feminist blogs

The Senate has passed a bill that contains language to repeal the global gag rule.

So what's next for the global gag rule? It's now headed to a House-Senate "conference committee," where a few members from each chamber will work out differences between each chamber’s version of the bill. Then the Senate and House must approve the final compromise version, which will be sent to the president.

Even though we won this key vote on the global gag rule, President Bush has already threatened to veto any bill that includes a pro-choice provision, including this one.

Now you can help rally support for that language to survive to the final bill.

Of course, the problem of governments' claiming they own women's wombs is well represented within US borders, too.

While the Larry Craig scandal post-mortems move over all sorts of Via arcane, almost pointless speculations, I'm left wondering whether this is at all a political win for progressives.

Yes, the GOP is imploding over its holier-than-thou right to hate ______________ (fill in the blank), but is giving the "crime" of Craig's sexual orientation such political validity through all the chest-thumping really a "win"?

Yes, Craig seems to be a cheat. But cheats led the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. What's so different now? Because Craig is gay?

This is part of the sad spectacle of American politics that goes back in my memory at least to the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, when a clearly unqualified not-quite-a-judge was challenged not over his lack of qualifications but rather over sexual misconduct. Anita Hill may have suffered, and I'm inclined to believe her, but was her suffering really to the point? Clarence Thomas sits on the bench, writing inane opinion and dissent, one after the other, like some grumbling old curmudgeon clinging to the dogmas of his angry view of the world, all because the Democrats would not challenge him on the issue at hand: competence.

And now we see the crowing over the fall of Senator Craig, who is all too typical of the fragile conservative male who needs to pass law after law to prevent him from being himself. And we crow over his fall.

But isn't it a bit tragic? War, bloodshed, corruption in the billions of dollars, domestic and abroad, and the only casualties we see are over sexual "deviance" as defined by a bunch of fearful men afraid of their own shadows.

Some victory. Like standing on the top of the hill that's falling into a deeper and deeper hole.

Federal ID required to travel within America? What is this? Nazi Germany?

On this day, the Democrats in Congress seem very very small, while Al Gore is like a giant.

I wish he would run. Then I would get really interested. I want to be inspired by the frontrunners. They hit the right notes, mostly, but really I feel like I'm watching a bunch of children fighting for the spotlight in the school musical.

And they have been almost inspiring so far because the Republican candidates are just so much more pathetic and stupid.

Help!

...it's time to push back the regressive forces in Congress. Support the Freedom of Choice Act.

Step 1:
Join NARAL Pro-Choice America in our National Call-In Day to Support the Freedom of Choice Act
- Wednesday, April 25
- Call 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to both of your senators and your representative
- Use the following script:
“Please cosponsor the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.1964/S.1173) to codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.”
- Click on the link [on the page linked above] to find out what other organizations are participating.

Step 2:
Fill out the form [on the page linked above] to urge your members of Congress to sign on as cosponsors, and then forward this action to your friends.

Who's involved?

NARAL Pro-Choice America is co-sponsoring the national call-in day with the following coalition partners:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Advocates for Youth
Alliance for Justice
American Association of University Women
American Civil Liberties Union
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Choice USA
Feminist Majority Foundation
Law Students for Choice
Medical Students for Choice
National Abortion Federation
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Women’s Organizations
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Organization for Women
National Women’s Law Center
People for the American Way
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Reproductive Health Technologies Project
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective

The pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). 

• FOCA will restore the reproductive rights recognized under the vision expressed in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, before anti-choice legislators and courts chipped away at these rights. 
• FOCA will secure the right to choose by establishing a federal law that will guarantee reproductive freedom for future generations of American women.  This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and his allies are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or imposing even more restrictions on our right to choose.

Click here to learn more about President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban and the Supreme Court's recent decision.

This is going to be a long battle in the war to establish and defend women's rights. I'm under no illusion that the current Congress, what with forced-pregnancy advocates sitting on both sides of the aisle, will pass this legislation, but showing support is a first step towards getting our elected officials to realize that the vast majority of Americans don't want the government controlling family planning.

And he's threatening a "constitutional showdown" if Democrats insist on the truth.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," he said. "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."

Interesting spin:

• Testimony under oath = "show trials"
• Spin bullshit as usual = "reasonable proposal"

Oh, and let's not forget "War is Peace" and "Ignorance is Bliss."

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation.

Now there's a surprise. Are the Democrats starting to feel their oats?

And he's threatening a "constitutional showdown" if Democrats insist on the truth.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," he said. "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."

Interesting spin:

• Testimony under oath = "show trials"
• Spin bullshit as usual = "reasonable proposal"

Oh, and let's not forget "War is Peace" and "Ignorance is Bliss."

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation.

Now there's a surprise. Are the Democrats starting to feel their oats?

At least one candidate is doing something about the problems we've been experiencing in our elections:

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced the Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act (S. 737) to help inform voters and state officials about the election processes in their states. The bill would create a scorecard to rank states on a set of standards designed to measure the ease of exercising the right to vote.

“We are all familiar with the problems of long lines, lost ballots, and voters improperly turned away from the polls during recent elections,” Obama said. “To prevent these problems, we need nonpartisan, objective information about how well election processes around the country are working.”

The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken published this January in the Legal Times. In that article she points out that a “Democracy Index” – a public ranking of election performances around the country – would force states to take concrete steps to make voting easier.

“Without a single, additional federal regulation, this scorecard could provide a powerful incentive for states to improve our democracy,” Obama said.

VoteTrustUSA offers a summary of the bill:

The Democracy Index

A new Office of the Voter Advocate within the Election Assistance Commission would develop a Democracy Index requiring the states to report on basic performance metrics such as:

• The amount of time spent by voters waiting in line;
• The number of voters incorrectly directed to the wrong polling places;
• The rate of voter ballots discarded or not counted along with an explanation;
• Provisional voting rates and the percentage of provisional votes cast but not counted;
• The number and description of election day complaints; and
• The rate of voting system malfunctions and the time required on average to get the systems back online.

Creates an Office of the Voter Advocate

The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate that would:

• Collect data from the states to create a Democracy Index;
• Make grants to eligible entities to institute programs to improve performance; and
• Make recommendations to the states on how to improve their performance in the administration of federal elections.

2008 Pilot Program and Subsequent National Rollout

The Act would direct the Office of the Voter Advocate to conduct a pilot program in selected states in 2008 to test the metrics and gauge the value of the information gathered. Lessons learned from the pilot would be applied to the national application of the index and a requirement on all states to report data in subsequent elections.

It's a start. Good on Barack Obama.

read more

And it really is their war -- a war they've rubber-stamped and refused to oversee, let alone question, since it started.

Now they don't want to talk about it.

The day's events ended the initial phase of what looms as a yearlong
confrontation between the new, Democratic-controlled Congress and the
commander in chief.

Reid told reporters he would no longer attempt to win passage for
nonbinding measures and would turn his attention to legislation
designed to force Bush to change course. House Democratic leaders
intend to do likewise.

In typical Republican style, they consider anything that questions the Bush policy to be tantamount to inviting screaming suicide bombers into small town America. They also tried to claim that the Democrats just want to leave American troops hanging in Iraq.

Because if you don't kiss George W. Bush's feet, you must want to kiss the feet of terrorists. Right?

At issue are Republican attempts to prevent Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania from requiring that our troops are properly equipped with body armor, armored vehicles and training -- things the Republicans neglected to provide over their years of ruling Congress.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record),
D-Pa., has described a series of provisions that would require the
Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the
troops, and for making sure they have enough time at home between
deployments.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said these provisions were designed to protect the troops.

Republicans argued the effect would be to deny troops needed reinforcements and are expected to try to block the restrictions.

Yes, the GOP logic is it's better to send our troops in ill-equipped and un-trained so they can get into the fight faster. Never mind that we have Army and National Guard troops in un-protected Hum-Vees and Marines in amphibious vehicles that are designed to float, not to repel rocket-propelled grenades.

You know, the Republicans sure love to talk a big game, puffing out their chests, thumping like Kong, but when it comes down to it, they'd rather fund bridges to nowhere and tax cuts for rock stars and CEOs than give our armed forces what they need to do their job. It's a damned good thing the GOP is out of power for the time being, or they'd have us sending into Iraq green recruits wearing nothing but skivvies and Sketchers, and leaving defense of our homeland to the ROTC and Boy Scouts.

read more

Voting against the bill were Republicans Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record) of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) of Utah. Sens. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., and Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record), D-S.D., did not vote.

So Coburn and Hatch opposed even the appearance of supporting ethical behavior in the Senate. I'm not really surprised that the holdouts are Republicans (which is really a sad thing, if you actually stop to think about it). But let's look at the rest here:

Johnson is in the hospital after having a stroke.

What is Sam "religion prison" Brownback's excuse? How's he going to explain this during his expected presidential candidacy?