Monday, January 7, 2013

The Rise Of DIY Abortions

Jennie Linn McCormack took pills to end her pregnancy and hid the fetus under her bed. Her case could change the course of abortion law in America.

JENNIE LINN MCCORMACK was 14 when she had her first baby. It was 1993, and she was in junior high in southeast Idaho, where she’s always lived and where she still lives now. Blond, petite, and fine-featured, she did tap, ballet, drill team, and cheerleading. She started spending time with an 18-year-old boy in her group of friends. Because he was older and she was a virgin, she trusted him when he said nothing bad would happen if they had sex. The first time they did, she got pregnant.

McCormack hid the pregnancy for as long as she could. She’d been brought up Mormon, although her parents were divorced and didn’t make her go to church anymore. But after she started showing, she had to tell her mom. Her mother took her to an adoption agency, but McCormack ran out of the room—she was scared, but felt like she was meant to have the baby. She named her son Tanner, and she didn’t ask the father for anything.

After that, McCormack went to a school for teen parents and got her GED. She went on to work various jobs: at a car wash, a McDonald’s, a laundromat, a Dillard’s. When she was 18, she married a man who worked in the heating-and-air business, and they settled down in the sleepy college town of Pocatello. Everything nice she now owns is left over from that marriage, like the plush, comfy furniture in her living room. When she was 19, they had a daughter. But the marriage foundered, and they got divorced in 2004.

Her third child, a boy, was born in 2009. The father was “not a long-term relationship,” she says. When the baby was three months old, she started dating an old friend, Buddy Lee, who had recently gotten out of prison after serving time on a robbery charge.

Their relationship was tempestuous and occasionally violent; there was at least one restraining order involved. Soon after they’d started dating, she found herself pregnant. Lee took her to the nearest clinic, some 140 miles away in Salt Lake City, and paid for the abortion. Then, in 2010, she realized she was pregnant by him again. “I wasn’t being careless or sleeping around all the time,” McCormack says. “I just didn’t know quite about the options other than condoms.”

By then, Lee was back in jail—his parole had been revoked for drinking. McCormack had no income other than the $200 to $250 per month of child support she received from her baby’s father. She shared custody of her daughter, who was then 12, with her ex-husband. Tanner, 17, was hoping to go to college. “I didn’t want to raise it in that situation,” McCormack says, “nor put more on my children and me that I couldn’t handle. I had no money. No car. I didn’t have anything.”

McCormack knew that an abortion would cost $400 to $2,000, depending on how far along she was. Utah has a mandatory waiting period of 72 hours, which meant she would either need to stay in a hotel for that time, or make the six-hour round trip twice over the course of several days. She couldn’t come up with that kind of money. So she called her older sister, who owned a computer, and asked her to order abortion pills for her on the Internet. The pills cost $200, and McCormack says the logistics of arranging it all took about two months.

By the time the medication arrived in an unmarked envelope on December 23, she was in her second trimester—at, she thought, week 14. Following the instructions, she took the first pill right away and the others some hours later. That night, she started having cramps. The next morning, Christmas Eve, she delivered a dead fetus alone in her bathroom, along with the placenta and a great deal of blood.

The fetus was much bigger than she had expected. It was about a foot long, clearly female, with identifiable features and hair. McCormack wrapped the remains in a bag with the placenta. Then she put it in a box and hid it under her bed. That evening, she attended Christmas Eve dinner at her father’s place and dropped her daughter off with her ex-husband for an overnight visit. She wrapped the children’s presents, including new clothes she’d bought on layaway for her fashion-conscious daughter, and put them under the tree. She told no one about the abortion apart from her sister.

After about a week, the box began to emit an odor. McCormack wrapped it up in more bags and put it out on the back porch, on the shelf of a covered barbecue. It didn’t feel right to her to throw it away. A week or so later, unable to figure out what to do, she finally confided in a friend. He called his sister, and his sister called the police.

On the afternoon of January 9, 2011, two officers arrived at McCormack’s house. She led them to the back porch and told them, according to reports, “My baby is in the box.” When an officer opened the parcel, he discovered the fetal remains, partially decomposed and frozen. One officer took McCormack to the police station, where she described the abortion. An autopsy would later determine that she had actually been between 19 and 23 weeks—around five months—pregnant.

Several months later, in May 2011, McCormack was charged by the Bannock County Prosecutors’ office under 1973’s Idaho Code 18-606, which makes it a felony for a woman to have an abortion in a manner not sanctioned by the state and carries a possible prison sentence of up to five years. McCormack isn’t the only woman in recent years to be prosecuted for ending her own pregnancy. But her case could change the trajectory of abortion law in the United States.

TECHNIQUES FOR TERMINATING a pregnancy can be found in the Bible, on Egyptian papyrus, and in Chinese records dating to around 500 B.C. There are too many to list, but women have attempted home abortions with mercury, quinine, pennyroyal, iron sulfates, and a mixture of camel saliva and deer hair; Hippocrates once advised a prostitute to jump up and down.

Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, American women inserted knitting needles and other sharp objects into their cervixes to end unwanted pregnancies. They put dangerous drugs like the tissue-destroying potassium permanganate into their vaginas, which typically failed to terminate pregnancy but sometimes caused hemorrhage. Elihu Sussman, a retired New York City pediatrician who was working as a medical student at Boston City Hospital in the 1960s, says, “There were thirty beds, and some of them were always filled with women who came in because of septic abortions—four, five, six at any given time.” His wife, Geraldine Sussman, was a student nurse at Bellevue in New York during the same period. “They’d use coat hangers, laundry detergent products,” she says. “A lot of them would rupture their uteruses and end up with hysterectomies. People now don’t realize what it was like. It was awful.”

Starting in the early ’70s, activist Carol Downer promoted the creation of self-help groups at which women would teach each other how to do their own speculum exams and “menstrual extractions”—the suction removal of menstrual blood that can serve as an early at-home abortion method. “When we were working to get abortion legalized,” Downer said by phone, “there were groups around the country—at any given time about one hundred—that were fully capable of performing these procedures. Once Roe v. Wade came along, clearly the energy shifted.” Later, in the 1990s, some feminist activists also advocated do-it-yourself (DIY) abortions. The band Bikini Kill sometimes handed out a DIY abortion flyer, “Body Mine,” at its shows, with information on abortifacient herbs, menstrual extraction, fertility cycles, and safe sex.

These activists believed that such information was necessary because, even though clinical abortion is legal in the United States, accessing one has become increasingly difficult, especially for poor women. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment banned most types of federal funding for abortion. Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties now have no abortion provider. Several states—including Wyoming, Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota—have only one. Mississippi’s lone clinic is under constant threat of closure.

The past few years have also seen the rise of the “fetal personhood” movement, which promotes legislation around the concept that a rights-endowed person is created the second that sperm meets egg. A record-setting 92 abortion-restricting measures passed in 2011. Seven states—including Idaho—have recently banned abortion past 20 weeks through so-called “pain-capable unborn child protection act” legislation. These laws are an attempt to redefine the legal parameters for abortion. Roe v. Wade essentially holds that an abortion may be performed until the fetus is “viable”—that is, until it can survive outside the womb, which most states determine is 24 or 25 weeks. The new measures instead seek to prevent an abortion after the point at which a fetus is able to feel pain—according to the bills’ authors, at about 20 weeks. (In 2010, an extensive study by U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that a fetus can’t feel pain in the first 24 weeks.)

But while obtaining an abortion at a clinic is becoming harder, home abortion has never been easier or safer. In 2012, women have two resources that previous generations did not: abortion pills and the Internet. The combination of two drugs—Cytotec (Misoprostol) and Mifeprex (Mifepristone, known as RU-486 in trials) is 95 to 99 percent effective at ending a pregnancy in the first nine weeks, according to Ibis Reproductive Health’s Daniel Grossman, an expert on medical abortion. (Cytotec is 85 to 90 percent effective on its own.) “Essentially they induce an abortion similar to a spontaneous miscarriage,” says Grossman of the drug combination.

When conducted correctly, a medicated abortion is far less harrowing than the ordeal experienced by McCormack. If the pills are taken in the first nine weeks of a pregnancy, there is no fetus to deliver or dispose. At nine weeks, an embryo is the size of a grape and weighs a fraction of an ounce; the effect of the abortion is comparable to a heavy period. Both Cytotec and Mifeprex have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the mortality rate for Mifeprex is one in 100,000. (By contrast, Viagra’s is five in 100,000.) “The bottom line is these medications are incredibly safe,” says Grossman.

When Mifeprex was approved for sale in the United States in 2000, it was expected to increase abortion access for marginalized women. The theory was that the pills would be more widely available than a surgical procedure, especially in parts of the country where clinics are few and far between. Instead, because of tight regulation of the drugs, the pills have simply become a clinical alternative to a surgical abortion. Medication is only used in about one-quarter of early terminations, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Online, however, these drugs are readily available, often via suspicious-sounding sites that make claims like: “The Affordable Abortion Pill Will Safely, Quickly Terminate Your Undeveloped Fetus In The Privacy Of Your Home, Save You Time And Hundreds Of Dollars. It Is 100% Clinically Safe, Very Effective And The Most Affordable Abortion Pill You Will Get Your Hands On For Now!!!”

Determining how many American women have had home abortions is exceedingly difficult: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not track illegal abortions. There is no blood test for drugs like Cytotec, and so such an abortion is indistinguishable from a natural miscarriage, even to a doctor. However, the proliferation of online dispensers suggests a rising demand. There are thousands of websites selling Cytotec for as little as $45 to $75 (compared with $300 to $800 for a legal medicated abortion in a clinic). Some claim to offer the harder-to-come-by Mifeprex, but may in fact be peddling Cytotec, or aspirin, or nothing at all. (Possible sources for the drugs include Mexico, where Cytotec is available over the counter, or even the United States, since it’s also prescribed here as an ulcer medication.)

The question of how drugs like Mifeprex and Cytotec are sold and administered is emerging as the next major front in the abortion debate. A number of pro-choice groups argue that access to the drugs should be vastly expanded, perhaps available by prescription from general practitioners. Susan Yanow of the Reproductive Health Access Project told me, “Ideally, I would like for a woman who is under nine weeks to be able to call a clinic or a physician and to get excellent counseling about medical abortion and then at the end of the call hear, ‘So, would you like me to phone a prescription in to your nearby pharmacy, or would you like to come in and do this with the support of a medical practitioner?’”

The law, however, is moving in the opposite direction. Several states have recently passed or are considering legislation to limit access to abortion drugs online and off. In 2011, Wisconsin passed a measure that would potentially subject doctors to criminal charges for performing medication abortions without adhering to certain specific protocols, such as seeing the patient three times; Planned Parenthood clinics in the state stopped providing medication abortions in April, and the organization has filed suit against the law.

Meanwhile, women continue to purchase abortion drugs on the Web without medical guidance, an undertaking that is more dangerous and fraught. Misuse or fraudulent pills could cause complications. A woman could, like McCormack, misjudge the length of her gestation or just decide to take the pills after nine weeks. Or she could unknowingly have a risk factor, such as an ectopic pregnancy.

Then, there is the risk of prosecution. Pro-life activists have long said that, if abortion were to become illegal, the doctor, not the woman, would be arrested, with the woman considered a second victim or material witness. According to new research by the nonprofit group National Advocates for Pregnant Women (napw), since Roe v. Wade more than a dozen women have been charged with illegal abortion or manslaughter for attempting to end a pregnancy. In 2004, a Mexican migrant worker named Gabriela Flores was arrested in South Carolina for taking Cytotec to end her pregnancy and sentenced to 90 days in jail. In 2007, a Massachusetts teenager named Amber Abreu was arrested for the same act and given probation and therapy. In 2011, 20-year-old New Yorker Yaribely Almonte was arrested for inducing an abortion at home with herbs. The charges were ultimately dropped. Some of these women have been charged with murder in the wake of a miscarriage or stillbirth; others, like McCormack, have been charged with violating the abortion laws in their state.

 

AFTER SHE WAS charged, McCormack contacted the largest law firm in Pocatello for help with her criminal defense. The lawyer who took her case was Rick Hearn, a Georgetown Law graduate who specializes in civil rights and personal injury litigation. A father of four and a practicing Catholic, he had once argued for the state in favor of a parental-consent law.

In October, I visited Hearn in his Pocatello office. Originally from Alabama, he has a faint Southern accent and exudes the warmth and gentle humor of a favorite uncle. Unlike McCormack, he very much belongs to the establishment of Pocatello: He is friendly with people in the prosecuting attorney’s office; his daughter plays on the same volleyball team as an assistant prosecutor’s daughter.

Hearn was able to get the charges against McCormack dismissed for lack of evidence. But the prosecutor made it very clear that he would consider refiling charges if more evidence emerged. McCormack would always have the threat of jail time hanging over her head.

Hearn is an avid fan of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books. He saw the character of dogged reporter Mikael Blomkvist as a good role model for a lawyer—“he follows the trail wherever it leads, even if where it leads is dangerous or unpopular,” he told me. When it came to McCormack’s case, Hearn realized there was only one way she could put the incident behind her.

In September 2011, within minutes of the case’s formal dismissal, Hearn helped McCormack file a civil suit against county prosecutor Mark Hiedeman. Hearn’s argument was that certain Idaho restrictions on abortions—including its recent pain-capable legislation—were unconstitutional. He aimed to prevent Hiedeman from prosecuting McCormack, or any other woman, for obtaining an illegal abortion.

McCormack and Hearn won a preliminary injunction from the District Court. The state appealed, and the case made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state tried to have the case dismissed, arguing that McCormack lacked standing because she was not currently seeking an abortion. (Norma McCorvey, “Roe,” was able to go forward only because she was pregnant at the time of her suit.) Hearn realized that he needed a doctor to intervene as a co-plaintiff, since a doctor could argue that the law prevented him from carrying out his medical obligations. But he couldn’t find one willing to join the suit.

As it happened, however, Hearn is also a doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state of Idaho. In February 2012, he became a co-plaintiff himself. “I intervened in this thing as a doctor against my wishes,” says Hearn. “I think it is so unfair that to a woman, the court says: ‘Go away. A doctor has to bring the case for you.’ It really reminds me of during the Civil War days, when they told slaves: ‘You can’t appear in court because you’re not a real person. Your master can come in and talk about those things.’”

And yet, others seem to wish McCormack would go away, too. By and large, the mainstream pro-choice movement has not embraced McCormack, likely because of what Lynn Paltrow, the founder of napw (which participated in the case as an amicus on McCormack’s behalf) euphemistically terms a “fact-pattern that does not seem particularly attractive.” (The press has represented this fact pattern as “fetus ... on the barbecue.”) Hearn says some reproductive rights advocates have expressed concern about his pursuing the case. “We’d just really rather you’d not,” is how Hearn says one activist put it.

When I asked Planned Parenthood for comment, spokesperson Eric Ferrero replied in a statement: “We are deeply concerned about the problem many women face in Idaho in accessing safe and legal abortion. As you know, compounding the access problem are many state laws restricting safe and legal abortion in the state.” His office confirmed that Planned Parenthood had no plans to become involved in McCormack’s case and declined to comment specifically on her situation. Soon after Hearn and McCormack filed their suit in Idaho, doctors represented by the aclu and the Center for Reproductive Rights brought suit against Arizona’s pain-capable law, while doctors represented by the aclu have challenged a similar measure in Georgia.

In September 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued a 37-page decision that, for the most part, vindicated McCormack. Written by Democratic appointee Judge Harry Pregerson, the ruling describes in detail the difficulty poor women experience in obtaining an abortion in Idaho. These restrictions, he argued, essentially outlawed the procedure for them, potentially violating the “undue burden” test sometimes invoked by the Supreme Court. He maintained that, since it was so hard for McCormack to obtain a legal abortion, it was unjust to charge her for having an illegal one. “It’s the first federal court decision that we know of to address the question of whether women themselves can be held criminally liable for the outcome of their pregnancies, for having an abortion, for what they do or experience during pregnancy,” says Paltrow. “The Ninth Circuit decision may have opened up abortion access to every woman with a computer,” says Hearn.

But the decision was only a partial victory. It was narrowly applied to McCormack, meaning that other women in Idaho can still be arrested for having an illegal abortion. The court also found that McCormack did not have standing to challenge the pain-capable legislation, because it had passed after she terminated her pregnancy.

Hearn responded by filing a motion that, if successful, would halt prosecutions of all women and doctors in Idaho for illegal abortion, and overturn the pain-capable law. Justice B. Lynn Winmill of the Idaho District Court is expected to rule by early next year. Hearn’s latest suit has not attracted support from most reproductive rights groups, which are perhaps nervous that McCormack’s rather messier case may rise up through the courts before the other paincapable lawsuits. If it reached the Supreme Court, it would hardly be their ideal test for reevaluating the federal position on abortion. “Many advocates for women’s rights appear to want women’s real stories and their real life troubles out of courts,” says Hearn. “They want it to be doctors in white coats.”

THIS OCTOBER, every room in McCormack’s house was carefully decorated with seasonal arrangements, from a cornucopia on the kitchen table to an autumn-leaf garland along the living room wall. Pumpkins of various sizes were artfully arrayed on the front steps. She proudly showed off the swing she built for her baby when she couldn’t afford the ones at the store.

Sitting in her living room, McCormack was alternately fragile and chatty. She told me the town has shunned her since the Idaho State Journal ran her full name, age, and home address. U.K. newspaper The Independent reported earlier this year: “In the supermarket, people stop and point. At fast-food outlets, they hiss ‘it’s her’!” “I just secluded myself with my kids,” she says. “I wish I could save my children from any more heartache. Since all this, they don’t look at me the same.” She says the nondenominational church that she once attended shamed her publicly. “There was a sermon on abortion ...” She tears up. “He said you won’t be forgiven if you do. I haven’t went since.” She would like to leave town, although she has rarely been outside the state, aside from visits to nearby Utah and childhood trips to Disneyland.

In my conversations with people in Pocatello, many expressed sympathy for McCormack. After a Sunday service at her former church (the sermon discussed the dangers of alcohol and Harry Potter), co-pastor Penny Johnson initially struggled to remember her. When she did, she brightened and said, “Oh, how is she?” She was visibly shocked to hear of the court case and insisted there was no anti-abortion sermon. “If she heard that, it was a misunderstanding,” she said. “We don’t promote abortion, but if you’ve experienced that, God loves you. I had no clue she was going through that.”

After nearly a year of unemployment, McCormack now has several low-wage, part-time positions that require traveling between various stores. Her three-year-old is in Head Start four half-days a week across town. She often walks him the hour-plus to school in his stroller, then travels home to get her bike to do her store visits. After work, she drops off the bike, picks up the stroller, and then does the round trip again to pick up her son. She no longer receives child support for any of her children. Tanner was sentenced in October to four months in jail for harboring a 14-year-old Pocatello runaway in California, where he was about to start college. “He wants to save all these girls now because of his mom,” McCormack says. “He wanted to be a drug and alcohol counselor for youth. He had a path.” She hopes that when he gets out of jail, he will resume his college education.

Before I left Pocatello, I met two detectives who participated in the McCormack investigation. They work just a wall away from the evidence locker where the remains of the fetus are still stored; because the legal proceedings are ongoing, they cannot be released. “We see dead bodies, daily, weekly, in all different stages,” Detective Brian McClure told me. “But seeing a recognizable baby in a garbage bag, frozen, outside, in a garbage pile, decomposing ...”

“I wouldn’t wish anyone to that scene or investigation,” says Detective Val Wadsworth, a father of four. “We unwrapped it and released it to the funeral home, and the next day was the autopsy. The funeral director who was there said it was the worst smell he’d smelled in his thirty-five years of the funeral home. ... I can’t imagine what it did to her, to have that baby right underneath you for so long, trying to sleep with it there. When they had it thawed out and laying on the table, it was just sad. Sad feeling. Sad little pathetic face. It was just terrible.”

McCormack, too, thinks a lot about the fetus. As we watched her son bounce a bright yellow ball against the fence in her backyard, she told me that what she wants most is a proper burial. “Just because of the circumstances doesn’t mean I’m heartless,” she says. “It’s still a piece of you, you know?”

Ada Calhoun is a book author and freelance journalist. This article appeared in the December 31, 2012 issue of the magazine under the headline “The Rise of DIY Abortions.”

Additional photo credits: Produced by Exposure New York, Elsie Connett, A.C. Conrad, John Ericson; model, Lisa Landino; styling by Katie Burnett with Jonathan Black; hair and makeup, Kyra Doorman; art direction J Heroun

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions?id=sJfYuyODkD5YpCcg5G4g43FjW76CK0UpLSJHXK3AZJ7MO8GFxKxdMtwczlgFXTgD

Officials: Suspected U.S. Drone Strike Kills 17 in Pakistan's Tribal Region

A suspected U.S. drone strike killed 17 people and wounded three Sunday in Pakistan's volatile tribal region, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The strike occurred in Babar Ziarat, which borders the Pakistani provinces of North and South Waziristan, near the Afghan border, the officials said.

Those killed and injured in the strike were believed to be militants, the officials said.

The attack follows two suspected U.S. drone strikes in the same area last week that killed 15 people, including a Taliban commander with ties to the Pakistani military.

Taliban commander Mullah Nazir, also known as Maulvi Nazir Wazir, was killed in a strike in South Waziristan, officials said.

Nazir was at odds with the Pakistani Taliban over a peace agreement he signed with the Pakistani government in 2007. As part of the deal, he refused to attack the Pakistani government or military targets, though he was believed to be behind a number of attacks that targeted the U.S. military.

Nazir narrowly escaped a suicide bomb attack in early December. After the attack, he warned the Mehsud tribe, which includes Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, to vacate South Waziristan or face consequences.

Also killed in that strike were two of Nazir's deputies, the officials said.

In recent years, the U.S. government has sharply stepped up the use of drone attacks in Pakistan's mostly ungoverned tribal region, widely believed to be a safe haven for militant groups fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan. U.S. officials say the drone strikes are an effective

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/06/world/asia/pakistan-drone-strike/index.html

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Mike Luckovich, Copyright 2013 Creators Syndicate

Welcome to the New Civil War

Lincoln's unfinished war rages on, as the neo-Confederacy tries to turn back the clock on women, gays, God and guns

On a repeat viewing of Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” over the New Year’s holiday, a scene I had barely noticed the first time jumped out at me. Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens (played with reptilian gentility by Jackie Earle Haley), in a secret meeting aboard a steamboat with Abraham Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward, faces up to the reality that the era of slavery has come to an end. Ratification of the 13th Amendment, Stephens muses, will destroy the basis of the Southern economy and the South’s traditional way of life. “We won’t know ourselves anymore,” he says.

If only it had been so. What an affluent slaveowner like Stephens feared most, no doubt, was the utopian vision of “radical Reconstruction” imagined by legendary abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones in the movie), in an earlier conversation with Lincoln in the White House kitchen. Stevens envisioned a future in which all the land and property of the Southern aristocracy would be dispossessed and divided among the emancipated slaves, building a new society of free soil and free labor amid the ruins of tyranny. To put it in contemporary social-studies terms, Stevens hoped that by uprooting and destroying the South’s slave economy, one could also replace its culture.

It didn’t quite work out that way. You can’t boil one of the most tumultuous periods of American history down to one paragraph, but here goes: Lincoln was assassinated by a domestic terrorist and replaced by Andrew Johnson, who was an incompetent hothead and an unapologetic racist. Within a few years the ambitious project of Reconstruction fell victim to a sustained insurgency led by the Ku Klux Klan and similar white militia groups. By the late 1870s white supremacist “Redeemers” controlled most local and state governments in the South, and by the 1890s Southern blacks had been disenfranchised and thrust into subservience positions by Jim Crow laws that were only slightly preferable to slavery.

So even though it’s a truism of American public discourse that the Civil War never ended, it’s also literally true. We’re still reaping the whirlwind from that long-ago conflict, and now we face a new Civil War, one focused on divisive political issues of the 21st century – most notably the rights and liberties of women and LGBT people – but rooted in toxic rhetoric and ideas inherited from the 19th century.

We’ve just emerged from a presidential campaign that exposed how hardened our political and cultural divide has become, and how poorly the two sides understand each other. Part of the Republican problem, in an election that party thought it would win easily, was that those who felt a visceral disgust toward both the idea and the reality of President Barack Obama simply could not believe that they didn’t represent a majority. As many Republicans are now aware, the party now faces an existential crisis. It’s all very well to go on TV and talk about attracting Latinos and downplaying cultural wedge issues. But the activist core of the Republican Party is neo-Confederate, whether it thinks of itself that way or not. It isn’t interested in common cause with Mexicans or turning down the moral thermostat. Just ask Rick Santorum: What it wants is war.

In the recent “fiscal cliff” negotiations, which ended (of course) in yet another short-term stopgap measure, most congressional Republicans, having sworn a blood oath never to raise taxes on their millionaire patrons, were content to let the nation slide into chaos and catastrophe rather than reach a compromise with the president they have consistently depicted as a socialist renegade or alien interloper. It was like a third-rate farcical reprise of the great congressional struggle depicted by Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner in “Lincoln,” when the defeated and embittered Democrats of 1864 fought a rear-guard action to defend slavery, in defiance of not just history, morality and basic human decency but also tactical judgment and common sense.

Thanks to Lincoln’s great political victory in that Congress, slavery has faded into the history books — maybe too much so. As the controversy over Quentin Tarantino’s slave-revenge western “Django Unchained” demonstrates, it still isn’t a history we know how to talk about. It may seem melodramatic to claim that the curse of slavery hangs over us still, but Lincoln himself clearly foresaw that possibility, as his slaveowning predecessor Thomas Jefferson had before him. In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, he described slavery as an offense against God, and the bloodshed of the Civil War “as the woe due to those [on both sides] by whom the offense came.” Perhaps a cruel cosmic justice was now being extracted, he concluded, and the war would go on “until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.”

I’m not sure America ever paid that debt, in blood or money or any other currency. The lingering effects of our racist history – from the resegregation of our public schools to the enduring and astonishing “wealth gap” between whites and blacks – are national problems, not just Southern problems. Our new Civil War is infused with the undead spirit of the old one and waged by a rebellious neo-Confederacy rooted in the states of the Old South, but its influence can be felt, as with the pro-slavery forces of the 1860s, in every part of the country. (Fernando Wood, the fiery pro-slavery Democrat played by Lee Pace in “Lincoln,” was a former mayor of New York.)

The new Civil War is not entirely or even principally about race, although there’s no mistaking its pernicious racial component. Even making allowances for Bobby Jindal and Allen West, the neo-Confederate forces are perhaps 99 percent white, in a nation whose fastest-growing demographic groups are neither white nor black. While the issues of the new Civil War are contemporary, its rhetoric is ancient and all too familiar, from states’ rights and resistance to Washington to claims of a special relationship with the Almighty and vague appeals to distinctive “cultural traditions,” employed as a justification for bigotry and oppression.

While the Civil War of the 1860s really was about slavery first and foremost – it was the foundation of the Southern economy, and had concentrated immense wealth in the hands of a small landowning caste – the true subject matter of the new Civil War is much less clear. Abortion and same-sex marriage play a crucial role, to be sure (and we may soon see guns and marijuana enter the picture as well). Those are symbolic issues that reflect larger social tensions around gender roles, sexuality and the “war on women,” but they are not just symbolic issues. Many people on the neo-Confederate side see abortion and Adam-and-Steve marriage as moral outrages or offenses against God, to borrow Lincoln’s phrasing, which must be stopped at almost any cost. Of course, pro-choice activists and marriage-equality advocates see those issues as matters of basic economic justice, guaranteeing to all people the kind of basic personal autonomy that men take for granted, or the common-law legal and medical rights that heterosexual married couples have long enjoyed.

We appear to be moving into an unstable Missouri Compromise period of American history, in which regional tiers of states adopt sharply different policies on reproductive rights and marriage rights in particular, but also seem locked into fixed political identities and differing views on fundamental questions of national identity and the national future. Within the past week, we saw Illinois and Rhode Island – core “neo-Union” states, if you will – move closer to legalizing gay marriage, while the Republican governors of Michigan and Virginia (exactly the kind of “border states” where these battles are being fought on the ground) snuck new restrictions on abortion through the legal back door.

If you correlate the states where both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions have been banned and the states with the harshest restrictions on abortion, you begin to measure the breadth of the neo-Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah. Most (but not all) are onetime Southern slave states and hotbeds of evangelical Christianity, and most (but not all) coincide with the familiar red-blue split between Republicans and Democrats. The battleground states of the moment, on these issues as on many others, are strikingly familiar: Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. All four are currently in the grip of neo-Confederate forces on a state level, and all four have enacted gay-marriage bans and abortion restrictions, even though Obama won them all in both of his election campaigns.

Do I even need to mention that none of the neo-Confederate states are in the Northeast or on the West Coast, regions where abortion remains widely available and same-sex marriage is rapidly becoming routine? Or that the neo-Confederate states of the South and the Plains States have sent nearly all of the intransigent, anti-taxation Tea Party members to Congress, while the neo-Union states of the East and West, with their polyglot, immigrant-rich populations, have elected few or none?

Ultimately, the Missouri Compromise collapsed (as did the short-lived Compromise of 1850 that followed it), tearing the nation apart and forcing a long overdue reckoning with the enormous evil of slavery.. We are heading toward a similar reckoning now. Secession is no longer an option (although many, on both sides, might wish it were), so the new Civil War is not likely to involve pitched battles in the meadows of Pennsylvania, or hundreds of thousands of dead. Today’s fights over abortion and gays and God and guns have a profound moral dimension, but don’t quite have the world-historical weight of the slavery question. As with slavery, however, it’s tough to imagine any viable long-term middle ground. At the moment, two women who get married in Iowa will have no legal relationship if they move to Kansas, and a teenage girl in Seattle can easily get a safe and legal abortion while her cousin in Dallas faces mandatory counseling, a 24-hour waiting period and a parental consent law. (If they have another cousin in rural Mississippi, she probably won’t find legal abortion services under any terms.)

Regardless of how you feel about those issues, that’s nuts. No nation-state can function indefinitely on that kind of patchwork-quilt basis. Then again, this is the United States of America, land of semi-permanent political paralysis, so “functional” doesn’t really apply. It’s tempting to call upon history and proclaim that the only possible outcome of this new Civil War, after many years of ugly politics and occasional outbreaks of craziness and violence, will resemble the outcome of the last one: the continued expansion of constitutional rights and freedoms and the final defeat of the Confederate strain in American political and cultural life. But other, darker outcomes are definitely possible, and I suspect that as long as we’ve got a country, the Confederacy will still be with us.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/welcome_to_the_new_civil_war/

Conservatives Open New Congress with Unconstitutional Bill to End Birthright Citizenship

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution expressly provides that nearly anyone born in the United States is a citizen, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. Yet, despite the Constitution’s clear command, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) wants to ignore our founding document and prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens:

It’s the first week of the 113th Congress, and one House member is already trying to stop children born in the United States to undocumented parents — whom he calls “anchor babies” — from gaining citizenship.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an outspoken hardliner on immigration, introduced a bill on Thursday that would “clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” The Supreme Court has consistently held that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, should receive citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

King disagrees, as do 13 co-sponsors on the bill, including Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).

The Constitution is clear that King’s bill is unconstitutional. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “jurisdiction” refers to people that are subject to American law. Thus foreign diplomats and their families, who are granted broad immunity from U.S. law, are not entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Likewise, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted many Native Americans were subject only to tribal law and thus were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Undocumented immigrants and their children, by contrast, are not immune to U.S. law. And thus fit squarely within the Fourteenth Amendment’s command.

In the past two years, more than 200,000 parents have been removed from the country who say they have a U.S. citizen child.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/05/1402821/rep-steve-king-opens-new-congress-with-unconstitutional-bill-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Congress: Worst Reality TV Show Ever

The fiscal cliff was a manufactured crisis with an obvious ending. And the breathless coverage obscured the facts

During the halcyon 1990s, we labeled annual congressional temper tantrums for what they were: standard, if boring, budget impasses. Now, though, in a hilariously non-ironic flail for ratings, news outlets have taken Nigel Tufnel’s famous line from “Spinal Tap” seriously, turning the volume up to 11 by portraying the latest standoff as a harrowing “fiscal cliff,” replete with doomsday countdown clocks, gaudy NFL-quality graphics, and endless Twitter hashtags.

If anyone outside the Beltway was paying attention (a big “if”), they probably thought the title referred to an old episode of “Cheers” in which the goofy mailman does his taxes. After all, replaying reruns would have been more compelling content than this latest installment of “Real World: U.S. Capitol.”

Reality TV, of course, is this moment’s perfect metaphor. That schlocky format’s foundational oxymoron — it is “real” but not real — also defines contemporary politics.

Think about it: We understand “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” as “real” only in the sense that the characters use their own names. But we also understand that most of Kim and Khloe’s strife is manufactured. It’s the same for Washington — in the fiscal cliff melodrama, we heard that Speaker John Boehner dropped the f-bomb on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and we saw Democratic lawmakers perform maudlin to-camera testimonies about their supposed loyalty to the middle class. Yet, those few watching at home almost certainly sensed that it was all a scripted production — one whose outcome was predetermined.

To appreciate how the kabuki theater works, consider three big outcomes of the fiscal cliff legislation that the attendant reality TV show never highlighted:

1. Bush defeats Clinton: President Clinton’s tax rates delivered big budget surpluses and one of history’s strongest rates of economic growth. By contrast, President Bush’s cuts to those tax rates birthed massive deficits and the slowest rate of economic growth in modern history. Yet, faced with the fiscal cliff’s choice between Clinton and Bush tax rates, both parties agreed to ratify almost all of the latter.

For Republicans, this victory was summed up by Bush’s former spokesman, Ari Fleischer, who said simply, “It’s fantastic.” For Democrats, their triumphant rhetoric about their one small win — restoring Clinton rates on income above $400,000 — obscures a humiliating truth. Essentially, the party that spent so much political capital to modestly raise taxes and restore fiscal sanity after the Reagan binge was bullied into undoing much of its own fiscal legacy.

2. Nobody in Washington cares about deficits: During December’s “fiscal cliff” TV show, D.C.’s reality stars told us that they were focused on reducing the budget deficit. But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the final bill will increase the budget deficit by $4 trillion.

3. Corporate welfare is sacrosanct: For all the effort to make wasteful spending the villain in the “fiscal cliff” TV show, Congress ultimately refused to touch that spending. Somehow, defense contractor largess in the bloated Pentagon budget was off the table. Somehow, subsidies to corporate agribusiness were separated from the negotiations and then extended. Meanwhile, as the Roosevelt Institution’s Matt Stoller documented, the final “fiscal cliff” bill included taxpayer handouts for everything from NASCAR racetracks, to Hollywood studios, to a new Goldman Sachs headquarters.

If you find these facts more depressing than the fantasies that dominated the public version of the “fiscal cliff” drama, then you appreciate why so many Americans prefer reality TV over genuine documentaries. A shrink-wrapped “reality” hyped for maximum titillation is, indeed, more pleasant to watch than actual reality. Congress and the political media know this, so they give viewers what they think we want.

The problem is that the real story gets lost in translation, leaving us at once totally disgusted, occasionally entertained and permanently fleeced … just as Washington wants.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/04/congress_worst_reality_tv_show_ever/

Mexico Considers Marijuana Legalization after Ballot Wins in U.S.

Mexico, which has fought a long war against drug cartels that supply U.S. users, is rethinking its marijuana policy after Colorado and Washington approved legalization.

Forgive the Mexicans for trying to get this straight:

So now the United States, which has spent decades battling Mexican marijuana, is on a legalization bender?

The same United States that long viewed cannabis as a menace, funding crop-poisoning programs, tearing up auto bodies at the border, and deploying sniffer dogs, fiber-optic scopes and backscatter X-ray machines to detect the lowly weed?

The success of legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington in November has sparked a new conversation in a nation that is one of the world's top marijuana growers: Should Mexico, which has suffered mightily in its war against the deadly drug cartels, follow the Western states' lead?

Mexico's new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, opposes legalization, but he also told CNN recently that the news from Washington and Colorado "could bring us to rethinking the strategy."

Such rethinking has already begun. Shortly after the approval of the U.S. ballot measures, the governor of Colima state, Mario Anguiano, floated the idea of a legalization referendum for his small coastal state. In the Mexican Congress, Fernando Belaunzaran, a lawmaker with the left-wing Democratic Revolution Party, has introduced a national legalization bill. The cartels probably derive 20% to 25% of their drug export revenue from marijuana, and Belaunzaran contends that legalization will eat into profit that allows the cartels to buy the advanced weapons that are the cause of much bloodshed.

"It's a matter of life or death," Belaunzaran said in a recent news conference. "And after 60,000 deceased" — an estimate of the death toll in the six-year war against the cartels — "no one can say that it isn't essential to Mexicans' lives."

Mexico City Mayor Miguel Angel Mancera called for a national legalization forum a month before the Colorado and Washington votes. Since then, a number of prominent Mexican voices have questioned the wisdom of following the strict prohibitionist policies still favored by the U.S. government when many Americans at the state and local levels have rejected those policies at the ballot box.

In Mexico City's centrist Reforma newspaper, columnist Sergio Aguayo called the broadening legalization movement in the United States a "slap in the face" to former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who had vigorously pursued the cartels for the bulk of a term that ended Dec. 1.

Although the fight did little to stop the flow of drugs, Aguayo said, Calderon declined to substantively challenge the zero-tolerance line coming from Washington, D.C.

"He had an ethical responsibility to lead the search for alternatives," Aguayo wrote. "He did not do that, despite the evidence that was accumulating that history was passing him by."

Columnist Claudio Lomnitz struck a giddier tone in the liberal paper La Jornada, imagining a future in which Mexican artisanal pot is marketed much like fine tequila. He even suggested future brand names for Mexican cannabis strains, based on the Cold War-era gringo counterculture the stuff helped fuel: On the Road, perhaps, or Howl.

At this point, there is limited public support for legalization here. A poll released in November showed that 79% of Mexicans remained opposed to the idea. By comparison, a Gallup poll released last month showed 50% of U.S. residents against legalization and 48% in favor.

The fact that the Mexican public is generally less buzzed about legalization comes as no surprise to Isaac Campos, a historian at the University of Cincinnati, who said conservative attitudes on drug use have deep roots in Mexico.

Mexico, he says in a book published in April, outlawed marijuana in 1920, 17 years before the U.S. did, and Mexican newspapers of the era pushed the idea that marijuana smokers were mentally unstable and prone to violence.

In recent years, however, the idea of legalization has been moving closer to the mainstream, said Jorge Hernandez, president of Mexico's Collective for a Comprehensive Drug Policy, which supports the loosening of marijuana laws.

In 2009, the Mexican legislature decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana and hard drugs. But Hernandez said the conversation remains "immature" in Mexico, "in the sense that the people use emotions and moral questions to debate it, and haven't had a real technical-regulatory debate."

The national legalization bill will probably face stiff opposition in Congress. Hernandez has his own issues with the bill, but said that even if it fails, it may end up "opening a space" for further discussion.

Peña Nieto has used similar language, although what the new president means by a "space for rethinking" drug war policy, while opposing legalization, is anyone's guess. He might be waiting to see whether polls in Mexico move in a Colorado-like direction.

But even then, endorsing legalization could risk damaging Mexico's relationship with the U.S., and jeopardize the millions of drug war dollars Washington pours into the country.

Although President Obama recently said he would not make it a priority to go after recreational pot smokers in Colorado and Washington state, he reiterated that he does not support legalization, and the sale, possession and cultivation of the plant remain illegal under federal law.

In recent months, Latin American leaders have grown bolder in challenging the U.S. position. Uruguay's parliament was poised to pass a sweeping pot legalization measure, but President Jose Mujica recently asked lawmakers to wait because polls there also show that the public is reluctant to legalize.

Mexico's Calderon said in September somewhat cryptically that "market alternatives" might be one solution to the hemispheric drug problem. A number of other current and former heads of state have been more direct in their support for legalization, or at least a serious debate on the topic.

A study released by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute in October estimated that legalization measures in Colorado, Washington and Oregon (where legalization failed) would mean that American consumers would enjoy less expensive and higher-quality U.S. weed, eating into Mexican drug cartel profit, creating "the most important structural shock that narco-trafficking has experienced in a generation."

But what if Mexico were to legalize weed? Reforma columnist Ximena Peredo contends that it would "open the doors to enormous possibilities for growth" in Mexico, though Alejandro Hope, coauthor of the Competitiveness Institute's report, is not so sure. The risks involved in getting marijuana to market are what makes it so expensive, he said, and legalization could cause prices to plummet.

Moreover, the drug cartels, facing increased heat in the drug market, have already branched out to kidnapping, extortion and human trafficking. Would shutting down their pot operations just push the cartels into even more acts of violent crime?

Marijuana is "part of our patrimony," said Adrian Vaquier, a 37-year-old cellphone service salesman who was walking outside Hernandez's Mexico City drug legalization office. It was smoked by Pancho Villa's peasant soldiers in the Mexican Revolution and mentioned prominently in the famous corrido "La Cucaracha," he said.

At the same time, he said, the current strategy isn't working while making the cartel leaders rich: "Just like Al Capone."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-marijuana-20130105,0,2199612.story

Thursday, January 3, 2013

House GOP lets the Violence Against Women Act expire for first time since 1994

Here’s the sad truth: It is not all surprising that House Republicans have blocked the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) a final time, officially allowing it to expire until the next Congress. This is the first time since the VAWA was first passed in 1994 that it has failed to be re-authorized. The VAWA is normally a bipartisan bill that passes without controversy.

But not under these House Republicans. Given their track record for doing nothing productive for the American people they were elected to represent, it’s not surprising they would throw victims of domestic violence and sexual assault under the bus because they want to ensure no assistance is given to Native Americans, LGBT folks, and immigrants. Rep. Eric Cantor and his ilk are literally blocking the re-authorization because the updated bill expands access to help to certain types of people Republicans don’t want to help. Ya know, just like Jesus.

It’s also not surprising, because this is the same crew of winners that recently blocked funding for the disabled and for victims of Hurricane Sandy. 

In short: House Republicans will do anything to pretend they are sticking to invented conservative orthodoxy and ideologies that don’t align with any pragmatic form of governance here on earth.

The expiration of the VAWA hits home for me personally. Everyone who reads this site knows, I’m a rape survivor. After my assault, I went to get free counseling at a rape crisis center. Funding of which is provided by the VAWA.

When I searched for free counseling and jotted down the numbers to call, hoping to get help in my time of need, I had to call THREE different places before I was able to secure an appointment. The first two were all booked up for weeks and in my traumatized state I pressed on knowing that I would need the counseling to process fully what happened to me.

All survivors know that the immediate aftermath is a particularly sensitive time, with feelings of guilt, blame, rage, fear, anger, confusion, denial, depression and sadness. In many ways, I think it is similar to the stages of grief.

It’s essential that these feelings be processed with the help of a professional. All survivors know that your family and friends, no matter how well meaning, may not have the capacity to help you process all of these complex emotions and the trauma associated with being victimized.

That is why the VAWA is absolutely necessary. And that is why the Republican failure to pass the re-authorization that was sent to them by the Senate in April is a failure that should go down in the history books.

Rape happens to Republicans. It’s a shame that partisan politics couldn’t be put aside to pass a bill that shouldn’t even be up for a debate. The election came and went and all of the pundits forgot about the “War on Women.” I’m here to tell you it’s not over, it continues on in earnest, and it won’t ever be over until elected officials stop pretending like sexual assault and domestic violence happen to someone else. It doesn’t happen to someone else; it can happen to anyone.

 

http://feministing.com/2013/01/03/the-vawa-has-expired-for-first-time-since-1994/

Wednesday, January 2, 2013


12 Unbelievably Awful Things Fox News Did This Year

2012 was a dismal year for Fox News. The PR arm of the GOP failed to fulfill its prime directive: advancing the interests of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. It spent much of the year constructing an alternative reality that left millions of its flock in shock when President Obama won an overwhelming reelection. It refused to accept the facts on the ground and denigrated polls (even its own) when the results conflicted with the fictional narrative it was peddling. And perhaps most painful of all, Fox surrendered its ratings lead to MSNBC. Two-thirds of its primetime lineup (Hannity and Van Susteren) dropped to second place behind the competition on MSNBC (Maddow and O’Donnell). However, Fox’s travails did not occur for lack of effort. It was clearly operating at the top of its capacity to distort and deceive. In the process it unleashed some of the most feverishly biased reporting, even for Fox News. What follows are a few of the worst departures from ethical journalism by Fox in the last year.

1) Romancing Petraeus: Fox News CEO Roger Ailes tries to recruit for the GOP.

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward revealed that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes had dispatched a Fox News defense analyst, to Kabul, Afghanistan to recruit Gen. David Petraeus as a GOP candidate for president. The notion of a news network soliciting candidates for political office is a perversion of the role journalists play in society. In response, Ailes claimed that it was “a joke” and that he “thought the Republican [primary] field needed to be shaken up.” Where Ailes got the idea that it was his right and/or duty to shake up the GOP primaries is unexplained. News people are supposed to report the news, not make it. Woodward’s story affirms that Fox News is a rogue operation. Its intrusion into the political process debases journalism by breaching all standards of ethical conduct. And it debases democracy as well by exploiting its power and wealth to manipulate political outcomes.

2) Fox News produces its own anti-Obama video.

Last May on Fox & Friends, the program’s hosts introduced a video that purported to examine “Four Years of Hope and Change.” What it was in reality was a four-plus minute campaign video that presented a variety of soundbites by President Obama accompanied by ominous graphics and eerie music that falsely implied his campaign promises were unkept. The video (which Media Matters thoroughly debunks here) could not have been a more pro-Romney, anti-Obama attack had it been produced by the Republican National Committee. Apparently Fox News also recognized the gross inappropriateness of its anti-Obama attack ad. Minutes after the video was posted online it was removed. Later, an edited version was re-posted, and then that too was removed. Eventually, Fox EVP Bill Shine issued a statement scapegoating an “associate producer” and concluding that the matter “has been addressed.” But it’s difficult for Fox to absolve itself of responsibility for this atrociously unethical affair. By now it is so obvious that Fox exists only to promote Republicans and bash Democrats that this video fits squarely within its mission.

3) Question for Fox News: How much rape is too much?

In a discussion of the role of women in the military, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta expressed an opinion about new rules from the Pentagon that would permit women to serve closer to the front lines. Trotta’s take on this centered on the problems faced by servicewomen who are sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers whom she regards as whiners because they won’t shut up and accept the fact that if they work closely with men they should expect to be assaulted. And if that weren’t bad enough, Trotta went on to complain about the expensive military bureaucracy set up to “support women in the military who are now being raped too much.” I would really like to know precisely how much rape is acceptable before it crosses Trotta’s line. Is there any context in which she might have meant that that isn’t unfathomably repulsive?

4) Fox News conning Latinos for politics and profit.

Fox viewers are accustomed to stories about “illegals” swarming across the border to take up residency in the U.S. and sponge off of our prosperity. There is hardly a mention of immigrants on Fox that isn’t associated with crime, joblessness or drug cartels. Lately, however, someone at Fox News has recognized a major flaw in its strategy to demonize immigrants, particularly Latinos, who are a growing constituency of both consumers and citizens who can vote and are registering in record numbers. So how does Fox maintain its editorial animosity toward immigrants without alienating an increasingly important voter group? The answer appears to be by developing news content specifically for this demographic and sequestering it from the rest of its viewership. This has resulted in a flurry of disparaging articles on the Fox News flagship, while the same story is presented on the new Fox News Latino in a far less bigoted fashion. The pinnacle of this hypocrisy occurred during a Fox report on the election when it displayed video of illegal border crossers with a caption reading “The Hispanic Vote.”

5) Fox lies about military access to voting in Ohio.

This year Republicans in the state of Ohio sought to amend their early voting law so that only members of the military would be permitted to vote early in the three days prior to the election. Democrats objected to this as it discriminates against certain voters, and they filed suit to preserve the right of every Ohio citizen to vote early. Fox News picked up the story advancing the premise that Democrats were seeking to take something away from our military. Anchor Shannon Bream falsely declared that “If President Obama gets his way, the special voting rights of some of America’s finest will be eliminated.” The truth is that Democrats in Ohio were suing to ensure that nobody’s rights were eliminated. The Ohio GOP was deliberately attempting to suppress the votes of citizens they presumed would vote Democratic. And Fox News helped them in that mission by brazenly lying about the substance of the debate.

6) Graphic evidence of the racism of Fox News: racial photoshopping.

Coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting was handled by Fox News in a manner that is revealing and offensive. On the day that Florida law enforcement authorities planned to file charges against George Zimmerman, Fox ran a story featuring a photo of Zimmerman with a beaming smile alongside one of Martin that looked foreboding and was obviously darkened. The editors were demonstrating their overt hostility to both African Americans and journalistic ethics. Later in the day, a more impartial photo was inserted that was not as overtly disparaging of the victim. You think they got a few complaints about the previous photo? Fox had numerous pictures from which to choose of both Martin and Zimmerman, and it chose the most negative picture of Martin which it paired with the most positive picture of Zimmerman. This was not an accident. It was the result of deliberate editorial judgment. And it tells us everything we need to know about Fox’s editors.

7) The polling schizophrenia at Fox News.

Throughout the year Fox News led its audience on a roller coaster ride of propaganda and censorship as it shifted from celebrating what it regarded as positive electoral news to suppressing the negative. It persistently sought to cloister its audience in a bubble that filtered out any facts that might upset its viewers or political patrons. Fox was so determined to shut out anything that might challenge its narrative that it even failed to report its own Fox News polls if Obama was ahead. This was a part of a broader effort to deceive its audience by castigating or ignoring polls when it didn’t like the results and praising the same pollsters when their numbers were more favorable. They launched a campaign to demean professional pollsters and prop up disreputable charlatans with its "unskewed” versions. Not surprisingly, this led to the unprecedented post-election state of shock experienced by those who were foolish enough to rely on Fox for information.

8) Fox News psycho analyst: Newt Gingrich’s adultery means a stronger America.

The in-house Fox News psychiatrist, Keith Ablow, has offered his embarrassingly ridiculous diagnoses on a number of occasions. Without ever having examined (or even met) President Obama, Ablow has declared him to be contemptuous of the judiciary and devoid of all emotion. He further assessed that Obama has “got it in for this country” and doesn’t like Americans. These are the delusional ramblings of a quack who is more preoccupied with his own animosity for the president than with credible psychiatric analysis. During the GOP primary, Ablow chimed in on criticism of Newt Gingrich for his serial marriages that ended when his wives became ill or failed to serve his political purposes. Ablow’s astonishing diagnosis was that Gingrich as president would make America stronger specifically because of his multiple infidelities. Ablow actually thinks that three wives and two extramarital affairs (that we know about) enhances Gingrich’s qualifications to be president. His reasoning had something to do with the fact that multiple homewreckers found him to be marriageable material and that was a mark of character. This is what passes for family values in today’s GOP.

9) Fox News airs hour-long commercial for anti-Obama film on Hannity.

In the heart of the presidential campaign season, Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News devoted the full hour to a blatant infomercial promoting an anti-Obama movie by the people who brought us Citizens United. The program featured lengthy clips from the film as well as interviews with the film’s creators, David Bossie and Steve Bannon. Bossie is the head of Citizens United, the organization that prompted the abhorrent Supreme Court decision that made it possible for individuals and corporations to donate unlimited sums of cash to political candidates and causes. Bannon is chairman of Breitbart News and was the director of the monumental flop, Sarah Palin: Undefeated, a movie that managed to fail miserably despite millions of dollars in free publicity courtesy of Fox News. What’s particularly disturbing about this is that the producers freely admit that their purpose was not so much to promote the film, but to let their ads serve as disguised political messages aimed at disparaging the president and affecting the outcome of the election. The reason they chose October to release the film was so their advertising would appear during the campaign season and they could pretend it was merely marketing for the movie. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is something they specifically admit to and boast about. Fox News was merely the first stop on their media blitz.

10) Fox News “Democrat” Kirsten Powers accuses Obama of sympathizing with terrorists.

The next time you hear the Fox News slogan “fair and balanced," be sure to remember that its rendering of fairness is to trot out covert conservatives and label them Democrats. A perfect illustration of this is alleged Democrat Kirsten Powers, who took to Fox News to attack President Obama in an article titled “President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence.” Powers was addressing the violence at American facilities in Libya and Egypt when she wrote that respecting religious beliefs “is implicit sympathy for the claims of some of the attackers and rioters.” So Powers thinks that respect for the diversity of faith is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists. She cannot comprehend that such respect is offered to the vast majority of peaceful Muslims who had nothing to do with the violence. And allowing her to spew that bile while posing as a Democratic analyst is part of how Fox distorts its presentation of fairness and balance.

11) Fox News spinning furiously on unemployment rate.

Behaving entirely consistently with a network that harbors politcos who want to see President Obama fail, Fox News cavalierly dismissed the October unemployment report showing a drop from 8.1 to 7.8 percent. Heaven forbid anything good happens in this country while President Obama is in charge. Fox spent the whole morning trying to hatch skeptics. It brought in former General Electric CEO Jack Welch to explain his delusional Tweet: “Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can’t debate so change numbers.” Fox’s Stuart Varney concurred along with Donald Trump and a bevy of correspondents and guests. None of them could explain why an independent agency of career economists, without a single Obama appointee, would fudge the numbers for a president to whom they owed nothing.

12) Fox opposes ban on assault weapons but imposes ban on talking about it.

Fox was clearly operating at the top of its capacity to distort and deceive.

The most heartbreaking news of 2012 was surely the massacre in Newtown, CT, where 20 schoolchildren and six adults were senselessly murdered by a deranged gunman. The resultant outcry from concerned Americans about the easy access to weapons that are capable of such carnage was met by Fox News as an attack on the Second Amendment and free enterprise. Its response was to slaughter the First Amendment by prohibiting any discussion of gun safety on the network. Sources told Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine that “David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air.” It’s also worthwhile to note that while Fox banned all talk of gun control, it did not banish talk of other explanations for the atrocity in Connecticut. Fox had no problem with laying the blame on mental illness, movies or video games. Fox host Mike Huckabee was permitted to go on the air and blame the killings on the absence of God in the classroom (which does nothing to explain similar shootings that have taken place in churches).

While Fox News broadcasts flagrant distortions of reality on a daily basis, the examples above transcend the conventional dishonesty and bias that is its hallmark. These assaults on ethical journalism demonstrate how dangerous it is to permit a political enterprise to disguise itself as a news network in order to shape an extreme political agenda. It is evidence of social programming and manipulation at its worst. The sad part is that we can expect much more of this in 2013. Happy New Year!

http://www.alternet.org/12-unbelievably-awful-things-fox-news-did-year?paging=off

The Republicans Have Quit on America; It's Time for Americans to Quit on Them

The Republican Party

I was watching commentary on the NFL Network yesterday about the firing of Philadelphia head coach Any Reid. There has been a great deal of talk about how the players quit on Reid; how they did not buy into his “system”; how they did not even bother to “show up” for the team’s final game Sunday against the New York Giants.

And it got me thinking: this is exactly how the Republican Party has responded to America. They have quit on America. They’re putting forth no effort, and most importantly at all, they haven’t even bothered to show up for the past two years. This is certainly true of John Boehner’s House of Representatives, which has spent the years since the 2010 Midterms passing needless bills to fix problems that don’t exist (like eating fetuses).

But when it comes to governing America, the Republicans have quit on us. You could say that Barack Obama, to continue the football metaphor, is the head coach. We, the American people, are the fans, and this, the United States of America is the City of Philadelphia. And as a further stain on their honor, the Republican Party has lacked anyone man enough, like Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy, or Jeremy Maclin, to stand up and call out their “teammates” for their failings.

Michael Vick called a team meeting and tried to rally the troops, but he said that he wasn’t going to try to tell a grown man what to do. There is no Republican who will do even that much. They’re all ex-Republicans, like former Florida governor Charlie Crist, who recently announced he is a Democrat, or David Frum, who now considers himself a centrist (his group No Labels pretty much says it all). There is no room in the Republican Party for people who actually take their responsibility to govern America seriously.

Andy Reid ended up being fired for the failures of his team. No doubt he was not without responsibility. The leader always ultimately bears responsibility for what happens on his watch. President Obama has accepted responsibility on a number of occasions, unlike his Republican predecessor. No doubt Republicans would enjoy it if their gutlessness also contributed to the downfall of our “coach.” They fantasize it openly; it’s hardly a secret: impeach him. Failing that, throw him in prison the minute his term is up.

They never wanted him. They never bought into his system: that America is governed from the middle, through compromise. Nor even the American system: that elected officials are elected to serve the American people and not corporations or rich contributors; in a representative form of democracy, to represent those people in the halls of power where most of us cannot tread. To be our voice.

The problem for the GOP is that they are not our voice. The lost control of the Senate in 2006 and three elections later they have yet to show any signs of regaining it. Their hold on the House continues only thanks to some timely redistricting and even then, they lost a little of their mojo. A Democrat hasLO won the presidential election twice in a row by a sizeable margin – the only Democratic president since FDR (another Democrat) to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote twice.

The Republicans responded in 2008 by pretending they had won the presidential election. it is no surprise that in 2012 they responded the same way, saying, “Okay, now we have that out of the way, here is how we are going to run the country…” WRONG. Obama won by a sizable margin in 2008. There can be no debate on his mandate then or on his mandate now.

In 2012, President Obama won Florida by 750,000 votes. How many was it again that Bush won by? Yeah, I think you get the picture. Obama’s margin of victory over Mitt Romney was over 3 million votes. Republicans insisted that Bush, with much less impressive victories, had a mandate, but they say Obama just squeaked by, Haley Barbour even ludicrously insisting that the election was “pretty close to a tie.”

You don’t need further proof than that to see that the Republican Party and its ideological core, the Tea Party and the so-called Religious Right, have failed to be team players. Not only do they deny Obama twice before the cock crows, but they proclaim at the outset their intention to detach themselves from the governing process that is itself a mandate of the American political system established by the United States Constitution.

We vote and elect: they govern.

Instead, they said their only goal was to make President Obama a one-term president, that they would do everything they could to derail his administration. They kept their word. For two years. Then four. Now that Obama’s mandate has been renewed by the American people, the Republicans have taken the same tack: they refuse to participate in our participatory system of government.

We could ask why, in a country where power derives from the people, this has been allowed to continue. Why haven’t the people spoken and put an end to this? By and large, we have spoken. We re-elected President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. We elected Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Duckworth and other notable women. We elected a more diverse Senate than has ever existed in an America the GOP with ever increasing shrillness insists must be white, Christian, and male.

Redistricting kept that message at arm’s length from House Republicans, who steadfastly refuse to look facts in the eye, the facts about support for marriage equality; the facts about support for abortion and contraception; the facts about support for equal pay for women; the facts about anthropogenic global warming and its effects (e.g. Hurricane Sandy); the facts about America’s evolving ethnic and religious landscape.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) admitted in August, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” But nobody (including Graham to himself) was listening in 2012. The Republican strategy for 2014 and 2016 is to double down on the very positions rejected by an overwhelming number of voters in 2012.

It is inescapable. The Republican Party has not only refused to participate in governing America, but they have refused to participate in our shared reality. Look at their Party Platform. At a time when the fastest growing belief system in America is non-belief, they give us a Party Platform written by religious extremists.

They have quit on America. They have quit on reality.

It wasn’t a happy fit. Nor was it a congenial parting. Look what happened to Richard Mourdock, or to Todd Akin, or to Scott Brown, or to Sharron Angle before them, and others. If you refuse to share our reality, we don’t have much use for you.

Redistricting saved the GOP from being absolutely shut out of the halls of power in 2012, but that’s just an unhappy coincidence. It won’t save them in 2014. Every year, America becomes more socially liberal than the year before, which leaves the Republican Party pissing off increasing numbers of Americans, which translates into fewer Republican votes.

The Republicans have quit on America, and Americans are beginning to notice. I don’t think the Republicans will like it when we get angry.

Happy New Year, my fellow angry Americans. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work. We have some trash to take out.

http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-quit-america-time-americans-quit.html

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Michigan Governor Signs Extreme Anti-Abortion Bill Into Law

For most of 2012, Texas officials have been working hard to strip funding from the Planned Parenthood clinics in their state. Those officials advanced their anti-choice agenda on Monday, when a visiting judge ruled that Texas may deny funding from Planned Parenthood affiliates in the new year simply because the organization advocates for abortion rights.

Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in a complicated legal battle with the state of Texas as Republican officials attempt to exclude the organization from the state’s Women’s Health Program, which uses federal and state money to fund preventive care for low-income women. The organization sued to block Texas from discriminating against abortion providers, but Visiting Judge Gary Harger ruled that Texas may design a state-run Women’s Health Program that excludes qualified providers like Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that, on a federal level, states aren’t allowed to block qualified health providers from receiving Medicaid funds.

The new Women’s Health Program launches on Tuesday, and Monday’s ruling ensures that Planned Parenthood won’t be part of it. Before Texas Republicans began their crusade against Planned Parenthood, the organization provided preventative cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and family planning assistance to nearly half of the state’s 130,000 low-income women in the Medicaid program.

Texas’ insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood has already had far-reaching consequences. Some health clinics in the state have been forced to close — including at least 50 that weren’t even affiliated with Planned Parenthood’s national organization — leading thousands of low-income women to forgo the preventative care they need. Monday’s decision will almost certainly cause additional health clinics to close their doors in January, the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood pointed out.

Since the Hyde Amendment already prevents Medicaid programs from covering abortion services, the Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas don’t actually perform abortions for any of their patients in the Women’s Health Program.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/31/1380451/michigan-governor-signs-abortion-bill/

Texas Will End Funding For Planned Parenthood Clinics

For most of 2012, Texas officials have been working hard to strip funding from the Planned Parenthood clinics in their state. Those officials advanced their anti-choice agenda on Monday, when a visiting judge ruled that Texas may deny funding from Planned Parenthood affiliates in the new year simply because the organization advocates for abortion rights.

Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in a complicated legal battle with the state of Texas as Republican officials attempt to exclude the organization from the state’s Women’s Health Program, which uses federal and state money to fund preventive care for low-income women. The organization sued to block Texas from discriminating against abortion providers, but Visiting Judge Gary Harger ruled that Texas may design a state-run Women’s Health Program that excludes qualified providers like Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that, on a federal level, states aren’t allowed to block qualified health providers from receiving Medicaid funds.

The new Women’s Health Program launches on Tuesday, and Monday’s ruling ensures that Planned Parenthood won’t be part of it. Before Texas Republicans began their crusade against Planned Parenthood, the organization provided preventative cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and family planning assistance to nearly half of the state’s 130,000 low-income women in the Medicaid program.

Texas’ insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood has already had far-reaching consequences. Some health clinics in the state have been forced to close — including at least 50 that weren’t even affiliated with Planned Parenthood’s national organization — leading thousands of low-income women to forgo the preventative care they need. Monday’s decision will almost certainly cause additional health clinics to close their doors in January, the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood pointed out.

Since the Hyde Amendment already prevents Medicaid programs from covering abortion services, the Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas don’t actually perform abortions for any of their patients in the Women’s Health Program.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/31/1381181/texas-end-planned-parenthood/