The So-Called Pro-Life Party

They stop caring about you the moment you are born:

Leticia Parra, a mother of five scraping by on income from her husband’s sporadic construction jobs, relied on the Planned Parenthood clinic in San Carlos, an impoverished town in South Texas, for breast cancer screenings, free birth control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer.

But the clinic closed in October, along with more than a dozen others in the state, after financing for women’s health was slashed by two-thirds by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The cuts, which left many low-income women with inconvenient or costly options, grew out of the effort to eliminate state support for Planned Parenthood. Although the cuts also forced clinics that were not affiliated with the agency to close — and none of them, even the ones run by Planned Parenthood, performed abortions — supporters of the cutbacks said they were motivated by the fight against abortion.

Now, the same sentiment is likely to lead to a shutdown next week of another significant source of reproductive health care: the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which serves 130,000 women with grants to many clinics, including those run by Planned Parenthood. Gov. Rick Perry and Republican lawmakers have said they would forgo the $35 million in federal money that finances the women’s health program in order to keep Planned Parenthood from getting any of it.

And they aren’t stopping with Planned Parenthood:

Nationally, the newest target is Title X, the main federal family planning program. All four Republican presidential candidates support eliminating Title X, which was created in 1970 with Republican support from President Nixon and the elder George Bush, then a congressman.

Like other federal financing, Title X does not pay for abortions. Only some of it covers birth control. Title X also provides money for cervical and breast cancer screening, testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases, adolescent abstinence counseling, infertility counseling and other services.

Planned Parenthood receives about a quarter of Title X’s $300 million budget and sees about a third of Title X patients. The remaining money goes to clinics, community health centers, hospitals and state agencies.

Mitt Romney’s fiscal plan proposes eliminating Title X because it “subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.”

Rick Santorum, in a recent debate, acknowledged, to boos, that in Congress he voted for appropriations bills that included Title X money. He pledged to rectify that if elected, saying, “I’ve always opposed Title X funding.”

President Obama supports Title X, which serves five million low-income people.

If thousands of women die of breast and cervical cancer in the war Planned Parenthood, well, so be it. You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, doncha know.

Every Sperm Is Sacred

For real, this time:

The Wilmington City Council has a message for men—sperm are people, too.

The council for Delaware’s largest city passed a resolution by an 8-4 vote Thursday calling on the Delaware legislature, other state legislatures and the U.S. Congress to pass laws granting “personhood” rights to eggs and sperm. The resolution was authored by councilwoman Loretta Walsh as a protest in the current battle over women’s health care access.

“[E]ach ‘egg person’ and each ‘sperm person’ should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government and be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other dependent minor and be protected against abuse, neglect or abandonment by the parent or guardian,” says the resolution. “[L]aws should be enacted by all legislative bodies in the United States to promote equal representation, and should potentially include laws in defense of ‘personhood,’ forbidding every man from destroying his semen.”

So basically, every teenage boy with surging hormones and a Playboy is a mass murderer, and spring break in Key West is the holocaust.

Sorry, So Sorry

Halfwit evangelist Franklin Graham is backpeddling after his idiotic remarks the other day:

Graham, president of the relief organization Samaritan’s Purse and the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, said he now accepts Obama’s declarations that he is a Christian.

“I regret any comments I have ever made which may have cast any doubt on the personal faith of our president, Mr. Obama,” he said in a statement.

“I apologize to him and to any I have offended for not better articulating my reason for not supporting him in this election—for his faith has nothing to do with my consideration of him as a candidate.”

Graham said he objects to Obama’s policy stances on abortion and same-sex marriage, which Graham considers to be in “direct conflict” with Scripture.

More than a dozen members of a religious subgroup of the NAACP had accused Graham of “bearing false witness” and fomenting racial discord.

“We can disagree about what it means to be a Christian engaged in politics, but Christians should not bear false witness,” the NAACP statement said. “We are also concerned that Rev. Graham’s comments can be used to encourage racism.”

Bearing false witness must be Christian speak for “being an asshole.” At any rate, he isn’t sorry at all, and achieved everything he intended to accomplish. He got to re-sow the seed that Obama is “the other” among the wingnut base, and now he gets to be the martyr who spoke the truth but was beat down. This will only increase the belief among the base that Obama isn’t Christian, and again feed their persecution complex that actual Christians can’t speak without retribution.

He knew what he was doing, even though he is a lot dumber than his father (who was also a jerk).

All or Nothing At All

Via the Great Orange Satan, Cardinal Francis George has decided the Catholic church gets to dictate what happens to lady parts of they should just burn it all down:

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

Actually, I quite like option #3. Sell it to a non-Catholic group, and use the proceeds to pay back the thousands upon thousands of the Church’s sexual abuse victims around the world.

Rick Santorum’s Views on Church and State Make My Brain Vomit

[Cole covered this already, but I’m posting this here anyway because I do what I want and besides, you’re not the bossa me. -ABLxx]

Rick Santorum is such a nutbag that actual bags of nuts see him and are like, “Wha?!”

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Santorum said that John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Baptist Ministers made him want to “throw up,” and that the separation of church and state likewise makes him want to throw up.  No seriously.  He said that.

Let’s take a look at what JFK said back in 1960 as he made his case that as a Catholic, he would not go off the religious deep-end and unleash some sort of papal theocracy: More »

In Lockstep With the Vatican

The things that make little Ricky vomit:

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday defended a statement he made last October in which he said that he “almost threw up” when he read John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Houston address on the role of religion in public life.

***

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?”

“Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

Of course, that isn’t what Kennedy said at all. What Kennedy was stating was that his decision-making would not be held hostage to the demands of the Vatican (or any other church leadership):

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Nowhere in the speech did he dictate that people of faith could have no role in public life. Nowhere. Santorum is lying or stupid or both, and I’m going to go with both and throw in a dash of evil.

What Santorum wants is not religious freedom. What he wants is the freedom to force you to live by his religious beliefs.

Why Doesn’t RICO Apply to this Crime Syndicate

Why not:

Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua ordered aides to shred a 1994 memo that identified 35 Archdiocese of Philadelphia priests suspected of sexually abusing children, according to a new court filing.

The order, outlined in a handwritten note locked away for years at the archdiocese’s Center City offices, was disclosed Friday by lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn, the former church administrator facing trial next month.

They say the shredding directive proves what Lynn has long claimed: that a church conspiracy to conceal clergy sex abuse was orchestrated at levels far above him.

***

According to the motion, that safe remained untouched and unnoticed until 2006, when archdiocesan officials found it and hired a locksmith to open it. It’s unclear why the records inside were only recently turned over to Lynn’s lawyers and prosecutors, although church lawyers have said they have been reviewing thousands of files to comply with trial subpoenas.

Bevilacqua had cited the 35 priests before. In February 2002 – as the abuse scandal was roiling Catholics across the country – he said the archdiocese had turned over information on 35 suspected abusive priests to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. He did not mention any memo from eight years earlier or his order to shred it.

During 10 appearances before a grand jury in 2003 and 2004, Bevilacqua denied knowing details or playing a significant role in the handling of sex-abuse complaints, saying he delegated those duties to Lynn.

“I saw no evidence at any time that we did any cover-up,” he testified.

Why are they getting away with this?

(via)

Incoherence in the Name of God

These people are sick:

Santorum recalled his prominent role in the 1990s debates over the controversial procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. He lambasted the president’s health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, “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.”

So, to recap, Santorum opposes prenatal screening by prospective parents because they might abort their horribly deformed child who won’t live anyway outside the womb, but wants to enforce state sanctioned invasive procedures for those who choose to have an abortion, because you sluts already stuck some shit up there, so now you need to see pictures. Basically, what Santorum thinks should be the norm is a pregnancy as lottery standard. You miss your period, cross your fingers and hang on for nine months, because Allah God will mystify you at the end with either a healthy child you didn’t want, or maybe a child you were hoping to have but which had it’s heart on the outside of its body and will die 2 hours after birth.

It’s hard to emphasize how fucked up this guy’s worldview is, and it is not hyperbole to state he wants to take us back to the days of leeches and phlogiston. These are very sick, sick, people, and come from a long tradition of people for whom power and control are more important than logic, reason, individual autonomy, and science. See also, Galileo.

Rick Santorum, quite simply, is a monster in a sweater vest. And where was he when this happened?

Afternoon Open Thread

I’m a big fan of Melissa Harris-Perry’s new show on MSNBC, mainly because of discussions like this (in contrast to whatever the Sunday Bobbleheads are usually spouting about.)

Things never before heard on a Sunday politics show: “See what happens when you invite a theologian to the table.” And I hate Sunday shows. I watch this one. I’ll continue to watch this one.

And it bears repeating that on any other cable news show discussing the religious implications of birth control and women, the panelist would have been male.

Open thread.

Where Are The Republican Women On This?

And expanding on what Betty said below, I’m asking out of genuine curiosity the about the opinions when it comes to Republican women and the birth control brouhaha.  Short of The Distinguished Ladies From Maine wanting to see “final details” of President Obama’s rule changes to provide contraception coverage through insurance companies, I’ve heard basically nothing from prominent conservative women this week on the GOP’s trip back in time.  It’s mind-blowingly obvious as to what I think about the sheer horror of it all, but I’m seriously trying to figure out if it’s deafening silence that implies support (or silent rage), if it’s none of my damned business, or if I’m just completely missing something.

And as Charles Pierce notes, at least one GOP woman candidate is running on the whole thing being nothing more than a First Amendment issue, like the campaign of Sarah Steelman in Missouri.

People living in these states are going to hear, over and over again, on free and paid media, through an entire primary season, that the real issue here is religious liberty and Obamacare. (What Republican candidate is going to come out and argue that it’s an issue of women’s health care? Anyone? Bueller?) This will continue into the general election cycle. By then, this ludicrous position will be set in concrete as a legitimate part of the electoral dialogue. I’m not optimistic at all that enough people will see through it.

No One Cares What The Grumpy Old Men Think

This should surprise no one:

Gallup is set to post the analysis on its Web site later today, and Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport gave me a preview of the forthcoming findings.

“Our analysis basically shows that Catholics’ opinions of Obama are little changed through Sunday,” Newport told me. “Our article will show that we can detect little change in Catholic approval so far.”

With the controversy continuing in the wake of Obama’s newly-announced accommodation — which has actually won approval from some Catholic groups — the new data casts doubt on the political efficacy of the continuing GOP and conservative attack on the White House stance. Mitch McConnell has vowed to keep up the crusade, though senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have edged towards supporting Obama’s compromise.

Catholics were already ignoring the Bishops in regards to birth control, so I have no idea why anyone would think Obama would lose ground with Catholics for agreeing with them. If anything, I’m surprised more Catholics don’t support him for standing up to Bishops attempting to impose Sharia law on the country, because that is basically what they are trying to do. They can’t convince their flock that contraceptives are immoral, so they’ve taken to writing blustery op-eds and demanding the Opus Dei cult in DC make it law.

Sunday Morning Open Thread

According to Google Translate, the song is called “Tight-fisted Girl”. I can only hope the lyrics aren’t hideously inappropriate/embarrassing, or at least that no one among the Balloon Juice commentariat will tell us if they are.

On a completely unrelated topic, the NYTimes’ doggedly pragmatic Nicholas Kristoff finds the answer to a question that has been raised by a number of you:

... I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?

“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.

That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?

The Bishops make their move

So it looks like the Bishops have decided to double-down on their latest effort to have the Federal Government enforce Church Law.

The President offered up a rhetorical solution in response to their rhetorical freak-out over language in a new health insurance rule and the fiction that their objection was about religious freedom was exposed as bullshit. They could walk away, but instead they are pumping up the volume to keep the issue alive. It is a political play that has more to do with Republican politics than almost anything else.

The Bishops are demanding an end to any rule that requires any insurance company to cover any contraception or family planning as basic health issues for women. This is just the latest iteration of a centuries old objection to women having control of their bodies, their lives, their happiness and their liberty by the conservative power-focused elites running the Roman Catholic Church. This objection manifests itself in screeds against anything that treats sex as an activity separate from breeding and/or free from the dictates of Church Law.

And yet, I don’t think this latest play is about sex or even the Church trying to control the lives of women—I think it is about power and that sex, women, gay marriage and a host of other culture warrior issues are the pathway that they see as the golden road. More »

Saturday Evening Open Thread

Since this week has been all about the godsbothering, a historical sidebar I’ve been saving, from Kevin M. Kruse at the NYTimes:

... The concept of “one nation under God” has a noble lineage, originating in Abraham Lincoln’s hope at Gettysburg that “this nation, under God, shall not perish from the earth.” After Lincoln, however, the phrase disappeared from political discourse for decades. But it re-emerged in the mid-20th century, under a much different guise: corporate leaders and conservative clergymen deployed it to discredit Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

During the Great Depression, the prestige of big business sank along with stock prices. Corporate leaders worked frantically to restore their public image and simultaneously roll back the “creeping socialism” of the welfare state. Notably, the American Liberty League, financed by corporations like DuPont and General Motors, made an aggressive case for capitalism. Most, however, dismissed its efforts as self-interested propaganda. (A Democratic Party official joked that the organization should have been called “the American Cellophane League” because “first, it’s a DuPont product and, second, you can see right through it.”)

Realizing that they needed to rely on others, these businessmen took a new tack: using generous financing to enlist sympathetic clergymen as their champions. After all, according to one tycoon, polls showed that, “of all the groups in America, ministers had more to do with molding public opinion” than any other…

If you read the whole thing (it’s not very long!), there are two obvious conclusions to be drawn:

(a) the GOPers haven’t had a new idea in at least fifty years; and

(b) the genuinely religious among us prefer to keep our faith separate from the machinery of government, because trying to combine the two is bad for both endeavors.

So… back in the Reality-Based Community, what’s on the agenda for the evening?

About This Religious Liberty Stuff

When did the 1st Amendment change from basically saying that you can practice whatever religion you want and you won’t be burned at the stake as a heretic and we’re not going to form or recognize a national religion like the Church of England? When did it change to “everyone everywhere has to do what a bunch of old catholics in funny hats wants, because otherwise it hurts their feelings?” And why does it only apply to certain religions?

I seriously wish other religions would get in on the act. I wish Keith Ellison would start sponsoring bills that allow insurers to cut people’s benefits if they don’t pray to Mecca a certain number of times a day. Or someone Jewish proposing a bill requiring circumcisions or you can’t get health insurance. Just flood the zone with bullshit so people can see how out of control our concept of religious liberty has become.

And who gets to decide what religions are real? I’m going to form my own religion, and the central tenets of my religion will be pizza every Friday, the only thing you are allowed to do on Sundays is watch sports, and I am forbidden by my deity to pay taxes. I’ll call it Norquistism. How would the feds react to that? How is my religion any less real than burning bushes, virgin birth, transubstantiation, and the like?

Does no one realize how absurd the Catholic Bishops are behaving? They are attempting, by dictate, to do precisely what the 1st Amendment bans, which is the establishment of a national religion.

It’s obscene. And it is completely political. They are no longer functioning as a religious organization, but as a political party.

This madness has to stop.