Monday Open Thread [3.16.15]
We are definitely going to miss the Obamas when they leave. Both Barack and Michelle.
The Washington Post reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “warned supporters at a rally here Sunday that he and his Likud party may not win Tuesday’s election, a potentially dramatic fall for a consummate political survivor whose nine years in office transformed him into the public face of contemporary Israel.”
Good. I hope his political career is destroyed and he never again appears in public or in any policy debate of any kind, whether in Israel or in America. He is a man of Evil.
Secretary of State John Kerry told CBS News, when asked, that he had no intention of apologizing to Iran for the unconstitutional and treasonous actions of a stupid Republican.
“Not on your life. I’m not going to apologize for an unconstitutional, unthought-out action by somebody who has been in the United States Senate for 60-some days. That’s just inappropriate,” Kerry responded, referencing freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who organized Senate Republicans to send the letter. “I will explain very clearly that Congress does not have the right to change an executive agreement.”
Kerry said he wasn’t sure yet whether the letter would have any impact on the nuclear negotiations with Iran, but he said the letter was meant to be destructive.
“This letter was absolutely calculated directly to interfere with these negotiations. It specifically inserts itself directly to the leader of another country, saying ‘Don’t negotiate with these guys, because we’re going to change this.’ Which, by the way, is not only contrary to Constitution with respect to the executive’s right to negotiate, but is incorrect, because they cannot change an executive agreement,” he said. “That is unprecedented.
Politico: “Three months into the expanded Republican majorities on the Hill, White House aides see a landscape in which President Barack Obama is more in charge now than he was before the midterms. Rather than moving forward on their own priorities as Republican leaders promised after their midterm sweep, the House and Senate find themselves reacting to Obama.”
A review by the Washington Post has found that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush “used his private e-mail account as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants… The e-mails include two series of exchanges involving details of Florida National Guard troop deployments after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” I wonder if the Beltway Press will go into the same feeding frenzy, and I wonder if Congress will launch multiple investigations. IOKIYAR. And if you are a man.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN that he plans to hold hostage the nomination of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch until such time as Democrats capitulate on the Human Trafficking Bill.
Said McConnell: “This will have an impact on the timing of considering a new attorney general. I had hoped to turn to her next week, but if we can’t finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again.”
“Democrats are now holding up the trafficking bill, which glided through the judiciary committee, after they noticed an abortion provision embedded in the bill that would prevent victims of human trafficking from using restitution funds to pay for an abortion.”
Fine. All business in the Senate will now end until such time as the Republicans remove this anti-choice poison pill amendment from the bill. No other business can be considered. Eric Holder has no problems staying on as Attorney General, so that is not a concern.
Yes, Mitch, we just shot your fucking hostage and took one of our own: your entire Senate. And go fuck yourself.
Sad little Republicans can only find victory by pushing childish pranks with poison pills in every bill to satisfy their nutcase base. Where are the jobs..
Let me make sure I understand that last one correctly…
If a woman is trafficked as a sex slave, and ultimately becomes pregnant as a result of her kidnapping/raping/sexual-slavery… Republicans want to make sure that their Human Trafficking Law prevents said individual from getting an abortion, or at least makes it exceptionally difficult?
I feel like when it comes to the GOP and any laws impacting a woman’s body, I am watching Michael Fassbender’s character Mr. Epps in “12 Years a Slave” and his treatment of Lupita Nyongo’s character, Patsey.
Good to see the White House bringing the heat:
WASHINGTON — The White House tore into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with unusually harsh rhetoric on Monday, accusing him of “inept leadership” and questionwhether he can be trusted.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest ripped into the new Senate leader over the stalled anti-sex-trafficking bill, which has hit a snag over an anti-abortion provision that Democrats oppose. And he attacked as “unconscionable” the delay in a full Senate vote to confirm attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch.
“It’s a reflection of inept leadership,” Earnest told reporters. “I think it’s an indication that his leadership here in the majority is not off to a very strong start.”
“You gotta hand it to Republicans that they’ve taken a measure even as common-sense as that and turned it into a partisan controversy,” he said.
Earnest called into question whether “Senator McConnell is a man of his word,” mentioning that McConnell said last week that the Lynch vote would come up this week. He attacked the “unconscionable delay” in her confirmation, saying that it had been 128 days since President Barack Obama nominated her.
One of the things that McConnell is using to justify this delay is that the Trafficking bill came out of committee with unanimous, bipartisan votes. So the fact that Senator Coons and the other Ds on this committee looked the other way on Hyde Amendment language seems like one of the things that is enabling this bit of obstruction.
Indeed. Senator Coons will have to explain himself, and if he says he was fine with the provision, he must resign immediately. Hopefully, Coons was just incompetent.
But look who he failed here. The women who desperately need all of the options they can get. What corporate interest would he be this inattentive to?
Here’s an interesting story about how the Finns allocate speeding fines. It is a progressive fine system. It theoretically ensures that the wealthy among us don’t feel that they are above the law and the poor aren’t driven further into poverty for BS offenses.
I wonder if one of those religious nut republicans had their family member impregnated by a human trafficer if they would say she must have a baby
It amazes me that the media with all their resources cannot manage to either provide the public with the formal title of the bill or at least frigging number so we can read for ourselves exactly what it says. About the best they seem to be able to do is broadcast the sound bites.
Anyway, the bill is “S.178 – Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015”
The offending portion is:
“(3) Limitations.–Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise transferred from the Fund, shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76; 128 Stat. 409) to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act.”
This is also known as the Hyde Amendment which prohibits use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions except if a pregnancy arises from incest or rape. This rider (it’s not a law) has been routinely attached to appropriations bills since the late seventies and the most ardent progressives and pro-choicers have been voting yea on bills containing this rider for over 30 years.
This is hardly a poison bill amendment and I might add that human trafficking victims certainly have a pretty strong rape claim, which is a specific exception to the Hyde Amendment. If this is the tall pole in the tent, it’s pretty damn small tent!
Sheesh — and for many years plenty of progressive women have been objecting to this *routine* set of limitations for a long time. But since they are largely women, I understand why you would have never heard those objections.
And hey — can you manage to get any more white male privilege into this:
I might add that human trafficking victims certainly have a pretty strong rape claim, which is a specific exception to the Hyde Amendment.
Because while I don’t know any of women who would be at all appreciative of your approval of abortions in these limited instances for women who need every damn choice and support we can give them, there may be some. So perhaps you are validated by that.
I’m so fucking tired of women having to “make a case” for anything. When men get pregnant is exactly when they should have anything to say about handling pregnancy.
“appreciative of your approval of abortions in these limited instances ”
I didn’t say I approve of abortions in those instances. I merely pointed out the exception that is an element of the rider and that most of the victims probably could make a case for that. My point was and remains that it is hardly an “anti-choice poison pill amendment” unless that were a description of countless other instances where the amendment was a rider on appropriations bills which were voted on in the affirmation by the most progressive and pro-choice legislators.
And just what does my white privilege have to do with pointing out salient facts, which affect white women as well. Unless you intended to say my male privilege. Or is white privilege the go to smack down for all occasions? What it’s been like a whole week since you been able to call out someone for their white privilege? It’s overused to the point that it’s silly.
Want to call out someone, get a list of every progressive and/or pro choice legislator’s votes and count the number of times they voted yea with the Hyde rider attached. You are going to be doing a lot of counting and a lot of smacking.
Did you actually miss this part of my post?
“and for many years plenty of progressive women have been objecting to this *routine* set of limitations for a long time. But since they are largely women, I understand why you would have never heard those objections.”
Seriously, when you stop parading your white male privilege as a substitute for real knowledge (much less empathy), you’ll stop getting called out for it.
White male privledge is so bright that it prevents them from seeing their own reflection. And I’m a white guy, imagine that..
“My point was and remains that it is hardly an “anti-choice poison pill amendment” unless that were a description of countless other instances where the amendment was a rider on appropriations bills which were voted on in the affirmation by the most progressive and pro-choice legislators.”
To pro-choice women and men this has always been an “anti-choice poison pill amendment”. That’s the point. Taking the Hyde Amendment as a given, as just the way things are, is a problem – and it always has been for people who are pro-choice. Normalizing the Hyde Amendment, because it’s inserted so often, doesn’t make it right. It also doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been a vocal outcry every time it’s used. (There has been.)
“I might add that human trafficking victims certainly have a pretty strong rape claim, which is a specific exception to the Hyde Amendment.”
The problem with the Hyde Amendment is it begins with the personal (religious) belief that abortion is wrong and that this medical procedure cannot utilize federal funds. All abortions, except in the cases of rape and incest (and we can see how the GOP is working to have those exceptions stripped away – since rape babies are a gift from god – as well as trying to add the word “forcible” to rape) are treated the same way. It removes women’s autonomy. It paints every woman wanting an abortion (who wasn’t raped or experienced incest) exactly the same.
Hyde needs to go, especially when it’s used as a “pretty strong case”. It implies that abortion for any other reason than rape and incest isn’t a pretty strong case. It sets the bar and inflicts personal and religious beliefs about abortion onto everyone, no matter what they believe… and no matter what their situation is.
Hyde also targets the poorest among us. And it isn’t like the Hyde Amendment functions in a vacuum. Combine the cost of abortion with waiting periods and states closing down clinics and you’ve basically eliminated access to abortion for poor women who may not own a car, can’t take off work to meet the waiting periods (some as long as 72 hours) or afford a hotel room to satisfy these waiting periods. These are very real concerns, and all are designed to make it difficult, in some cases impossible, for women to access a legal medical service.
But where I think you missed the mark, Dave, was in using the Hyde Amendment as no big deal. For many of us the Hyde Amendment has always been a big deal, and one we’ve called out since the beginning and every time it’s been used since. We really need to stop normalizing this amendment simply because it’s used so often. And we seem to get this when it comes to other things that we constantly call out whenever they’re used, just not abortion. Why is that?
“problem with the Hyde Amendment ”
A good summation of the problems with the Hyde Amendment. Of course I knew all that. I don’t support the rider. I never have. My comment is not about the abuse women suffer because of the amendment or that I don’t get it because I’m afflicted with a white man’s disease. The gist of the post on which I commented described it as a “poison-pill.” My comment was simply that it has been applied to appropriations bills for decades and yet strangely Democratic legislators have never held up those bills because of the rider. Nobody has fallen on their sword over it before now. Why?
Because Fuck Mitch McConnell, the fucking douche bag. [That’s conjecture on my part, but if that’s the case I support the Democrats 100%. The more something fucks Mitch McConnell, the less it fucks the country.]
But… this expands the Hyde Amendment – by applying it to fees and fines, not just taxpayer funds.
So, this is different, right? This isn’t the same poison pill. This is more chipping away at women’s healthcare. And I don’t care about who voted for it in the past – They. Were. Wrong. Sheesh, according to this logic black people still wouldn’t be counted as a full person and women wouldn’t be able to vote because, Hey! Politicians voted, and didn’t have a problem with that crap… until they did.
And I think that’s my biggest problem with your argument, Dave. You don’t have a problem with this because this is the way it’s been done for decades and nobody complained before (even tho they did. Loudly.). And the way you shrug this off is a luxury most women can’t afford.
Nobody has fallen on their sword over it before now. Why?
So is it really impossible that Democrats would finally hear a portion of their constituency who have been vocal about this for years? Is it really impossible that that these voices finally got higher in the priority list?
The fact that this is the first time anyone decided enough was enough doesn’t mean that there haven’t been people working on this for YEARS.