I’d say I’m at a loss for words for how to express my extreme discontent over Ohio House Bill 200 but I’m going to save it for a steady and increasingly louder drumbeat of arguments against it starting tonight. Make no mistake, to defeat this absolute and absolutely invasive set of provisions that completely contradict the charades of conservatives who say they want to keep government out of our lives, we will need to be as adamant, sharp, specific, relentless and vocal as ever, if not more so.
Your education on HB 200 can start with these links but I have no doubt this is just the beginning of the battle:
The bill itself – it has no fiscal notes or bill analysis yet
Among other things, the bill would:
• Require doctors to give women a verbal description of the ultrasound, including an audible heartbeat, if available. (The bill notes, however, that a woman can refuse to view ultrasound images or listen to the sounds detected by a fetal heart monitor.)
• Compel abortion providers to tell patients that fetuses and embryos can feel pain, and that a woman who has an abortion increases her risk of breast cancer.
• Extend the waiting period for abortions to 48 hours instead of 24.
• Require doctors to tell patients seeking abortions in writing how much money they earn and how much income they would lose by not performing abortions.
• Eliminate “medical necessity” as a reason to waive the waiting period. Medical necessity had been defined as a medical condition that complicates the pregnancy so that it warrants an immediate abortion.
• Allow a waiver for a “medical emergency,” which is redefined in the bill as a condition that would result in the woman’s death without an abortion, as opposed to one that presents a serious risk to her life or physical health.
Doctors who do not follow the rules could be charged with a first-degree felony and fined up to $1 million.
Look at all those job-creation proposals, eh? Exactly what Ohio needs – you smart drafters, you.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:02 pm June 13th, 2013 in activism, conservatives, Courage, democracy, Gender, Health Care, Ohio, OhioHD12, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Republicans, Sexism, Women | 1 Comment
Update: Let’s add Teri Christoph and ShePac to the list of folks who could easily give a statement on the Young Guns gender imbalance. This is not gotcha – I don’t care or have illusions about what the conservative women’s orgs will say about this matter. But the silence is deafening, as they say. In the ShePac solicitation email, after all, it says, “Support, Honor & Elect conservative women.”
I don’t get it but then I don’t know if I ever will. How exactly are the women conservatives coming up through the system again? I’d be okay with groups like the Republican National Committee Women (which has a sidebar list of elected Republican women), Smart Girl Politics or the National Federation of Republican Women making some comment, any comment about this – I’d just like to hear their rationale – or their anger – related to the dearth of women being named to this program. Do they really not thinking anything about this at all?
If this sounds like old news, it is – I wrote about this several times in the past and the program didn’t do any better previously in terms of recruiting women. Then again, apparently there’s a growing belief that the Republican recruiting isn’t going well in the Senate side either no matter the gender.
I’ve got a lousy cold and a lot of work – and ideas – backed up but I cannot endure one more column headline opining on why there’s a gender gap between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
The gap exists because of reality: when women look around and on an every day occasion, see and experience where we aren’t included or even thought about, or, when we are included or thought about, how we’re treated – whether in real life (Ginni Rometty) or fake life (anything on Mad Men) – we don’t like it. And we see the statements and policies of conservatives as, in general (yes, there are exceptions), upholding, supporting and keeping in stasis what we don’t like, while we see the statements and policies of moderates and liberals as, in general, seeking to change, alter, take down and improve that which we don’t like (though of course there are plenty of exceptions there too – start with any sex scandal).
And, as if to underscore how clueless the men are, US Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that his female colleagues certainly would support him in calling out the “war on women” as being manufactured. Thanks, Mitch, for demonstrating how completely you haven’t heard a word your female colleagues have said and how thoroughly you expect them to follow you in lockstep, to wit, from that link:
“Talk about a manufactured issue. There is no issue,” McConnell said. “Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (from Texas) and Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine I think would be the first to say—and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska—’we don’t see any evidence of this.’”
Then, there’s the whole gaslighting aspect to what McConnell and others like Republican National Committee Chair, Reince Priebus, are saying – Preibus analogizing his belief that the notion of there being a war on women is as far-fetched as suggesting there’s a war on caterpillars.
We’re not being gaslighted – reality bites. And no amount of optics of Republican female spokespeople on the trail or a strong spouse, daughter-in-law or mother will begin to cut into the reality.
I’m out. I’m just all out. I can read more, talk more, opine more. But really — how much more is there to actually say, that hasn’t already been said, about the Republican candidates remaining in the primary battle to be the party’s nominee for the 2012 general election?
Even his three wins last night, in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, have failed to seal the deal for the delegate leader, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. For more background on last night’s elections, check out the exit polls and see how moderate the voters were in those three states, especially in comparison to several already-counted primary or caucus states; watch Romney’s victory speech given in Wisconsin, and see Santorum’s “we’re still going for it speech” from Pennsylvania.
Why is this fight not over?
Read the answer at the full post here.
Nothing like first-person accounts such as this one at Plunderbund to tell the stories Rick Santorum wants to ignore that form the basis of most people’s reality. I just watched the Santorum campaign’s newly hired national press secretary, Alice Stewart, completely dance around the questions asked by Andrea Mitchell related to this topic. If she or anyone who is directing her work thinks that her dancing will make this issue go away, when women voters outnumber men, then she and those advising her should be fired. Watch here (relevant segment starts at the 5:14 mark):
Last time, however, it didn’t hold. Will it today? And to be clear, we’re not talking the gap between how men versus women vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. We’re talking about the gap between who women prefer between the two candidates.
Citing his combative style and personal life, many women in Florida say they won’t support Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary. That gender gap has allowed Mitt Romney to open a commanding lead in Florida over the former Speaker, WSJ’s Neil Hickey reports.
This WSJ report covers why, very specifically, the women going for Newt thing in South Carolina won’t happen in Florida:
NEWT GINGRICH: We are fully human upon conception because all of the genetic patterns needed are in existence at that moment, and therefore the right should attach at that moment.
[NPR reporter Don] GONYEA: Gingrich also singled out an organization that is public enemy number one for many anti-abortion activists.
GINGRICH: We will defund Planned Parenthood sometime early in 2013.
Oh – if only there were just 57 reasons to vote no on Newt Gingrich.
Who will win? It could depend on who votes — men or women — and where they live — the Upstate or coast.
“It may be very close,” Matt Moore, executive director of the S.C. Republican Party, said Friday.
Polling shows Gingrich and Romney running neck and neck. But it also shows a gender divide between the two front-runners, sources in the Romney campaign said Friday. Women voters are breaking for Romney and men for Gingrich, they said.
Frankly, I’ve been wondering when the heck someone was going to write about this so I’m glad to see it noted.
But more interestingly to me, and I can’t believe I really wake up thinking about this stuff: We keep hearing about the importance of “the Evangelical vote.” But who is left in the GOP race? Two Catholics, a Mormon and Ron Paul. And who is in the White House? A man who was with the United Church of Christ for at least 20 years, and who now attends services at the same place – Christian non-denominational – as George W. Bush.
I’ve never not voted for someone because they weren’t Jewish – or because they were Jewish. I’ve been governed by presidents who aren’t the same religion or gender as me my entire life.
And I’m still here. The sky hasn’t fallen and the earth has not swallowed me up.
Identity politics – don’t deny its existence, but don’t treat it like some intractable fealty either.
To no one’s surprise, former Massachusetts governor and candidate for the Republican Presidential candidate nomination, Mitt Romney, won the New Hampshire primary yesterday. He won with an amount (39%) beyond what pundits claimed would otherwise show trouble, and he easily cleared Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who earned 23%. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman claimed third place (with an enthusiasm almost more appropriate for a Saturday Night Live skit — watch Huntsman’s primary speech here) by garnering 17% of the vote. Check out a good look at all the numbers from WMUR, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum each with 9%. Texas Governor Rick Perry mustered 1% (and gets some love from Smart Girl Politics).
So what happened? More like, what didn’t happen.
Go Hoyas – he did so much better than me in undergrad ConLaw anyway; just received in the inbox. The one thing I keep noticing is how little knowledge of or respect for transparency and openness seems to be reflected in what the public records seem to show. How to protect what people didn’t want other people to know seems to have been the overriding interest in the process. Read Aaron Marshall’s piece from today’s front page above the fold Plain Dealer story for background.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 13, 2011
Contact: Sarah Bender, House Democratic Communications (614) 466-9036
Rep. Murray Request Joint Investigation into Waste, Abuse and Fraud
Calls for Investigation into Secretive Map Drawing Processes
COLUMBUS – State Representative and Ranking Member of the Judiciary and Ethics Committee Dennis Murray (D-Sandusky) sent a letter to Inspector General Randall Meyer and Legislative Inspector General Tony Bledsoe requesting a joint investigation into potential waste, abuse, fraud, and violations of state sunshine and public records laws. This comes after the Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting released a transparency report yesterday highlighting some of the misconduct in the redistricting and re-apportionment processes.
“The information in yesterday’s report revealed is absolutely appalling. I ask for a joint investigation today because I fear we are just beginning to lift the veil of secrecy that surrounds the congressional redistricting and re-apportionment processes,” Rep. Murray said. “My Democratic colleagues and I are deeply troubled at the wasteful spending of Ohioan’s tax dollars, and the violation of Ohio’s sunshine and public records laws.”
A copy of the letter can be seen below. Read more
I did little research before this eighth (yes, eighth! and that doesn’t even include the Twitter debate) Republican presidential primary candidates’ debate. Check out this list for videos of each of them.
Luckily, I keep myself pretty immersed in news on a daily basis between online, radio, newspapers, a senior in high school who wishes he could vote and a sixth grader who made it onto student council and now wants to be vice president (of his grade, that is).
But to those who did bone up a bit before watching, it may surprise you to read my very first reaction, as transcribed by me while watching the debate live online:
Sitting at table with Charlie Rose?
Looks like it is a very serious group behind Rose
Yup – I didn’t know about the table thing.
Read my somewhat random impressions and more at the full post at BlogHer.com
That’s of course assuming that they ever were in the Michele Bachmann for president or Sarah Palin for president columns in the first place. From the CNN poll (click on the image to enlarge):
What’s most curious about this reality is how often those affiliated with the tea party have tried to suggest that women have a big place and a big role in that party. But if your women aren’t supporting the women candidates, what’s that all about? When asked directly to describe the difference between Bachmann and Perry, conservative media personality Dana Loesch suggests it’s an electability issue related to the odds of governors versus representatives in this clip. She implies that Perry is a better bet than Bachmann.
I’ll be interested to see how conservative female pundits break this down and organizations like The New Agenda review and analyze the data.
Hattip to today’s The Fix digest because it was the absence of this kind of look at the female conservative vote that made me wonder, what’s going on with the female conservative vote, and then compelled me to look deeper into the poll (which you can do for yourself here).
Paging American Princess, Emily Zanotti.
And FYI: When CNN asks the question without Palin in the mix? Bachmann gains just 4% in the women, but Perry gains 7% (taking his advantage from 13% ahead of Bachmann to 16% ahead of her with women voters). It’s on page 7 of the pdf. The CNN companion article makes slight reference to the gender vote issue.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:30 am August 30th, 2011 in conservatives, Elections, Gender, michele bachmann, Politics, Poll, Republicans, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Sexism, WH2012, White House 2012, Women | 8 Comments
It’s hard to know where to start, as a mother of three kids under 18, one of whom has a recurring respiratory problem whenever he gets a cold, and living in a state that gets an overall F in clean air, when it comes to how universally savage the Republican presidential hopefuls are toward the Environmental Protection Agency.
If you missed the news, here’s a breakdown of how each of seven candidates addressed environment and energy issues in this past Monday’s Republican presidential primary debate in New Hampshire. (Note: it’s from a blog called Energy & Capital, and you can read about the editors of it here.) U.S. Representative and presidential primary candidate Michele Bachmann, had the most choice words. Her solution to all our problems that she deems are connected to regulation? She demands that we start with changing the name of the agency from “Environmental Protection Agency” to “Job-Killing Organization of America.”
Hmm. Really? A name change? Well, I get the obsession with the image is everything thing, but I think she’s going to have to do a whole lot more research, analysis and formulating before she’s going to convince anyone that a name change is going to make a difference.
So, what information might she need to check out before she stands by this literal kiss of death policy position of hers? Read more
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:46 pm June 17th, 2011 in Business, Campaigning, conservatives, Energy, Environment, Ethics, michele bachmann, Moms Clean Air Force, Politics, Republicans, WH2012, White House 2012, Women, Youth | 6 Comments
[U.S. Rep. and Republican primary candidate for president Michele] Bachmann is now the vanguard of the rightwing populist movement—particularly with the more genial Mike Huckabee out of the race and her sister-nemesis Sarah Palin not yet in it—she will be the voice of this strand of social conservatism in the campaign.
While her followers portray Bachmann as a “modern woman,” never forget that what she really represents is a retro throwback to a kind of American that is intolerant, bigoted and out of step with the best instincts and possibilities of this country.
Add to that, many blog posts I’ve written over the last three years indicating how scary and wrong I find Bachmann’s statements and re-defining of terms to suit her political positions.
Finally, watch The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel explain more about noting Bachmann’s presentation versus her positions, last night on MSNBC (zip to 2:35 mark in the video):
Just one morning I’d like to not see news that feels so compelling that I can’t turn it away for noting on the blog. For sure there are days when against all pressure I don’t give in, but this is just so ill I’m not posting the video here – you can see it for yourself at Salon’s post, “Creator of offensive campaign ad won’t apologize.” Excerpt:
The creator of a deliberately offensive ad portraying a female congressional candidate as a stripper and featuring two black men holding guns and repeatedly screaming, “Give me your cash, bitch!” is refusing to apologize to critics of the spot.
“We decided we would launch with a controversial ad that would piss a lot of people off,” says Ladd Ehlinger, Jr., a conservative filmmaker who has produced unconventional political ads in the past. “If I get dinged a little, then so be it,” he adds, acknowledging that he wrote and produced the ad for his new political group, Turn Right USA.
The ad targets Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who is running in a special election for an open congressional seat against a tea partyer named Craig Huey.
It’s possible no one else will say it, but US Rep. and now Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann got major earned media tonight at the New Hampshire primary debate because she announced that she’s officially entering the presidential primary competition. Why else was it her night? (If you missed the debate, I live-blogged it all here and so did Joe Gandelman, here.)
She did not use any cards with graphs on them.
She did not make any sweeping generalizations about liberties, history or how much President Obama spent to do something that would fail a fact check.
She rarely evaded answers.
Her tone of voice was proper and appropriate.
And while there are other observations about her presentation that say she won this debate – or at least came out of it as the top winner, the biggest wins for her also include: Read more
The word cloud above is from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press release, “Top Reaction to GOP Field – ‘Unimpressed.’”
What I love about word clouds is that while we say a picture is worth a thousand words, in a word cloud, you get both a picture that is worth a thousand words and the words themselves. Here’s the frequency distribution that led to the cloud image:
In the Senate:
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both Maine) do not want to defund Planned Parenthood.
Newly elected Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire) waffles when not emitting talking points so I construe that to be in favor of letting Planned Parenthood get defunded.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) – I can’t find anything from her on this but her voting record seems to indicate that she might allow it to be defunded.
Update on Hutchison: She’s a motivator behind a military troop funding through a governtment shutdown bill in the US Senate that appears to have at least 60 supporters, including other women and other Democrats. It does not appear that there is anything connected to Planned Parenthood in it.
In the House (all the women newby Republicans):
Kristi Noem (SD): will allow defunding of Planned Parenthood (“Noem said she believes the riders and the budget cuts are “intertwined” and that she supports them.”)
Nan Hayworth (NY): supports defunding Planned Parenthood
Vicky Hartzler, (MO): supports defunding Planned Parenthood
Martha Roby, (Alabama) and Sandy Adams (FL) appear to support defunding Planned Parenthood, reportedly agreeing that $61 billion in cuts for 2011 is reasonable (the reports right now are that there’s consensus on $38 billion between Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. John Boehner)
Renee Ellmers (NC): leading the way to defund Planned Parenthood
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA): supports defunding Planned Parenthood
Update: Left out two women (thanks to the commenter who drew my attention to that!):
Ann Marie Buerkle (NY): supports defunding Planned Parenthood
Diane Black (TN): supports defunding Planned Parenthood
In today’s Chagrin Valley Times, columnist Barbara Christian wrote about our new statehouse representative, Marlene Anielski, a Republican and former mayor of the small (US Census 2000 says 2,400) village of Walton Hills. Christian seeks to highlight our preconceived notions related to party affiliation – the good, the bad and the as yet unknown.
In “Open mind may be hard to keep,” Christian describes a constituent event Anielski held at the Chagrin Falls library about ten days ago at which many attendees wanted to talk about SB5:
She had come to talk to constituents, one on one and face to face. She wanted to hear their concerns and maybe fix them. But while no subject was off the table, it appeared that the only one the majority of people wanted to talk about was one she was not prepared to address, Ohio Senate Bill 5. Read more
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:34 pm March 3rd, 2011 in conservatives, Courage, democracy, employment, Ethics, Government, leadership, OH17, OH24th, Politics, Social Issues, Statehouse, Transparency, Voting, Women | 4 Comments