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
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.
From MSNBC this morning:
Read more here.
Read my thoughts on that question in my post, “Why Women Voters Will Dictate Ohio’s Super Tuesday Results,” at iVillage and let them know what you think!
The Following election poll was conducted over a seven day period from February 20 – 27, contacting 3200 likely primary voters of each major party, divided equally over the 16 congressional districts. All calls were made in person, to landline phone numbers researched on whitepages.com, from registered voter lists supplied by the Secretary of State:
Ohio U.S. Senate Republican Primary Polling
Name TOTAL Men Women Under 50 Over 50
Dodt 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Glisman 23% 15% 32% 17% 24%
Gregory 3% 5% 2% 5% 6%
Mandel 17% 20% 14% 22% 13%
Pryce 6% 9% 4% 4% 6%
Undecided 50% 50% 48% 52% 50%
Take a look at that undecided number!
Ohio’s open primary system means that its large portion of voters who identify as independents, and women in particular, can really affect the outcome of this race. Turnout is notoriously low for primaries – I heard yesterday on one of the cable shows that it can average just 10-20% nationwide for the presidential primary race. Ouch.
Donna Glisman – you go girl! I don’t know a thing about her, I’m not voting a Republican ballot and I do know who I’m supporting in November – but I always like seeing women run. Check out her League of Women Voters’ information here.
I won’t be voting for any of these candidates in the primary or the general, but for those of you who really want to vote for a Republican, you clearly do not need to follow the narrative that because Josh Mandel has the money, he has the win.
Go be civic and really make your vote count on March 6 – whichever way that goes for you.
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):
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.
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
When I wrote about June’s New Hampshire debate, I wrote that answering the question of what I want in a candidate has two parts: first, the policy part, and second, the competency part. Neither takes precedence over the other in any absolute way, but I defined the competency piece as going “…to overall experience, dedication, integrity, sincerity, thoughtfulness, consistency and respect for all voters, not just the ones that will vote you in, once you are in office.”
Last night? During the Iowa debate with eight Repubican candidates? (Review the live-blog of the Iowa GOP debate here, the entire debate video here or the debate’s transcript here.) I can honestly say that listening to what they had to say made me feel as though former Utah governor and ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, was the only one who had a clue that being president means making decisions for hundreds of millions of people who didn’t pick you.
But wait there’s more – here at my full post on BlogHer.
I wrote about this on announcement day. From the inbox, a press release and letter to Ohio Gov. John Kasich that demands an increase in female representation in his administration and specifically in JobsOhio:
The letter also notes something of which I as not aware and am livid about: the dismantling of the Governor’s Office of Women Initiatives and Outreach. You have got to be kidding me.
Barely 24 hours ago, I wrote about this entity and Rich Cordray’s role in it. Now we read, less than an hour ago, that former Ohio AG Richard Cordray will head it instead of Elizabeth Warren. From Politico:
President Obama has selected former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to lead the embattled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Obama will make the announcement Monday from the White House. The report first appeared Sunday in the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.
Of course the party who could not possibly care less and has foolhardy confidence in the moral fiber of individuals who run business despite the myriad examples of why that’s really not such a good blanket idea, says bah-humbug:
Republicans responded to the announcement about Cordray with a reminder that they intend to oppose “any nominee, regardless of party affiliation” unless the White House made a slew of changes to the agency.
Those changes? They have to do with weakening the agency, of course. Read more
I haven’t watched it yet so no opinion (it’s being broadcast on Ohio News Network or ONN). What do I have in mind? Consider the questions asked – content and form. Consider the answers provided – non-responsive or satisfying. And every time you see, watch or hear a candidate for political office this year, via their materials or those elicited by someone else (i.e., media or otherwise), start with those four points: content & form of the questions asked, non-responsive versus satisfactory quality of the answers given. Then decide how acceptable any of that is to you and what credence and weight you should give any of it.
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):
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:
UPDATE: Via Plunderbund, here’s an excellent Ohio.com editorial from today that chastises the Ohio House Republicans’ latest shenanigans with charters and demands that someone in elected office step up and stop it.
And he’s not saying this in a good way, at all. And he is not fringe and he is not alone.
Read the entire article in the Dispatch today, “GOP bill reduces charter schools’ accountability.”
And then be sure to refresh your memory of how White Hat Management, the most notorious for-profit charter school operator in Ohio, received $17 million of your money for ghost students.
Oh, and before you go on, recall the editorial from the Cincy Enquirer in 2009 about how money and charters don’t mix.
On what planet in what universe do some of these people elected by Ohioans, charged with spending Ohioans’ tax dollars, LIVE ON? (And Josh Mandel – you support charters, who clearly support you – what do you have to say to this evisceration of accountability with our money, given that you are the Ohio Treasurer? Fascinating note – the news article that reported on Mandel’s appearance at Ashland Univ. where he reportedly mentions support for school choice, charters and the elimination of the estate tax is now available only in its cached form.)
This quote from the lobbyist for White Hat and its chief, David Brennan, is textbook rhetoric, obfuscation and scamming:
[Tom] Needles said the charter-school concept is to allow greater flexibility and fewer restrictions so schools can be innovative and improve student learning.
Letting the Ohio Department of Education grant permission for charter schools to open and eliminating sponsors will direct more money into the classroom and remove another layer of bureaucracy, he said.
Let’s get something straight: The layer that needs to be removed is the FOR-PROFIT layer that sends my money into David Brennan’s profit coffer that then ends up back in the millions of dollars he gives to the very elected officials who are championing his garbage legislative proposals to help him earn more profit, not direct money to classrooms. Read more
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:37 am May 3rd, 2011 in Courage, Crime, democracy, Education, Government, John Kasich, Josh Mandel, leadership, Ohio, Politics, Republicans, Transparency, treasurer, Youth | Comments Off