H  A  P  P  Y     E  A  S  T  E  R

Quick Fact(s) - Wasting Time With the Senate, the House and the RNC

1.   Wasting time in the Senate
Earlier this month, the Senate voted on a non-controversial resolution commemorating International Women's Day.  Resolutions of this sort require a unanimous vote and similar resolutions have been passed each March without much comment.  This year, the resolution presented to the Senate had to be edited after Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected to a phrase that referred to women in developing countries as being "disproportionately affected by changes in climate because of their need to secure water, food and fuel for their livelihood".

A nearly identical phrase was included in last year's Senate resolution; but Mr. Cruz, in his first opportunity to vote on such a document, objected because "A provision expressing the Senate's views on such a controversial topic as 'climate change' has no place in a supposedly noncontroversial resolution requiring consent of all 100 U.S. senators".

Can this man seem any more ridiculous?  His conscience wouldn't allow him to vote for the resolution because it contained the words "changes in climate"?  What a waste of time, all to feed one man's out-sized ego.  Makes me wish for the days of Poppy Bush, when Republicans didn't demonize environmental science and during whose administration Congress passed the nation's first Clean Air Act with overwhelming Republican support.

And, really, how can we even begin to discuss an issue--no matter which side you take--if we cannot even utter the words identifying the subject?


2.   Wasting time in the House
 Last Wednesday, while Democrats held a news conference to celebrate the third anniversary of the passage of the ACA, the House spent their time voting on yet another measure that would dismantle the act.  

I guess we should give them points for persistence, but even a dog eventually realizes that all the meat is gone off his favorite bone.


3.   Wasting time with the RNC
The Republican National Committee has voted to spend $10M on an "aggressive marketing campaign" designed to reach out to minorities and women in order to educate them on "what it means to be Republican".

Thank you, but as a woman, my place in your world view has been clear for some time.  No need to spend anything on me, thank you.  As for minorities, Republican attempts to pass restrictive voting laws before last year's presidential election speaks pretty plainly to your position there too.  

But, hey, if you want to waste $10M, go ahead and knock yourself out.  Just remember that your money isn't going to make your actions any less egregious.

The Republican Party's War on Women, the North Dakota Front

This is the second in a series of articles on the subject of women, abortion rights and the Republican Party. 

Republicans continue to say that they don’t have to change their core principles, they only have to change the language they use to get their message out.  One perception that they want to alter is the idea that they are running a “war on women”.  Looking at the news over the past few years, I’d say the Republican Party has a long way to go on this subject.

• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “Talk about a manufactured issue.  There is no issue.” 
• RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:  “It’s a fiction.”

The War in North Dakota

the facts:   First, I want to note that North Dakota has one, and only one, abortion clinic in the entire state.  

Last week, the North Dakota state legislature passed a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks.  This week, they passed three additional anti-abortion bills.  One bans any abortion based on gender selection, a second bans any abortion based on birth defect.

My views on those first two bans are pretty grey--though I’ll admit that it might not take much to bring me to the conservative side of the argument on abortion based on gender selection--but in the end, it is not my decision and should definitely not be the decision of some stranger in my state capital, someone I’ve never met and who knows nothing about me or my family.

A third bill bans any abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.  While the heartbeat bill does not state what method would be used to check for a heartbeat, members of the legislature acknowledge that they are aware that an intrusive vaginal probe could detect a heartbeat as early as 6 weeks after conception…earlier than some women would even know they are pregnant.

Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple signed all three abortion bills into law on Tuesday, March 26.  When asked about the constitutionality of the bills, Mr Dalrymple replied:  “Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade." 

So the Governor acknowledges that the bills he signed into law are probably unconstitutional under federal law, but he is willing to spend time and resources to push the envelope anyway, while in the meantime, making the women of his state subject to emotional and physical hardship that he may or may not have had any right to impose. 

And just in case anyone would mistake the North Dakota legislature’s stand on abortion as too liberal, they also passed a resolution that defines life as beginning at conception, essentially banning any abortion in the state.  This measure will be put to the citizens of North Dakota on a November 2014 ballot.

I can’t help but think that if our politicians--and in this case I mean Republican politicians--would spend less time trying to circumvent laws that already exist, we’d be seeing a lot more progress in this country.

The Republican War on Women is "fiction"?

WHAT YOU DO SPEAKS SO LOUDLY
 THAT I CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY  

Words of Wisdom by Will Ferrell

what eye thynk:   After spending two days writing about Proposition 8, DOMA and the Supreme Court and then spending this morning writing about a gun legislation filibuster, I find Will Ferrell's take on these issues to be a perfect coda.

Filibuster Warning!

Senators Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) hand delivered a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office on Tuesday to tell him they planned to filibuster any gun control legislation he presents.

“We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”

what eye thynk:   You want to oppose gun legislation, fine.   Vote”No”!  But you have no right to stop another Senator from voting his opinion.  You have no right to keep this issue from being decided by the full Senate.  

Your threats are nothing but a childish piece of theater, more about making news than about making progress.  The fact that you announced your intentions to the media the day before delivering your letter just proves my point.  

You came to the Senate to make a difference.  If your interpretation of making a difference is to stand in the way of any progress at all, then you're doing a bang up job. But the rest of us wish you would just sit down, shut up and let the adults in Congress get back to work.

And Now We Wait

Down with Doma! It's Not About Religion.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act.  President Obama calls this act, signed by Bill Clinton 16 years ago, unconstitutional and lawyers from the Justice Department will be arguing against it.  The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group--which is, despite its name, a Republican led organization--was tapped to defend DOMA and the Republican led House voted funds to cover their case.

what eye thynk:  I am amazed that it took 16 years for DOMA to be argued in the Supreme Court.  It would seem to be so patently discriminatory that I can't believe it was ever signed into law in the first place. 

And I wish, (how weak that word seems right now), that our country's conservative religious community would butt out of this.  DOMA is not a religious issue.  Can you imagine the outrage if Congress passed a law saying all religions must perform same sex marriages?  The United States foundation in separation of church and state would be argued in every pulpit.  How is the reverse any less valid?

Gay and lesbian couples who want to marry are not trying to take away anyone's God, they are not trying to take away anyone's right to view God as they choose.  If a church believes that same sex marriage is wrong and wants to ban it, the separation of church and state should give that church the right to do so.  

Inversely, no church should be permitted to force other institutions to conform to its canons.  If federal government does not have the right to tell a church how to practice its religion, why should any church have the right to tell the federal government how to write laws?  Why should any church have the right to tell a same sex couple that they cannot legally be married by a Justice of the Peace, by a lay minister or by a church that is accepting.

The right to marry is a legal issue dealing with the rights of two individuals who are asking nothing more than equal protection under our law--the right to tax advantages we provide to heterosexual couples, the right to add a spouse to an insurance policy, the right to visit a hospitalized partner, the right to make decisions for a partner as next of kin, the right to inherit as next of kin, the right of guardianship of children.  The right to stand up and say "This is the person I love". These are simple, every day rights that heterosexual couples expect and accept every day, without thinking about them.

It is time our country recognizes that, just as one person may prefer pink over green, city over country or Art Deco over Jacobean, some people prefer same over different--and our constitution gives them that right.