Rubio: No abortions for Zika-infected women




Sen. Marco Rubio said Saturday that he doesn’t believe a pregnant woman infected with the Zika virus should have the right to an abortion — even if she had reason to believe the child would be born with severe microcephaly.

“I understand a lot of people disagree with my view – but I believe that all human life is worthy of protection of our laws. And when you present it in the context of Zika or any prenatal condition, it’s a difficult question and a hard one,” Rubio told POLITICO.

“But if I’m going to err, I’m going to err on the side of life.”

Abortion and Zika became politically intertwined in June when Congress failed to pass a Zika-relief bill, in part due to a dispute over Planned Parenthood. Zika has started to spread quickly through Florida, which now has 422 cases — more than any other state in the nation — and it has alarmed families and health experts because the virus has been linked to severe microcephaly in infants born to some infected pregnant women.

“We’ve never before had a mosquito-borne disease that can cause a birth defect,” the Centers for Disease Control’s director, Tom Friedan, said Thursday in Doral after touring Wynwood. “That’s why we take it so seriously. The key is to protect pregnant women.”

Without prompting, Rubio acknowledged the challenges of the birth defects that result from Zika.

“Obviously, microcephaly is a terrible prenatal condition that kids are born with. And when they are, it’s a lifetime of difficulties,” he said. “So I get it. I’m not pretending to you that that’s an easy question you asked me. But I’m prolife. And I’m strongly prolife. I believe all human life should be protected by our law, irrespective of the circumstances or condition of that life.”

Rubio has taken a leadership role in trying to prevent the spread of Zika. He became the first Republican to co-sponsor President Obama’s $1.9 billion Zika-fighting legislation, which was watered down by House Republicans after it passed the Senate. The legislation ultimately failed. Rubio points out that he voted for every Zika bill he could.

The campaign of one of his Democratic Senate opponents, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, pointed to that vote and said in a press release Saturday that “Rubio exploited the Zika crisis to attack women’s health funding and Planned Parenthood.”

A staunch pro-life conservative, Rubio’s position on abortion has been consistent in the Florida Legislature, U.S. Senate and the campaign trail. A year ago, for instance, Rubio said on the presidential debate stage that he was opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest. Murphy’s campaign called that position “extreme and offensive.”

Rubio took issue with the Democrats’ raising Planned Parenthood because, he said, “the words Planned Parenthood don’t appear anywhere in the law.”

Rubio said the bill limited federal Zika money to “community health centers and hospitals, basically Medicare providers… with limited funds, you wanted to ensure those funds were going to facilities in every community in the state. In the end, I voted for laws that don’t have that condition there, either. I just want the money to start flowing.”

Rubio faulted Democrats for not passing the scaled-back legislation.

“The Planned Parenthood angle is something they basically made up to have a political reason not to pass Zika so they can come back in August and campaign on it,“ he said. “That’s what I mean by political volleyball. Both sides have played that game. I would have preferred the House just passed a clean funding bill and I’ll vote for that if it comes out.”

‘Pro-Life’ GOP Refuses To Help Zika Infected Babies

Once again, the irony (‘pro-life’) is unsettling…


The world is scrambling to deal with fallout from the spread of the Zika virus, the global pandemic which appears to be linked to birth defects in children when pregnant women are infected. President Obama has requested that America help lead the global effort to fight the infection – which has reached our shores. Republicans, who describe themselves as “pro-life,” are resisting.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) is taking the lead among Republicans in refusing to help.

In a letter to President Obama’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, Rogers noted the Department of Health and Human Services has $1.4 billion allocated for the Ebola fight of 2014. And the State Department has $1.3 billion left over.

“These funds can and should be prioritized to meet the most pressing needs of mounting a rapid and full response to Zika,” Rogers and two other Republican committee members wrote.

The White House will likely ask that “some” Ebola funds be “repurposed” for the anti-Zika effort but not so much that it would “undermine” the response to Ebola, Earnest said, adding that amount “would not be sufficient to take on what we believe is a pretty serious threat from the Zika virus.”

Strangely Republicans are arguing that funds already being used to fight the Ebola outbreak now be used against Zika, instead of a separate request. But these are the same Republicans who attacked the Obama administration’s response to that outbreak.

Along with their allies in the media, many on the right said Obama was exposing America to Ebola, with some even floating the conspiracy theory that Obama wanted a mass infection of Americans with the Ebola virus.

Instead, the administration’s response to that outbreak has now been cited as a model of America using its superpower status to fight a global problem. Ebola infections are down to nonexistent in many of the African nations where it killed thousands, in part due to the global alliance organized by President Obama.

There were no outbreaks of the disease in America, and in fact Americans infected with the virus survived and are now Ebola-free, thanks to American doctors. At the same time Republicans and conservatives were harsh in their condemnation of the Obama response.

The Obama administration is asking for funds to show American leadership, to help the babies Republicans profess to care so much about, and again they are dropping the ball.

Oliver Willis

Trevor Noah: Imagine if Repubs used their ‘pro-life passion’ against the NRA and not Planned Parenthood

'Daily Show' host Trevor Noah on Oct. 5, 2015. [YouTube]
‘Daily Show’ host Trevor Noah on Oct. 5, 2015. [YouTube]


Daily Show host Trevor Noah asked his viewers on Monday to imagine what would happen if Republicans put as much effort into regulating guns as they did womens’ reproductive health.

“The amount of lives they save could reach superhero levels,” he said. “They just need to have a superhero’s total dedication to life. Right now they’re more like comic book collectors: human life only holds value until you take it out of the package, and then it’s worth nothing.”

Noah then asked his audience to “imagine if we could bring some of that pro-life passion into being more, well, pro-life,” adding his own gun-safety commentary to anti-abortion rhetoric from various conservatives.

As things stand, though, Noah argued that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Rep. Jason Chaffetz are more underwhelming characters, dubbing Bush “the Tranquilizer” and Chaffetz “Delusional Man.” In Chaffetz’s case, he said, the Utah congressman reacted to being widely-criticized for his performance in a House hearing on Planned Parenthood by announcing that he would run for House Speaker.

“What the hell?” Noah asked. “A guy who gets stronger the more embarrassed he gets?”

Noah also made fun of GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for her tough talk regarding a Planned Parenthood video that actually did not exist.

“When Carly Fiorina plays truth or dare, she does not mess around,” the host said, before noting that the videos purporting to show the sale of “baby parts” have been debunked.

Watch Noah’s commentary, as posted online on Monday.

“Pro-Life” Is A Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions They Won’t Like

touch my sign

Addicting Info

There’s a lot of terms floating around that people use to describe themselves when they want to make their position sound more appealing, even if those terms are a completely (and very deliberately) misleading. One such lie term is “pro-life.”

John Fugelsang said it best: “Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself ‘pro-life.’” Indeed, the term “pro-life” has come to represent a group of people whose values have nothing to do with protecting life, and living people, and more to do with protecting unborn fetuses to the exclusion of all other considerations.

The only way to effectively kill a misnomer, such as “pro-life,” is to replace it with a more accurate description. I would encourage everyone to pick one of these terms, and start using it in place of the words “pro-life,” when discussing abortion.

1. Anti-Abortion: People who call themselves “pro-life” oppose abortion. Since that’s the only argument the “pro-life’ moniker is applied to we should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman’s right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity.

2. Anti-Choice: This term works because the people who proclaim that they are “pro-life” are using that term to describe their position in regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and absolutely nothing else. See the Fugelsang quote above. Therefore they are anti-choice. “Life” does not even enter the equation.

3. Pro-Fetus: This term works because a large swathe of the “pro-life” movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers and children. If they were really concerned with “life,” and not just the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they are clearly pro-fetus.

4. Pro-Birth: Same reasoning as “pro fetus,” this term works because so many people who consider themselves “pro-life” stop caring about whether or not the baby is adequately taken care of the instant it’s born.

5. Pro-Controlling Women: It’s irrefutable that the people who would deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If someone thinks they’re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide what she does with her body, without her input, that’s control, pure and simple.

6: Pro-Abuse: Attempting to dominate or control another person in a relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to control women whom you’ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarrage. How are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.

7. Anti-Sex: My friend Justin insisted for a long time that the people who oppose abortion do so because they think that a baby should be punishment for premarital sex, and I was admittedly skeptical, but he actually proved it, here. I’ll let his words on this topic speak for themselves, he makes an excellent argument.

8. Pro-Religious Control: A lot of the arguments that fuel the anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not all of the “pro-life” movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion. Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion, he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What’s more controlling than that?

9. Misogynist: Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what’s more hateful to women than treating them like they’re too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the responsible choice to make? I can’t think of many things more hateful than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist’s baby to term, because you think you’re more qualified to make their medical decisions than they are.

10. Hypocrite: I thought I’d end with this one, because after the previous examples it should be glaringly obvious that this isn’t a debate about “life,” it’s a debate about abortion and what women are capable of deciding in regards to their own bodies. History, and extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications. According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a hypocrite.

I consider myself pro-life because I support programs and policies which help people to thrive, including abortion. There’s nothing “pro-life,” or noble, about forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term, especially when that fetus could put her life in danger, was conceived through rape or incest, or would be subjected to a life of difficulty and poverty because the mother is unable to provide for a child.

We can’t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, “No, that’s not what you are, and I’m not going to let you lie about your position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life. If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of protesting at abortion clinics.”


Bachmann: ‘The Number One Way We’ll Advance The Cause Of Life’ Is By Repealing Health Reform

Perhaps it’s all a matter of interpretation, but from my perspective, Michele Bachmann has once again bitten an apple from the crazy tree.

The Affordable Care Act saves lives so her premise is flawed from the outset…

Think Progress

Like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann found no irony in calling for the repeal legislation that would extend health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans (and already insured 2.5 million young adults) at a “pro-life” event last night, saying, “the number one way we’ll advance the cause of life is through the 100 percent repeal of Obamacare.”

Speaking at the premiere of The Gift of Life, an anti-abortion movie, Bachmann also criticized the administration for denying greater access to the morning after pill, despite agreeing with the decision.  She warned that if re-elected, the administration would surely make Plan B available “on the grocery store aisles next to bubble gums and next to M&Ms.”

Watch it:

Of course the morning after pill will never be available in candy aisles. Currently, the medication can only be purchased behind the counter by women 17 and older — meaning that they do not need a prescription but they have to ask a pharmacist for the drug. Those 16 and younger need a prescription in order to obtain it.

Meanwhile, all available data — both in Massachusetts and around the world — shows that women contemplating an abortion are far less likely to seek one if they can afford health insurance for themselves, and feel confident they can provide quality medical care to their newborn children. Therefore, repealing health reform would not only violate the general concept of supporting human life, it would also destroy the “life” of the fetuses that conservatives talk so much about protecting.

The Uterus Of The United States of America

I just ran across this on Mario Piperni‘s site.  It speaks volumes about the phony small government tea party folks.  It’s all about the “save the fetus, starve the child” syndrome…

Mario Piperni

From the party of smaller government…

Rick Santorum:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be

“[Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

Herman Cain:

I support life from conception. No people shouldn’t be free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception, we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.

Michele Bachmann:

I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, an I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life.

Rick Perry:

“I’m proud to fight for and was proud to sign a budget that defunded Planned Parenthood in Texas.Our obligation is not only to protect life and bestow freedom on future generations, but it’s also to instill character.”

Conservatives and Republicans are the people who will tell you that government has no right to force health insurance upon you but it does have the right to tell you with whom you can have sex with, when you can have sex and the manner in which you do so.  Further, many of them will tell you that should a woman become pregnant and regardless of the manner in which it happened (consensual, rape, incest…doesn’t matter), shemust give birth to that child.  Americans, they insist, must live their lives by the moral and religious standards set forth by the likes of Santorum and Bachmann.

In essence, as the illustration above suggests, Republicans and conservatives are on a campaign to shrink government to the size that fits into the uterus of every woman in America.

Tell me that these people are not mad.


Related articles

Cain would autograph life amendment

They say that Obama is ineffective and a poor leader, but I say conservatives play a mean game of projection.

Politico – Ben Smith

Herman Cain tried to clean up the running confusion over his position on abortion last night, but in the meantime opened questions about his grasp of the Constitution.

In an interview with David Brody last night, Cain said he’d sign a pro-life constitutional amendment if it crossed his desk as president.

“Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it,” he said. “That’s all I can do. I will sign it.”

The only problem with that statement? Presidents don’t sign constitutional amendments — they’re passed in Congress and then need to be ratified by the states, and the president plays no formal role in the process.

Candidates have in the past pledged to support such an amendment, but it’s not clear what signing one would mean.

Related articles

Florida Gov. Rick Scott Hosts Anti-Abortion Law Celebration


Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) knows how to throw a party. The conservative governor on Saturday hosted pro-life activists and Florida lawmakers at the governor’s mansion to celebrate a handful of new anti-abortion laws, the Miami Herald reports.

But the laws actually went into effect about a month ago, so why host the ceremonial bill-signing event now?

“A lot of people put a lot of effort into these things,” Scott said, speaking to why the event was held over the weekend. “I think they want to have an event to memorialize it. For these bills, a lot of these people have worked on these bills for years and years, and it’s a way for them to celebrate the accomplishments.”

Scott’s spokesman told TPM in an email that it is “common to hold ceremonial bill signings to highlight the hard work of the legislators involved with making them a reality.”

“I am honored today to sign four bills that strengthen Florida’s pro-life laws,” Scott added. “During my campaign and since I have been governor, I have made it very clear that I am, and always have been, pro-life.”

The Miami Herald breaks down the four bill Scott and others celebrated:

One requires women to receive an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion and be offered the opportunity to have it described to her. Another tightens requirements for parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion. A third prohibits insurance policies created through the federal health care law from covering abortions, and the fourth redirects proceeds from Choose Life license plates from counties to Choose Life, Inc., which counsels pregnant women. Lawmakers also passed a bill proposing a Constitutional amendment, which doesn’t require the governor’s signature, that would prohibit using tax dollars to pay for abortions.

Read the rest here.

Related articles

Hip-Hop for Conservatives

Define irony…

Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic

Ari Melber (and a couple commenters) point out that the interesting thing about Common being attacked, is that one of his best known songs is about as pro-Life as it gets. “Retrospect for Life” always struck me as being of that variety of pop art as “Knocked Up.” People end up in situations where abortion is often the outcome, but the art gives us a bundle of joy because it’s a result we find a lot more pleasing. Or, to be less cynical, its art which reflects the world as we wish it was, as opposed to how it is.

Of course social conservatism isn’t particularly original for hip-hop. “Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth” has the obvious nod toward Pro-Lifers. Goodie Mob “Beautiful Skin” is a rather obnoxious lecture on black female modesty (Though that’s a sick track.) And Lifesava’s “What If It’s True” is chastisement for nonbelievers. But I like “Selector” better, so I think I’ll embed that.


Jan Brewer Signs Controversial Abortion Bill Into Law

I truly believe that GOP politicians are unaware of the political pulse of the nation.  They are myopic in their quests to legislate the most extreme laws thinking that the “American people” as they often refer to us, are on the side of conservative governance.  I suspect that there will be a rude awakening in the next two November elections. 

First with national referenda to vote down extreme legislation in several states.  Secondly with recalls of certain extreme legislators in those states.  Finally, a rejection of GOP extreme conservatism resulting in a second term for President Obama and most likely a return to the Dems controlling both houses.

Huffington Post

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill that makes the state the first in the nation to outlaw abortions performed on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus.

The move comes as anti-abortion groups across the nation try to seize on gains made by political conservatives during the November elections, seeking enactment of new state laws to further restrict abortions.

Under the new Arizona statute, doctors and other medical professionals would face felony charges if they could be shown to have performed abortions for the purposes of helping parents select their offspring on the basis of gender or race.

The women having such abortions would not be penalized.

State legislators have said no such law exists anywhere else in the nation.

Backers of the measure said the ban is needed to put an end to sex- and race-related discrimination that exists in Arizona and throughout the nation. They insist the issue is about bias rather than any broader stance on abortion.    Read More… 

Click for Restrictions.