Connect with us

Komen: The Extreme Anti-Gay Views Of Their VP Who Dumped Planned Parenthood

Published

on

When Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen For The Cure hired Karen Handel as her Senior Vice President, she knew what she was getting. Handel, who joined Komen in April of 2011, had not only previously worked for Komen, but had been Georgia’s Secretary of State and had run for Governor of the Peach Tree State as well. As it turns out, Handel’s move to the Dallas, Texas based breast cancer non-profit was not a huge transition for her personal politics: she is 100% anti-gay. In a 21st century United States of America, where the majority support same-sex marriage, and the majority support a women’s right to choose, it’s unconscionable that the Susan G. Komen Foundation would hire someone so rabidly against the gay community and women. But Nancy Brinker — whose last-ditch effort to lie her way out of a public relations nightmare yesterday in an interview with breast-cancer survivor and MSNBC anchor and veteran journalist Andrea Mitchell proved disastrous — did just that: hire as senior VP a woman opposed to women’s rights and gay rights. If that was in fact her goal, she accomplished it in expert fashion. Let’s be perfectly clear here: Komen does not fund abortions at Planned Parenthood. Their Planned Parenthood funding was used for women’s health and especially for mammograms, a direct tie-in with the Komen mission to reduce and cure breast cancer. So, their defunding of Planned Parenthood was merely a malicious and political move. Period. And it’s important to see through today’ well-planned PR smokescreen:

READ: Why You Still Shouldn’t Trust Susan G. Komen, Even After Their Reversal

Below is a 2010 interview with former Georgia politician and Komen VP Karen Handel, which focuses on then-candidate Handel’s positions on gay rights, gay adoption, and gay marriage, just one year prior to her joining Komen in 2011. Almost amusingly, Handel in the beginning of the video attempts to minimalize her association with the Georgia chapter of the L0g Cabin Republicans, the gay Republican group of which she was a dues-paying member, and which actually endorsed her two years running. And throughout, but especially at the end of the interview, Handel flat out acknowledges her ignorance and bigotry. Local Georgia reporter Doug Richards asks, “I guess I want to know why you don’t think gay parents are as legitimate and heterosexual parents?” Handel’s uppity response: “Because I don’t.” Here’s the complete transcript, and the video from reporter Richards:

Handel:  (The Log Cabin Republican check is) certainly not a membership.  And I don’t think going to an event constitutes membership, nor does it constitute agreeing with everything they have to say either. Richards:  Why did you do that? A:  Well, when you’re out campaigning — remember, I was campaigning for Fulton County Commission — so I think it was important for me to speak to all the various Republican groups.  Let’s remember a lot of Republicans have spoken to the Log Cabin organization, from, I think (Senator Johnny) Isakson has spoken, Sonny Perdue has spoken.  It was part of going out and trying to run a comprehensive campaign.  And the key, I think, was to make sure that I was doing the outreach with folks.  And it was better to not have folks be adversarial against me, and so that was the whole point of it. Q:  You said there were issues where you may have agreed and disagreed on.  What were the issues you agreed with them on? A:  From taxes and cutting the spending at Fulton County and candidly, the organization was a good ally on those types of fiscal issues. Q:  You have said that you are — you’re against gay marriage, right? A:  Mm hm.  Absolutely.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  And I’ve been very very clear about that.  And the record is clear about any of the other issues like domestic partner benefits or anything like that.  In fact in Fulton, I voted no on domestic partner benefits. Q:  Are you against civil unions for gays? A:  Yes.  I think that’s not an issue that has come forward in Georgia.  We have the constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and I don’t want to see any taxpayer funding going toward benefits etcetera for a couple that is not married.  In our state and for me, marriage is for one man and one woman. Q:  Why is that? A:  Why is marriage between one man and one woman?  (Laughs).  Are you serious? Q:  Yes.  Well why — do you view committed gay relationships as being less legitimate than committed heterosexual relationships? A:  As a Christian, I view relationships and marriage as being between a man and a woman. Q:  But what about the legitimacy of the relationship?  Do you have any gay friends?  Do you know gay couples? A:  Of course I do.  Are we going to spend our whole day talking on this issue? Q:  I want to know how you feel about this. A:  I’ve been very clear.  And you know, as a Christian, marriage is between a man and a woman.  I do not think that gay relationships are — they are not what God intended.  And that’s just my viewpoint on it.  Others might disagree with that.  But I would also hope that if you look at what is happening in our state, we’ve got issues we need to be focused on in Georgia.  We have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.  And it’s something that I supported wholeheartedly.  We have that, and let’s get dealing with the other issues that we also need to deal with in Georgia.  And the press can help with that.  (Laughs). Q:  Frequently, folks in the legislature kind of threaten to — there are always rumblings in the legislature that they may outlaw gay adoptions.  You’re against gay adoption. A:  I am against gay adoption.  But remember — I mean, if there is legislation on  that, certainly I will follow that and look at it.  But in the end, ultimately courts are going to be the ones to have to make the decision on that and it’s always in the best interests of the child.  Do I think that gay parents is in the best interest of the child?  No.  But we do have our court system that deals with many and most of those issues. Q:  Would you favor outlawing gay adoptions? A:  Yeah, I would consider that, absolutely. Q:  Do you know any gay couples with children? A:  Not that I’m aware of. Q:  So you think gay couples are less qualified to function as parents than straight couples? A:  I think that for a child to be in a household — in a family in a household with a situation where the parents are not married, as in one man and one woman, is not the best household for a child. Q:  Is it better or worse than a single parent household? A:  Doug, I’m really trying to be straightforward with you but I’m not going to debate all the nuances.  I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is between a man and a woman.  And that’s what I believe, and I don’t know what more you would like me to add to that. Q:  I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents. A:  Because I don’t. Q:  (Pause)  Well, I realize that. A:  Well, Doug, we’re not going to spend the whole day discussing this issue.  And you know, it ‘s really kind of disappointing — we invited you on this (leg of the bus trip). Q:  I know. A:  So we’re going to need to move on. Hat-tip: Aaron Furtado Baldwin and Wendy Equal Leigh

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

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

11 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

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

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

14 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

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

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

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

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

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

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

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

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

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

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.