Politics & Current Events — thenest

I can't remember if I told you all to make this or not.

copzgirl — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:02:46 +0000

I am having leftovers and it is even better today. I don't puree the sauce I just let it reduce to get thick and make sure you double the sauce.

http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Chicken-with-Sun-Dried-Tomato-Cream-Sauce-107198

WOW Ariz: Employers can require reason for BCPs, deny if contraception

mominatrix — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:49:51 +0000

Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control

By PAUL DAVENPORT | Associated Press ? Fri, Mar 16, 2012

PHOENIX (AP) ? Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy.

A bill nearing passage in the Republican-led Legislature allows all employers, not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage when doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.

When a female worker uses birth control pills, which can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, the bill would allow an employer who opted out to require her to reveal what she was taking it for in order to get reimbursed.

The bill thrusts the state into a raging national debate about religious freedom and birth control, sparked after the Obama administration required that employers must provide contraception coverage under the federal health care overhaul.

After objections from religious groups, the administration changed course, ordering that insurers, not employers, would have to pay for the coverage. Republicans, social conservatives and some religious groups believe the new order still violates their beliefs.

"We don't live in the Soviet Union," said the Arizona bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko. "And so government shouldn't be telling employers, Catholic organizations and mom and pop (businesses) to do something that's against their moral beliefs."

Critics say the bill allows employers to violate their worker's privacy.

"Leave the care of medicine to women and their doctors," said Democratic state Rep. Lela Alston.

Arizona is among at least 26 states that generally require that health plans cover contraceptives, though it's also among those that let churches and other religious entities opt out of providing the coverage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Under the Arizona bill, employers who opt out could make women provide documentation from their health care provider.

Liza Love, a mental health worker, testified Monday before a Senate committee to oppose the bill, saying she would be required to disclose that she needed contraceptives to treat endometriosis, which is excessive growth of the uterine lining.

"That's nothing that you as my employer ... have a right to know," she said.

Opponents of the legislation suggested that the application process might violate a federal law on privacy of medical information. A supporter, Republican Rep. Edie Farnsworth, said it wouldn't because seeking reimbursements is voluntary.

However, a legislative staff lawyer said it's not clear whether the current opt-out or the expanded one violates other federal law, including the new contraception coverage mandate being implemented by the Obama administration.

House Rules Attorney Tim Fleming noted that attorneys general for seven states sued to challenge the mandate on First Amendment grounds.

A national advocacy group for social conservatives, the Alliance Defense Fund, said the current opt-out provision is too restrictive.

The bill would end uncertainty about "who is sufficiently religious to have their rights of conscience protected," said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer for the Arizona-based group.

McCaleb also said in a letter to Lesko that enactment of her bill could help state officials fight against federal mandates. Another attorney for the group, Matt Bowman, declined to say how that might work. But he noted the existence of the lawsuit by the other states.

Other states that have considered legislation this year to broaden their opt-out provisions on required coverage for contraceptives include Missouri and New Hampshire. Bills in those two states remain alive but appear to have stalled.

The Arizona bill would also erase a law that bans religion-based employers from punishing or firing workers who get contraceptives from a source other than through their employers' health plans.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona opposes the bill, and Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham said supporters shouldn't entangle the state's current coverage requirement with the national debate.

"If they're looking for some sort of tussle with the federal government, I just wish they would keep in mind the consequences for Arizona women and families because they're the ones that are ultimately hurt by this bill," she said.

Citing a policy against commenting on bills, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer declined to say whether she had a position on it.

___

Associated Press writers Norma Love in Concord, N.H., and Chris Blank in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-bill-could-require-reason-birth-control-045830034.html

NPCER: My first interview in five years

jenniloveselvis — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:54:50 +0000

Thanks for the fashion advice ladies. Thursday night I went and bought a new suit. The idea that clothes really help with self-esteem is truly accurate. Putting on a suit made me feel so much better, I felt more confident about everything. I am re-thinking my extremely casual work wardrobe. I'm going to work on it after I loose a couple of lbs.

A couple of days later I can objectively critique my performance.

I didn't drink enough water. The day before I had talked a lot on conference calls and my voice was seriously strained on Friday. So of course I started to get horse. Not the best impression I'm sure.

I only got a couple of "generic" interview questions. I think I did ok on them. One of them threw me for a huge loop - "where do you see yourself in five years?" The two interviewers seemed satisfied with my answer but I should have said something a little more brilliant. My answer sums up to, doing what I'm doing. Of course my full answer was five minutes long.

Over all, I think it went well but I'm still where I was at before Friday. I don't really know if I want to change jobs. Part of me does, part of me doesn't. If I get a second interview, I'm going to need some tips from the HR people - I'm out of practice.

Debt Collector question

meshaliu — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:10:00 +0000

We have a help line here at work that my group supports. It's no ones personal line, but we all answer calls from it. For the last couple of weeks we've gotten 3-4 calls a day from a debt collector. We've explained that this is a business number and not anyone's personal number and to please stop calling us, but no dice. I figure they think we're lying.

Any suggestions on how to make it stop?

John McCain: Arizona Contraception Bill Should Be Vetoed

3.27.04_Helper — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:57:25 +0000

John McCain: Arizona Contraception Bill Should Be Vetoed

Posted: 03/18/2012 10:02 pm Updated: 03/19/2012 6:32 am

reddit stumble

1,545

2,956

Get Politics Alerts:

React:

Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally

Follow:

Video, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, John McCain Birth Control, Arizona-Contraception-Bill, John Mccain Arizona Contraception Bill, John Mccain Contraception, John Mccain War On Women, Politics News

#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview on Sunday that he opposes a controversial bill moving through the Arizona legislature that would let employers restrict health insurance coverage of contraception to only those cases when a woman can prove a need for it because of a medical reason, such as endometriosis or an ovarian cyst.

The GOP-sponsored bill, which would put some women in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to their boss why they use birth control, already passed in the state House of Representatives and was endorsed by a Senate committee last week. McCain said, however, it has little chance of becoming law.

"I am confident that that legislation will not reach the governor's desk, and if it did it would be vetoed," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "It certainly doesn't reflect, in my view, the majority view of the people of Arizona."

McCain's staunch opposition to the contraception measure might be surprising to some, considering that he recently voted for Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt's similar amendment, calling for employers to deny contraception coverage to women for religious or moral reasons. But when host David Gregory asked McCain whether there is a "war on women" among Republicans, McCain said that Republicans needed to "get off" the issue of birth control and "respect the right of women to make choices."

"I think we have to fix that," he said. "There's a perception out there because of the way that this whole contraception issue played out ? We need to get off of that issue. In my view, I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear and to get back onto what the American people really care about -- jobs and the economy."

Gay groups denied permission to march in St. Patrick's Day parade in South Boston

charminglife — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:34:21 +0000

I wish I could find a list of the groups participating in this year's parade - I can only find sponsors. If they are excluding any/all advocacy or political groups, then I can understand it - but I doubt that is the case.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/south_boston/2012/03/gay_groups_denied_permission_t.html?p1=News_links

Gay groups denied permission to march in St. Patrick's Day parade in South Boston

State House News Service

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people will not be marching in the annual South Boston St. Patrick?s Day parade on Sunday after two groups received rejection letters from organizers.

MassEquality, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents, applied to march in the parade organized by the Allied War Veterans Council.

The veterans group said no, citing the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Group of Boston, which ruled parade organizers do have a legal right to decide who marches in the parade.

Join the Impact, another gay, lesbian and transgender group in Boston, was also denied permission to walk in the parade this year. The Irish-American group marched in the parade in 1992 after obtaining a court order, but no gay or lesbian organization has walked since the Supreme Court ruling, according to Kara Suffredini, executive director of MassEquality.

Suffredini said her organization has bigger concerns than marching in the parade, but added it was ?emblematic of more life-altering rejection that LGBT people face in Massachusetts every day.?

Suffredini said there is nothing the group can do to fight for the ability to march. Changing attitudes is the bigger task, she said. ?I think this is the work we do every day of changing hearts and minds,? Suffredini said. ?There will be a day when we will be welcomed in this parade.?

Jay-Z is supposedly a member of the Illuminati

3.27.04_Helper — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:52:17 +0000

Why wasn't this mentioned in Decoded?

http://www.eonline.com/news/ask_the_answer_bitch/are_jay-z_nicki_minaj_really_in/301979

Ad Blocker for Firefox 10?

ringstrue — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:27:40 +0000

Ugh. It made me update on my work computer and now all the ads are back on facebook. Any recs? I downloaded a few already but nothing seems to be helping.

Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

UsedToBeGoldie — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:59:25 +0000

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness for full details.

interesting.

says a lot.

Study finds state governments at risk for corruption; New Jersey listed as most transparent

charminglife — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:58:33 +0000

Maybe calling one of his constituents an idiot was just Gov. Christie's way of being more transparent - he won't hold back the truth.

Study finds state governments at risk for corruption; New Jersey listed as most transparent

By Associated Press,

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. ? State governments lack transparency and accountability to citizens, and remain at high risk for corruption, according to a new study of all 50 statehouses.

Not a single state received an A in the State Integrity Investigation ranking, a product of the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity.

?It?s telling that no state received an overall grade of A,? said Caitlin Ginley, a staff writer for the Center for Public Integrity and a project manager on the study. ?In every state, there?s room to improve the ethics laws, the level of transparency on government proceedings, the disclosure of information, and ? most importantly ? the oversight of these laws.

?One of the major findings was that even when ethics laws are passed, they are difficult to enforce and lack meaningful consequences for violators.?

Only five states got rankings of B, led by a surprising recipient: New Jersey. It got a B-plus, with an overall score of 87 out of a possible 100.

Despite ? or perhaps because of ? recent corruption scandals, New Jersey got the top ranking because of steps it took to combat corruption, including tough ethics and anti-corruption laws it adopted in response.

New Jersey has a colorful tradition of corruption in government, including a U.S. congressman taking a bribe from an FBI agent posing as a wealthy Arab sheik, a Jersey shore councilman caught on tape bragging to an undercover officer that he would never get caught because ?I could smell a cop a mile away,? and a decade-long string of 150 state and local officials who were either convicted or pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges. The cases ranged from Motor Vehicle Commission employees selling fraudulent licenses to politicians peddling their influence for kickbacks.

Cases stemming from the 2009 roundup of 44 people in what was dubbed by the feds as ?Operation Bid-Rig? are still working their way through the courts.

But that history of corruption also led to strong reforms designed to prevent it in the future. Among them was a law prohibiting campaign contributions by most firms doing business with the state.

?It?s nice to be recognized for being ahead of the curve,? said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for Gov. Chris Christie, a former U.S. attorney who prosecuted many of the recent cases. ?The governor is proud of the changes he?s made and the resources he?s made available to the public in terms of government transparency. Government operates and behaves better when it?s open and transparent, and taxpayers feel informed and a part of the process when they can see how their money is spent, who is getting contracts and who?s on the payroll and such.?

The report found that states with well-known scandals or histories of corruption often have the toughest laws and enforcement that bring them to light. Conversely, the report found, so-called ?quiet? states may be at higher risk for corruption, with fewer means to bring corrupt practices to light.

Reporters in each state researched 330 corruption risk indicators across 14 government categories, including access to information, campaign finance, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, budgeting, civil service management, procurement, internal auditing, lobbying disclosure, pension fund management, ethics enforcement, insurance commissions, and redistricting.

Rounding out the top five states were: Connecticut (B, 86), Washington state (B-minus, 83), California (B-minus, 81) and Nebraska (B-minus, 80).

Nineteen states got grades of C, and 18 got a D. Eight states got an ?F,? with grades of 59 or lower: North Dakota, Michigan, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia.

Individual reports for all 50 states can be found at http://www.stateintegrity.org. The site, along with a companion page on Facebook, allows readers to send copies of their state report cards to elected officials, to report potential problems, and suggest solutions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/study-finds-state-governments-at-risk-for-corruption-new-jersey-listed-as-most-transparent/2012/03/18/gIQAhzayKS_story.html

Your dishwasher will spy on you

MrsAxilla — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:58:50 +0000

More and more personal and household devices are connecting to the internet, from your television to your car navigation systems to your light switches. CIA Director David Petraeus cannot wait to spy on you through them.Earlier this month, Petraeus mused about the emergence of an ?Internet of Things? ? that is, wired devices ? at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA?s venture capital firm. ??Transformational? is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,? Petraeus enthused, ?particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.?All those new online devices are a treasure trove of data if you?re a ?person of interest? to the spy community. Once upon a time, spies had to place a bug in your chandelier to hear your conversation. With the rise of the ?smart home,? you?d be sending tagged, geolocated data that a spy agency can intercept in real time when you use the lighting app on your phone to adjust your living room?s ambiance.?Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters ? all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,? Petraeus said, ?the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.?Petraeus allowed that these household spy devices ?change our notions of secrecy? and prompt a rethink of ?our notions of identity and secrecy.? All of which is true ? if convenient for a CIA director.The CIA has a lot of legal restrictions against spying on American citizens. But collecting ambient geolocation data from devices is a grayer area, especially after the 2008 carve-outs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Hardware manufacturers, it turns out, store a trove of geolocation data; and some legislators have grown alarmed at how easy it is for the government to track you through your phone or PlayStation.That?s not the only data exploit intriguing Petraeus. He?s interested in creating new online identities for his undercover spies ? and sweeping away the ?digital footprints? of agents who suddenly need to vanish.?Proud parents document the arrival and growth of their future CIA officer in all forms of social media that the world can access for decades to come,? Petraeus observed. ?Moreover, we have to figure out how to create the digital footprint for new identities for some officers.?It?s hard to argue with that. Online cache is not a spy?s friend. But Petraeus has an inadvertent pal in Facebook.Why? With the arrival of Timeline, Facebook made it super-easy to backdate your online history. Barack Obama, for instance, hasn?t been on Facebook since his birth in 1961. Creating new identities for CIA non-official cover operatives has arguably never been easier. Thank Zuck, spies. Thank Zuck. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

Help me make a purchase

copzgirl — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:26:41 +0000

Our local furniture store is going out of business and we have an opportunity to get this at an unbelievable price, BUT I am eyeing a dining room set that we don't need but I really WANT. Our mattress is 100 years old and I really think it will help J if get the bed, but we can't afford to do both.

What say P&CE?

http://www.serta.com/icomfort-mattress-sleep-system-by-serta.html

This is the bed, and we would get the adjustable one

President Obama went for a Guinness at the Dubliner

suzannepdc — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:55:54 +0000

today in DC. I love stories like this!

I just like that he and the family try to go out in DC and experience the city (well, as much as you can as the President). And I think it's hysterical he went to a bar full of drunk people.

TN to publish names of abortion doctors and potentially patients

3.27.04_Helper — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:12:51 +0000

Written by

Chas Sisk

The Tennessean

individual: 7 numChar :2136
-->individual: 18 numChar :2103
-->
TOTAL ELEMENTS IN ARRAY: 26
TOTAL CHARACTERS IN ARRAY: 5547
TOTAL CHARACTERS IN PAGES: 4239
LAST PAGE CONTAINS: 1308
-->

Doctors who perform abortions in Tennessee could see their names listed online, and women who undergo the procedures could be unintentionally identified under a bill pending in the state legislature.

State lawmakers are debating a measure that would require the Department of Health to publish more details about abortions, bringing Tennessee into a roiling, state-by-state battle over how to regulate abortion procedures.

Supporters say the bill, scheduled to come up Wednesday in a state House committee, only requires state health officials to post information online that they already collect. But critics say the measure is intended to intimidate women and doctors involved in abortions, even in emergency situations.

?I think publicizing this information will do nothing but cause serious consequences,? said state Rep. Gary Odom, D-Nashville. ?This is dangerous. This is a dangerous piece of legislation.?

Known as the Life Defense Act of 2012, or House Bill 3808, the measure gives Tennessee lawmakers a rare opportunity to tighten regulations on abortion, which the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in 2000 is a right protected by the state constitution.

That ruling has kept Tennessee lawmakers from considering controversial proposals floated elsewhere in the nation, such as a new law in Virginia going into effect July 1 that will require women to receive an ultrasound before abortions. Similar measures have passed in Oklahoma, North Carolina and Texas, although court challenges to them are pending.

The Life Defense Act contains two parts. The first would require doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital near where they perform abortions, while the second would require the Department of Health to release more information on abortions, including the name of the doctor who performed the procedure and demographics about the women who receive them.

The measure?s sponsor, Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, said at an initial hearing on the bill earlier this month that the reporting requirement writes into law a form that the Department of Health already asks providers to fill out whenever they perform an abortion.

?The Department of Health already collects all of the data, but they don?t publish it,? he said. ?All we?re asking is that the data they already collect be made public.?

Hill said the bill was suggested by Tennessee Right to Life, an anti-abortion group. Brian Harris, the group?s president, said the bill would give people better information about abortion in Tennessee.

?I think it?s fair for folks on both sides to see how prevalent abortion is in our counties and in our communities,? he said.

Concerns cited

The Tennessee Medical Association and Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, have expressed several concerns about the bill.

They say the reports required by the measure could be used to identify women who have abortions.

The bill would require the publication of data ? including the age, race, education and number of children ? of women who receive abortions. The Department of Health reports such information, but it aggregates the data by region, making it impossible for others to figure out who underwent an abortion procedure.

The Life Defense Act attempts to protect patient privacy by requiring state health officials to keep the names of those who receive abortions private.

But the bill also requires the Department of Health to release patient data broken down by county. Critics say that could reveal the identities of some women who receive abortions, particularly in small, rural communities.

?We have many small counties in the state,? Odom said. ?There?s going to be circumstances where that woman?s going to be identified in that county.?

The bill also could endanger doctors who perform abortions, opponents say. For the first time, state health officials would have to gather the names of doctors who perform abortion procedures. That information could be used by abortion opponents to target those doctors, foes of the bill say.

Abortion specialists are not the only doctors who would have to submit such information. Opponents say other practitioners, such as obstetricians who perform abortion procedures during emergencies or miscarriages, would also have to report their involvement.

?In an environment where doctors are victims of violence ? and we?ve had physicians who provide abortion care murdered in the past few years ? I think this is an attempt to intimidate and allow for providers to be terrorized,? said Jeff Teague, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee.

But Harris said the bill would not make the reporting requirements for abortion any more extensive than for other medical procedures.

?Abortion should not be treated any different than any other health practice in the state,? he said. ?That?s all we?re asking for.?

Debate postponed

The bill cleared a House subcommittee March 6 by an 8-5 vote along party lines. But Hill put off debate in the House Health and Human Resources Committee last week.

Hill said he plans to bring the bill up on Wednesday. He also said he plans to address opponents? concerns at that meeting, but he declined to comment further, saying potential changes are still being worked out.

Greg Zelizer, director of government affairs for the Tennessee Medical Association, expressed confidence that the changes would head off some of the opponents? fears.

?I?ve talked to Matthew, and he understands the difficulty,? Zelizer said last week. ?In no way does he or those who brought this legislation want harm to come to anybody.?

There's a primary in Puerto Rico?

notquiteblushing — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:54:06 +0000

Huh?

@: Have you heard of the "total extinction" CIO sleep routine?

NaturalBlond — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:36:23 +0000

This was in response to a "help my baby won't sleep" Q on 3-6 months.

"Since you asked... this is what I would do. You need to CIO for bedtime and temporarily change up your nap routine until she's STTN, then do CIO for naps too.

So for bedtime - I am anti-Ferber. I think the whole notion of doing periodic "checks" on your baby is counterproductive, a tease, and ineffective. Our pediatrician in NYC guided us to do "total extinction" CIO where you put baby down for bed at a set time and dont go back til morning. For us, that's 7pm until 5:30-6:00am. You dont go in at all, just let her cry."

So basically you ignore your baby for 10-11 hours!!!!!! This sounds insane. And we are talking about a 4 month old here!!

What do you think?

lol, no wonder some people hate evolution

Heather R — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:52:54 +0000

They don't freaking understand it, for starters.

A friend's crazyass husband posts this quote on FB: "Atheism-- the belief that there was nothing & nothing happened to nothing & then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything & then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason which then turned into dinosaurs. And they mock YOUR beliefs."

me: that is not atheism. That is nihilism.

him: I don't believe all Atheists believe it. I just know that some do. You can be an atheist and still subscribe to chaos theory. Personally, I'm Christian, but I believe in evolution and other scientific theories. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys though. (there was more, if you want it)

me: We didn't evolve from monkeys. They are just in the same taxonomic family because of a common root ancestor that diverged into hominids and monkeys.

him: *crickets*

10 Reasons the rest of the world thinks we are crazy

3.27.04_Helper — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:43:23 +0000

10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts

Posted: 03/15/2012 5:47 pm

React

Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally

Planned Parenthood , Abortion , Women's Rights , Reproductive Rights , Women's Reproductive Rights Naral , Politics News

#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}

share this story

9,071

112

169

Get Politics Alerts

Submit this story

digg reddit stumble

This week the Georgia State legislature debated a bill in the House, that would make it necessary for a woman to carry a stillborn baby until she 'naturally' goes into labor just as, according to Representative Terry England, pregnant cows and pigs do.

I have a question for Terry Edwards, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and too many others: I have three daughters, two of them twins. If one of my twins had been stillborn would you have made me carry her to term, thereby endangering both the other twin and me? Or, would you have insisted that the state order a mandatory fetal extraction of the living twin fetus from my womb so that I could continue to carry the stillborn one to term and possibly die myself? My family is curious and since you believe my uterus is your public property, I am, too.

Mr. England, unlike the calves and pigs for which you expressed so much empathy, I am not a beast of burden. I am a woman and I have these human rights:

The right to life.
The right to privacy.
The right to freedom.
The right to bodily integrity.
The right to decide when and how I reproduce.

Mr. England, you and your friends do not get to trade these rights, while "dog and hog hunting," in return for a young man's chickens.

My human rights outweigh any you or the state corruptly and cynically seek to assign to a mass of dividing cells that will eventually turn into a 'natural' person. Personhood-for-zygote based bills and related legislation, like Georgia's and hundreds of others, bills and laws that criminalize pregnancy and abortion and penalize women for being women, violate my human rights.

Just because you cannot get pregnant does not mean I cannot think clearly, ethically, morally, rationally about my body, human life or the consequences of my actions. Just because you cannot get pregnant does not mean that I do not have rights when I am pregnant. I have responsibility but am powerless. You have power but are irresponsible with my rights.

By not trusting me, you force me to trust you. And YOU are not trustworthy.

I gestate humans, you do not. I know how it feels to be pregnant. You do not. I know what happens to a fetus in a womb. You do not. I have carried three fetuses to term. You have not. What I experience when I am pregnant is not empathy. It is permeability. The fetus is me. And the state is you, apparently. But, no matter what you say or do I have fundamental human rights. What makes you think that you, who cannot have this fully human experience, can tell me anything about gestation or how I experience it? Especially when you compare my existence and experience to that of brutish animals.

The rest of the civilized world thinks this country has lost its mind. It's no wonder. Look at this list of frenzied misogyny:

1. Making women carry still-born fetuses to full term because cows and pigs do. This week, Mr. Edwards, you supported a bill requiring just this, because of just that. It has passed the House in Georgia and might very well pass the Senate. Women are different from farm animals, Mr. England, and this bill, requiring a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus, with no possibility of abortion, even when the she is in danger of dying, is inhumane and unethical. By forcing a woman to do this, you are violating her right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment and tortured. And, yes, involuntarily carrying a dead fetus to term, although not torture to you or to a pig, is torture for a woman. It is also a violation of her bodily integrity and a threat to her life and as such violates her right to life.

2. Consigning women to death to save a fetus. Abortions save women's lives. "Let women die" bills are happening all over the country. There is no simple or pretty way to put this. Every day, all over the world, women die because they do not have access to safe abortions. Yet, here we are, returning to the dark ages of maternal sacrifice. Do really have to type this sentence: this is a violation of women's fundamental right to life.

3. Criminalizing pregnancy and miscarriages and arresting, imprisoning and charging women who miscarry with murder, like Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi or at least 40 other similar cases in Alabama or like Bei Bei Shuai, a mentally ill person, who is currently imprisoned and charged with murder after trying to commit suicide while pregnant. Pregnant women are becoming a special class subject to "special" laws that infringe on their fundamental rights.

4. Forcing women to undergo involuntary vaginal penetration (otherwise called rape) with a condom-covered, six- to eight-inch ultrasound probe. Pennsylvania is currently considering that option along with eleven other states. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds undertaken with out a woman's consent are rape according the legal definition of the word. This violates a woman's bodily integrity and also constitutes torture when used, as states are suggesting, as a form of control and oppression. Women have the right not to be raped by the state.

5. Disabling women or sacrificing their lives by either withholding medical treatment or forcing women to undergo involuntary medical procedures. We impose an unequal obligation on women to sacrifice their bodily integrity for another. For example, as in Tysiac v. Poland, in which a mother of two, became blind after her doctor refused to perform an abortion that she wanted that would have halted the course of a degenerative eye disease. If my newborn baby is in need of a kidney and you have a spare matching one, can I enact legislation that says the state can take yours and give it to her? No. We do not force people to donate their organs to benefit others, even those who have already been born. One of the most fundamental of all human rights is that humans be treated equally before the law. Denying a woman this right is a violation of her equal right to this protection.

6. Giving zygotes "personhood" rights while systematically stripping women of their fundamental rights. There is too much to say about the danger of personhood ideas creeping into health policy to do it here. But, consider what happens to a woman whose womb is not considered the "best" environment for a gestating fetus in a world of personhood-for-zygote legislation: who decides the best environment -- the state, her insurance company, her employer, her rapist who decides he really, really wants to be a father? Anyone but a woman.

7. Inhibiting, humiliating and punishing women for their choices to have an abortion for any reason by levying taxes specifically on abortion, including abortions sought by rape victims to end their involuntary insemination, imposing restrictive requirements like 24 hour wait periods and empowering doctors to lie to female patients about their fetuses in order to avoid prosecution. In Arizona, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Arkansas and other states around the country bills that make women "pay" for their choices are abounding.

8. Allowing employers to delve women's private lives and only pay for insurance when they agree, for religious reasons, with how she choses to use birth control. In Arizona, which introduced such a bill this week, this means covering payment for birth control as a benefit only when a woman has proven that she will not use it to control her own reproduction (ie. as birth control). As much as I am worried about women and families in Arizona though, I am more worried about those in Alabama. You see, as recently revealed in a public policy poll in Alabama, conservative, evangelicals who support "personhood" related "pro-life" legislation and are fighting for their "religious liberty" -- 21 percent think interracial marriage should be illegal. So, what if they decide that an employee involved in an interracial marriage should not, by divine mandate, reproduce? Do they switch and provide birth control for this employee? Do they make contraception a necessary term of employment for people in interracial marriages? This violates a woman's right to privacy. My womb is one million times more private than your bedrooms, gentlemen.

9. Sacrificing women's overall health and the well-being of their families in order to stop them from exercising their fundamental human right to control their own bodies and reproduction. Texas just did that when it turned down $35million dollars in federal funds thereby ensuring that 300,000 low-income and uninsured Texas women will have no or greatly-reduced access to basic preventive and reproductive health care.

10. Depriving women of their ability to earn a living and support themselves and their families. Bills, like this one in Arizona, allow employers to fire women for using contraception. Women like these are being fired for not.

You presume to consign my daughters and yours to function as reproductive animals.

This is about sex and property, not life and morality. Sex because when women have sex and want to control their reproduction that threatens powerful social structures that rely on patriarchal access to and control over women as reproductive engines. Which brings us to property: control of reproduction was vital when the agricultural revolution took place and we, as a species, stopped meandering around plains in search of food. Reproduction and control of it ensured that a man could possess and consolidate wealth-building and food-producing land and then make sure it wasn't disaggregated by passing it on to one son he knew was his -- largely by claiming a woman and her gestation capability as property, too.

This is not about freedom of religion. If it were, we would, for example, allow Christian Scientists to refuse to pay for coverage of life-saving blood transfusions for employees. Religious freedom means I get to chose whether or not to be religious and if so, how. It does not mean that I get to impose my religion on others. Paying for insurance is part of the way we compensate employees, even when they use their insurance in ways we don't agree with and are in contravention of our own personal beliefs. I think that it is stupid, dangerous and immoral to chain smoke, especially around children whose lungs it irreparably harms. But, I still have to pay for an employee to have access to lung scans, nicotine patches and oxygen tanks. I do not get to say that my religious beliefs, which include keeping bodies as healthy as possible, make it possible for me to withhold payment of this employee's insurance. Guaranteed coverage of contraception and reproductive health care has overwhelming benefits for society, including reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. By inserting your religious beliefs so egregiously into government legislation and my life, you are imposing your religious beliefs on me. You don't like mandated insurance coverage for basic reproductive health humans with two X chromosomes? I don't like being bred by state compulsion like Mr. England's farm animals. I have a MORAL OBJECTION to being treated like an animal and not a human. You do not have to use contraception, you do not have to use birth control. But, that does not mean you have any right to tell me that I cannot if I chose. That is my right.

Property, control, sex, reproduction, morality, defining what is human. Sounds a lot like issues surrounding slavery 170 years ago. It is no surprise that of the 16 states that never repealed their anti-miscegenation laws, but rather had them overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 more than half have introduced personhood bills. Like anti-miscegentation laws, anti-choice laws and bills that humiliate women, that treat them like beasts, that violate their bodily autonomy, are based on ignorance, entitlement and arrogance. These laws are not about "personhood" but "humanity." That women of color are massively, disproportionately affected by these assaults on their bodies and rights should also come as no surprise - their rights and their bodies have always been the most vulnerable assault.

This is about keeping women's wombs public and in other people's control -- the exact opposite of private and in their own control.

And, yes, I do know how complicated the ethics, bioethics and legal arguments related to these decisions are. You, apparently, do not. If you were truly concerned with sustaining life and improving its quality or in protecting innocent children, you would begin by having compassion and empathy for living, born people that require and deserve your attention. You feed them, educate them, lift them from poverty and misery. You do not compound these problems as you are with twisted interpretations of divine will. Only after that do you have the moral legitimacy to entertain the notion of talking to me about my uterus and what I do with it. By then, fully functional artificial wombs should be available and you can implant your own, since you are so fond of animal analogies, as was completed with this male mouse. What you are doing is disgraceful, hypocritical and morally corrupt.

And, no, I am not crazy. I am angry.

Mr. Santorum, Mr. England and Mr. Brownback and Mr. Perry you should consider not clinging so dangerously and perversely to the Agrarian Revolution ideas. Birth control and safe abortions are life-saving technologies. These archaic bills and laws, wasteful of time, money and lives, obscure an enduring and unchangeable truth: safe and effective family planning is the transformative social justice accomplishment of the 20th century. They will not go away. This is a revolution, too.

In a 1851 speech in which she argued for equal rights for women, Sojourner Truth said the following: "The poor men seems to be all in confusion, and don't know what to do. Why children, if you have woman's rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they won't be so much trouble."

Do you, Terry England, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and friends even know who Sojourner Truth is?

Yet another welfare post on TB

StatlerWaldorf — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 +0000

Damn those poor people driving around in their BMWs with their hair and nails done going around buying cigarettes with their Medicare cards.

http://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/64328972.aspx

Report: 49ers emerge as Manning?s ?mystery team?

Aknight1986 — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:55:27 +0000

Doing my happy dance. I really want him to end up with the 49ers.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/report-49ers-emerge-manning-mystery-team-182701591.html

As the options dwindled down for Peyton Manning, many NFL insiders warned us to watch out for a "mystery team" to enter the sweepstakes. According to ESPN's Chris Mortensen, that has now officially happened. Mort reported via his Twitter account that Manning worked out for 49ers head coach Jim Harbaugh this week, and took a physical for the team. According to the report by Mortensen and ESPN cohort Adam Schefter, Manning had a throwing session in North Carolina on Tuesday, with Harbaugh and offensive coordinator Greg Roman in attendance. All accounts indicate that the session was "very impressive."

While it's believed that Manning would prefer to stay in the AFC for multiple reasons (the primary one being his supposed desire not to block brother Eli out of the Super Bowl), the opportunity to play for a team that went 13-3 in 2011 with Alex Smith as their quarterback might be too much to turn down for a man who has just a few years left and isn't coming back to do anything but win a Super Bowl. When the 49ers re-signed cornerback Carlos Rogers, they ensured that all 11 starters would return to one of the NFL's best defenses. The 49ers have taken a flyer on Randy Moss, and you can be sure that they'll be doing more to accentuate their receiver corps in the draft.

The 49ers have been negotiating with Smith, currently an unrestricted free agent, but no deal has been struck. Smith was very efficient in 2011, throwing just five interceptions all season, but San Francisco's passing offense was far from explosive -- by default, it reflected Harbaugh's coaching personality -- tightly controlled, methodical to a fault, and as mistake-proof as possible.

The most obvious question here would be how Manning and Harbaugh would co-exist. There are teams and coaches ready and willing to scrap their offensive game plans to get Manning and let him run the three-wide, single-back, check-with-me offense he did with great success for so many years in Indianapolis. Harbaugh is a very successful former quarterback himself - in fact, he's the starter Manning replaced when the Colts selected Manning with the first overall draft pick in 1998.

Since then, Harbaugh has employed strict control over his schemes at the college and pro level, and the success he's enjoyed means that he doesn't have to defer to anyone. He turned Smith's career around, and he raised Andrew Luck, the man who will replace Manning, in a professional sense.

This is for sure -- if Manning and Harbaugh can come to terms on the offense that will be run, the 49ers field the same defense they did last year, and a few new targets are added, that team will be just about unbeatable on paper. And with all the complications that may arise, that's why a future in the Bay Area might make the most sense among Manning's current options.

Religion Politics and Higher Ed

3.27.04_Helper — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 06:47:02 +0000

Religion, Politics and Higher Ed

My sister's latest blog post... she really should come over here and hang out, but then she might not finish her dissertation.

The video of this will stop your heart- 3 year old thrown from ride

Hopeforthebest — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:47:21 +0000

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/3-year-old-thrown-from-ho_n_1353587.html?1331914167&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing8%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D144106

Although she met the height and weight requirements for the "Techno Jump ride" at RodeoHouston on Wednesday, a three-year-old was thrown from her seat once the ride began, KHOU TV reports.

According to the station, the girl's mother reportedly decided she didn't want to ride along moments before it began-- and left her daughter strapped in with her brother.

Despite the lap bar and restraining belt, the girl slipped out of the moving chair and fell to the ride's platform -- suffering a contusion on the side of her head and abrasions, the station reports. Luckily a CAT scan and X-ray at the Texas Children's Hospital revealed no serious injuries.

Leroy Shafer, Chief Operating Officer of the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, told the Houston Chronicle that it seemed the girl "decided to crawl out to get back to her mother" roughly 15 seconds into the ride. The girl "immediately jumped up and started running to find her mother," he added.

Shafer added to KTRK TV that the incident should serve as a warning to parents taking their kids on carnival rides.

"The thing I want to emphasize to parents...be responsible out here," Shafer said, according to the station.

This isn't the first time someone has been injured at the Houston rodeo. Last year, a man fell to his death from one of the carnival's roller coasters. Although safety teams inspected the "Hi-Miller" roller coaster after the tragedy, they reportedly found no malfunctions despite claims from a previous rider who said the safety latch in her car came undone.

Moroccan Women Rally Against Rape-Marry Law

Heather R — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:58:19 +0000

Several hundred Moroccan women have rallied outside the country's parliament building to demand the repeal of a law that allows a rapist to marry his female victim if she is under the age of consent (18). The protests come in the wake of 16-year-old Amina Filali's March 10 suicide, the result of an abusive, court-recommended marriage to her rapist.

Said Fouzia Assouli, the president of the Democratic League for Women's Rights,
"What we have witnessed is scandalous. We have had enough. We must change this law, we must change the penal code." The law (article 475), according to the BBC's Nora Fakim, is intended to help preserve a family's honor (rather than a victim's dignity) in the wake of a rape. In poor, rural areas such as Filali's hometown of Larache, it is unacceptable for a woman to lose her virginity before marriage, even in cases of rape, which problem the Moroccan government solved in the most backwards way possible by simply delivering underage women over to their assailants. Though all parties must agree to a marriage, activists say that pressure is exerted on the victim's family to consent in order to avoid a scandal.

Protesters, however, have been so far disheartened by the lack of government response both to the protest and to Filali's death, which makes it seem like there's still an arduous road for young Moroccan women such as Amina Filali to travel before they're regarded as full-fledged, equal citizens and not merely transferable property that can be broken or bartered according the whim of a repressive patriarchy.

Morocco protest against rape-marriage law [BBC]

http://jezebel.com/5894198/moroccan-women-rally-against-horrible-rape+marry-law?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

so the re-nig racist fessed up

Heather R — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:29:07 +0000

that y'all have nothing better to do with your time then talk about me. Am I a racist? Well yeah I probably am to some extent . However, I don't hate O'bambam because he is black I hate him because he has done NOTHING POSITIVE for this country. If you feel the need to flood my in-box with spam and hate mail go right ahead I don't use that email address anymore. I'll leave this with yall in parting IN 2008 YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA TO PROVE YOU WERE NOT RACIST IN 2012 VO TE AGAINST HIM TO PROVE YOU NOT STUPID

I couldnt give two fuks what yall call me. Yall are faceless meaningless people on the internet. I speak my mind and make no apologizes for that. The bumper sticker was funny. I dont personally think I am a full out racist( I dont hate anyone based on the color of their skin, reglious background, ethnisity, or sexual orintation) howeve r if yall do that's fine. http://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/64362706.aspx

NCAA: Norfolk State - WTF!

MrsDL — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:43:03 +0000

@: what happened to my body?! (TMI inside)

NaturalBlond — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:00:33 +0000

I gained 40 lbs. during pregnancy. I lost the first 20 w/in the first week or so. The remaining 20 has hung around like a bad houseguest and it's been 14 weeks!

I have a poochy, doughy belly. I've never had a belly in all my life.

I thought breastfeeding was supposed to make the lbs. melt away? Not so in my case.

None of my clothes fit right. Not only do they not fit right in obvious places like my belly, but also my shoulders, my hips, my ass. Etc. I hate getting dressed. I still wear maternity jeans. Most days I stay in sweats. Wha, wha, whaaaaa.

Also, here's the TMI part, so brace yourself...I had a second degree tear. Almost always pee trickles out of me after using the bathroom. I HATE IT. Will this go away? What happened to my vagina!?!!11!!!

Thanks for listening.

Dylanites siggy has me in TEARS

MeredithE — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:56:30 +0000

LOLZ!!!

I pulled a stupid this week

zelda25 — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:51:41 +0000

I forgot to tell you all about this earlier. I had a few minutes virtually alone with a congressman on Thursday and very much wanted to chat with him about "stuff" (Citizens United? War on Women? GOP primaries? you name it), but was so flummoxed and so afraid of seeming stupid that I said nothing. Kicking. Myself.

FINALLY!!! All the R candidates shirtless!

is_it_over_yet? — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:10:51 +0000

Thank GOD because I have been dying to see this. DYING, I tell you.

Santorum Joins the Topless Presidential Candidate Club

Rick Santorum recovered from stirring up a little controversy in Puerto Rico by relaxing shirtless next to the pool at one of the island's resorts. Unfortunately for his modesty, some of his fellow sun worshippers were passengers on an all-gay cruise, and they sent this photo of Santorum to the blog Joe My God. BuzzFeed posted it shortly after. And with that, Santorum becomes the fourth, possibly fifth presidential candidate to be photographed topless for the world to see.

Santorum is not alone. This month, BuzzFeed reposted photos taken from the mommy blog of Mitt Romney's daughter-in-law. They showed him looking fit while topless on the beach.

But while Romney is well-known for staying in shape, it isn't so obvious that Ron Paul is pretty cut too, for a 76-year-old. Paul posted Facebook photos of himself in the pool in June.

In June, TMZ reported that this was a photo of Newt Gingrich sunning on a Mediterranean rock while on his infamous luxury cruise. His spokesman denied it was Gingrich.

Rick Perry, who was often swooned over for his looks, merely showed off his legs:

And of course, there's the guy they're all competing with, Barack Obama, who was famously photographed shirtless in Honolulu in September 2008.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/santorum-joins-topless-presidential-candidate-club/50013/

NCAA: Sigh. Memphis, Memphis, Memphis.

nitaw — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:08:58 +0000

One of my brackets is now toast. I had us getting past SLU, but falling to Mich State. I love my squad, but I have to say it. Pastner's youth shows up when we get into hard ball contests. I kept trying to figure out why the hell Ferrokhan Hall was in the game. One day Pastner will be a decent coach, but our record against Top 25 teams is the tale of the tape. We've only one 1 game against a Top 25 squad.

I'm going to take off my team colors and cry now.