Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Tuck demolished the various falsehoods in Facebook Governor Sarah Palin's endorsement of Kelly Ayotte, and I've highlighted this particular one, but here is some more context from NARAL that is worth mentioning:
Her description of anti-choice Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte's record requires clarification. When endorsing Ayotte, Palin wrote that, as attorney general, Ayotte "battled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of New Hampshire parents - and won!" Well, that statement is a surprise to the Supreme Court justices who voted to send Ayotte's case back to a lower court. In short, she didn't win. She didn't even come close.
Furthermore, the law in question was repealed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in New Hampshire about a year after Ayotte failed to make her case before the Supreme Court.
Of course, Sarah Palin's endorsement has nothing to do with principles or ideology and is all about Sarah Palin looking out for herself and her 2012 chances in key primary states.
But did Palin just hurt Kelly Ayotte's general election chances?
Ayotte's stridently anti-choice record and positions have taken a back seat for much of this race. But Palin just put them front and center.
This might help Ayotte stave off Bill Binnie's momentum for the Republican primary, but it could seriously kneecap her chances against Paul Hodes if she makes it to nominee status. And I say that leaving aside the net negative of a Palin endorsement per se among undeclared voters.
New Hampshire is a solidly pro-choice state. How solidly? In 2005, when SurveyUSA polled all fifty states on the "pro-life v. pro-choice" question, a whopping 67% of Granite Staters surveyed self-identified as "pro-choice". Only Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont had higher percentages than that.
It'll be interesting watching a nominee Ayotte try to thread that needle. I don't think she can.
Economists are quick to tell us that our economy is showing signs of recovery. This seems to mean that Wall St. is doing well. Main St. doesn't seem to be ready to tap dance just yet. The unemployment rate for New Hampshire was seven percent in January. Those statistics are skewed to be lower than the real numbers of unemployed. They don't count folks who haven't been able to find a job long after their unemployment benefits ended, or those who weren't eligible in the first place. The real number is perhaps as high as 14%. More NH families are using food stamps than ever before. Our homes aren't worth what they used to be, though foreclosures seem to be slowing down. In other words, for the most part, the news isn't good. NH folks are having a tough time, and tough times always seem even tougher in the north country.
This was published as an op-ed in the January 8, 2010 Conway Daily Sun newspaper.
I've had a complaint about the way the text came out in this diary. My computer died just before Christmas, and I'm using my late husband's laptop, which does not have a word processing program in it. I spent half an hour trying to fix the text - to no avail. I'm sorry if it's annoying, but I assure you, it's not intentional.
During last year's NH legislative session, the minority party frequently accused the majority party of wasting time on unimportant issues, instead of focusing on jobs and the economy. They wailed and gnashed their teeth over the time spent on the issue of marriage equality - even though that was an issue of justice and civil rights. In looking over the bills ready to be worked on this year, it seems that the minority party has chosen to actually do exactly what they whined the other guys were doing all last year.
Imagine Governor Karen Testerman and a GOP controlled legislature using this toolbox given to them by Senate Democrats:
Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance.
Forced by federal law to buy insurance from a private company.
Forced by state law to buy insurance from a private company that pretends Roe v. Wade never happened.
No word yet on whether Ben Nelson demanded that states can opt out of plans that cover the cost of Viagra.
It's been called the biggest restriction on women's right to choose in a generation. Sixty four House Democrats actually voted for it. The amendment was passed as part of the House version of health care reform.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment is the most significant legislative restrictions on abortion since the passage of the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds being used for abortions. What the Stupak amendment really does is make abortions unable to be covered in any insurance plan within the insurance exchange. So even if a woman seeks to pay for it separately, it can't be done. Higher income women will still have access to reproductive choice, but not less wealthy women. It bears repeating: Sixty Four House Democrats actually voted for it.
President Obama warned against sneaking in limitations on a woman's right to use private funds to obtain insurance under the guise of health care reform, and yet it has been done.
It seems the evangelical conservatives have made serious inroads into Democrats in Congress. And mainstream media has made little note of it.
While Canadian law has no precedential import in the United States, that Canada is the
only democratic country in the world to allow the abortion decision to be a private one between a woman and her physician
and that as a result of a Supreme Court decision seems instructive.
In 2008, on the twentieth anniversary of the decision in Regina v. Morgentaler, Morris Manning, who claims to have prepared the winning argument, provides a summary of the issues in The Star
President Barack Obama recently announced his decision to speak at the commencement ceremony for the University of Notre Dame on May 17. He will also be the ninth U.S. president to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree from the university.
Several groups have signed petitions imploring the university's president, Reverend John Jenkins, to revoke the invitation and prevent President Obama from speaking, arguing that his policies conflict with Catholic principles, particularly those regarding abortion. With Obama's decision to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and his pro-choice stance, several groups have expressed their opposition, insisting that the selection is inappropriate.
His [Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham] bill would now allow doctors to act when it is medically necessary, even without proof of counseling. Courts have ruled that health exceptions are a crucial component of any bill that restricts access to abortion restrictions. He also cut back on who would be qualified to provide counseling.
The bill would require a girl 14 or younger to provide an abortion provider with notarized proof on an official state form that she had received counseling at least 48 hours earlier from a parent, mental health or religious counselor. The earlier version included aunts, uncles and grandparents among qualified counselors.
I'm glad to see the state Republicans have taken Fergus' advice to heart.
In addition to last minute environmental-rule eviscerations, the so-called "right of conscience" rule received final approval today, and will become law in a month.
Among its many problems, the whole thing was just poorly done. The intent is (and will be) anti-abortion, but the actual scope of this rule is stunningly vast.
For example:
"Entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, health care personnel, a participant in a program of training in the health professions, an applicant for training or study, a post graduate physician training program, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, laboratory or any other kind of health care organization or facility. It may also include components of State or local governments.
And those entities shall NOT
d) Entities to whom this subsection 88.4(d) applies shall not: (1) require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by the Department if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions. (2) discriminate in the employment, promotion, termination, or the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel because he performed, assisted in the performance, refused to perform, or refused to assist in the performance of any lawful health service ...
They don't have to tell you up front they are denying treatment, they don't have to refer you to a doctor who can provide treatment.
(More from the Nanny Party... - promoted by elwood)
Ok, I know America's all filled up, and that bombing Mecca would solve all our foreign policy problems. I even know that Miami is like a third world country and that the only way to solve all this nation's problems is to build a giant wall and outlaw the Spanish language.
But now even by his own absolutely insane standards, Colorado Congressman, and Republican Presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo, may have actually stepped over the rather narrow line that separates wingnuttery from sheer lunacy.
On the same day the diminutive, Coloradoan, tough-guy registered as the first Republican Presidential candidate in the New Hampshire primary, he introduced a bill in Congress that would require all foreigners seeking visas to join family members in the US to supply DNA samples to prove their family ties.
Of course their citizen, or legal-resident family members would also be required to supply a corresponding sample to it check against.
Yesterday Governor Lynch signed the repeal of New Hampshire's law, passed under Governor Benson, that required doctors to notify the parents of a woman under 18 before performing a requested abortion. Republican leaders including Fran Wendelboe and Fergus "Nanny" Cullen are denouncing the Governor. A little bit of historical context is needed.
Parental notification is a reasonable sounding policy. As its supporters say, "The high school nurse can't give my kid an aspirin or a puff on an asthma inhaler without my permission -- why should a doctor be able to give my daughter an abortion without consulting me?"
Last week was a significant one for Bill Richardson's campaign, with a major address in Washington, D.C., on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq.
It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia - which highlights Richardson's expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one - a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.
As the presidential campaign season kicks off, I wanted to insert an interesting reproductive rights framework into the discussion.
We have a post up on our site right now written by a lifelong Republican, Randy Moody, a former top aide to a Republican governor of Nebraska as well as several Republican congress people.
Moody argues that reproductive rights have been traditionally supported by the Republican party and, in particular, Republican candidates and presidents. Citing Barry Goldwater as one example, Moody writes that Goldwater said, "I'm not for abortion, but it's something that's up to the individual, not the government...." Barry's wife Peggy was one of the founders of a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona.
It's worth a read and it would be excellent to see this discussed this evening. In a campaign sure to be pointlessly divided into those who support abortion access and those who don't we need to see more nuanced, expanded discussion of what reproductive justice truly means - access to pre and peri natal care, family planning, LGBTQI rights, and much more.
We as citizens need to be hold these candidates feet to the fire and stop accepting their narrow perspectives on these topics that serve more as a political platform and not at all as true POLICY for the people!
