Connect with us

Budget Showdown: Senate Democratic Women Preserve Party’s Principles

Published

on

A great moment in Democratic Party politics occurred  at ‘High Noon’ on Friday when the so-called “budget impasse” between the House, the Senate, and the White House was looking as if we might really have a government shut-down. But Democratic women pro-choice senators took to a public stage, led by Patty Murray (D-WA), who was seething at a low boil, as she rebuked House Republicans for their naked attempts to end health care for low-income women and their families, under the guise of “saving” taxpayer dollars.

“The Democratic women of the Senate are here this afternoon to express our anger and disappointment, that after weeks of being told that the continuation of funding for this government was about budget cuts, and deficits and spending,” Murray said. “Well, now we find out at the 11th hour, hours before the the government shuts down, that that’s not what it’s all about.”

I was really moved by each senator’s leadership who confronted and called out Republican tactics for what they really are–a war on women and low-income Americans. It was the most vigorous and articulate defense of Democratic Party principles during this entire sordid budget affair.

We at The New Civil Rights Movement take these battles seriously as this site has dedicated ample editorial to an examination of the Republican Party’s war on women, children, poor people and immigrants, as they are directly connected to the extreme right-wing’s war on obstructing the extension of civil rights to LGBT peoples in America.

Read: The GOP’s War on Women and Children

If there were any doubt in President Barack Obama and what he would be willing to give up to the House in his compromising spirit, after the Democratic women senators spoke, it was clear that defunding Planned Parenthood was not one of them.

Democratic woman drew the line in the sand that compromising by NOT protecting women’s health care access was absolutely a bridge too far to go, even for the president who took a decidedly distant approach to the budget fracas to stay above the political fray.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aJ3_ZqkunjU%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

As the worm turned on Thursday following a week of nearly daily feuding press conferences in the nation’s capital, Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America hastily organized a rally on the mall in support of maintaining funding for women’s health. Cheered on by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was presented with a petition signed by thousands of supporters in their opposition to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and other health clinics around the country that provide birth contraceptives and general health care to women and men.

There was no mistaking why Schumer would appear at this rally. Schumer emerged this week as a major Democratic leader in the Senate and will be for a long time to come.

(Bob Dole, former Senate Republican Majority Leader once quipped that “the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and the television.”)

Famous for his Sunday afternoon press conferences in New York, Schumer has seamlessly pivoted to his new role as the Senate Democrats’ messenger-in-chief. His uncanny ability to synthesize political policies into effective media messaging came to the forefront, prominently displayed, this past week in the Democrats’ first major battle in the 112th Congress with Republicans.

With many more battles likely to occur, as Congress finally turns its attention to the business of the FY 2012 authorizations and appropriations, the Democrats will need all of Schumer’s messaging skills, as I predict it is going to get much more difficult dealing with the House Republicans, along with their Tea Party caucus, before it gets better, until we can await new and more hopeful results from the 2012 elections.

But what became abundantly clear as the week’s political events unfolded was the unabashed Republican objective to defund Planned Parenthood’s health care services under Title X of  the Public Health Service Act of 1970, a 41-year-old health care program that includes family planning services for low-income Americans, made into law by Republican President Richard Nixon.

(Nixon, who in comparison to current extreme Republican Party ideologues, probably couldn’t get elected today to dog catcher and that is saying something considerable when it comes to Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign his presidency in 1974, due to his administration’s cover-up of a burglary by Republican campaign loyalists who broke into the Democratic Party headquarter’s offices located at the infamous Watergate Hotel.)


“No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.  I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of family planning services…to all who want but cannot afford them.”

– President Richard M. Nixon, 1970

 

The House Republican women members fecklessly responded to the Democratic women in their desperate attempt to defend the Republican goal of cutting spending, but chose to inartfully ignore reporters’ more pointed questions about Rep. Mike Pence’s (R-IN) policy rider to defund Title X or else shut down the government. When the group of 15 congresswomen began talking over one another in an uncoordinated response, according to Talking Points Memo, Rep. Jean Schmitt (R-OH), jumped to the microphone and said, “This is about a package. We can’t tell you what we’re going to do until we see the next package. What the Senate is doing is deflecting the real issue and the real issue is to cut the unnecessary spending in Washington, period. And you can continue to ask the question but the answer is cutting unnecessary spending in Washington.”

So while the GOP women wouldn’t discuss why the government should end a 41-year old effective public health program that provides family planning and contraceptives, ideally preventing unintended pregnancies and therefore more abortions, back in the Senate, perhaps the sorriest performance of the week belonged to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who simply lied by falsely accusing Planned Parenthood of using federal funds to pay for legal abortions, a separate medical service that is not connected to its general health services. Kyl also lied by saying, “If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” Abortions represent only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activities.

And I guess Kyl forgot that federal funds to pay for abortions were banned by the Hyde Amendment, adopted by the Congress 34 years ago. Why not beat a dead, truly dead horse and lie about it too?  Then he had the audacity to say he didn’t mean it and was misunderstood. Really!

All of these developments taken together are foreboding enough to contemplate what the future portends to be with the patients running the asylum in the House. Now, we have to wait to know more about the $38 billion worth of budget cuts–“the biggest in history”–even President  Obama and some members of Congress are now bragging about, will land. Most likely these sobering cuts will fall on those who can least afford it.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

7 mins ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.