a fascist. The citizens of Nevada will have to decide in November if money will buy their vote.

What To Do About Hate

University of Illinois Chicago student Jason Connell raised money to donate to non-profit LGBT, AIDS and other causes to counter the hate spewed by Westboro Baptist Church and community. Thank you cards were then sent from the non-profits to WBC leader Fred Phelps. Connell called it a, "Lemons to Lemonade" situation. WATCH:

A Change of Venue!