Romney's son signed abortion clause in surrogacy contract

And Romney helped finance it.

Personally, I don't care.

But people like Mitt Romney - the new Mitt Romney - do.

They want to regulate what happens in your bedroom.

So it's a fair question as to what happens in theirs.

TMZ has more:

TMZ has learned Mitt Romney's son Tagg -- who had twins this year through a surrogate -- signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations ... and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement ... and it may boil down to an incredibly stupid mistake.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senate candidate from PA says pregnancy from rape is just like having kid of out wedlock

GOP candidate for US Senate from Pennsylvania, Tom Smith, compares pregnancy resulting from rape and having a baby out of wedlock. He says that getting pregnant from being raped is "similar" to getting pregnant from being raped. And his daughter had a child out of wedlock, and he dealt with it, so women who get raped can deal with having their kids too, cuz his daughter dealt with it.

Just wow. And there's video,

Read the rest of this post...

GOP is a party of WASPs led by 70-year-old impotent white guys

More on the Ryan-Akin plan for women, plus a bonus point about the hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

Mike Papantonio, co-host of Ring of Fire Radio, gets what Rachel Maddow gets, that the Ryan-Akin understanding of the female body is either cynical and dishonest or dreadfully "dumb."

But he gets something more — there's a lot that's purely personal in the war on woman, especially when it's coming from power-crazed, wealthy, hyper-entitled males who now need Viagra and Cialis to "look good" for the ladies.

Think about that in human terms — power-crazed and impotent, the white-shoes Cialis crowd. Among people for whom power is a fetish, this is deeply shameful. That must be driving them nuts.

This explains the leaders, as Papantonio points out below (starting 2:00 in the clip). Now add "stupid" (Papantonio says "dumbed-down") and you see why their high-level water-boys, the Todd Akins of the party, act and sound like they do. It's stupid doing the bidding of the impotent.

The Paul Ryan part starts at 5:00. Be sure not to miss (at 7:20 and following) Papantonio's claim that it was the "ten billionaires" who decided that "Paul Ryan should be the VP," not the rest of the party.

I've heard Papantonio make this claim before — that the Koch crowd forced Paul Ryan on Romney when all the party regulars wanted someone who could actually help them win. I'll have more on that point below.

Watch the clip; it's both an excellent analysis and a righteous rant.



Back to that point about the billionaire takeover of the Republican Party. You're watching history, folks. Papantonio said it one way on his Ring of Fire radio show (sorry, no public link, but the show was this one if you're a subscriber).

Mike goes less far than I do. This is entirely my own:

• The Koch-like billionaires are running a coup on the Republican Party, taking control away from party regulars. "Tea Party"–branded politicians are their heavily financed foot soldiers.
  
  Yes, there are Tea Party citizens in the world, with actual tea-bag beliefs.
  
  But "Tea Party" politicians are a Koch Bros Joint, running a hostile takeover against the Boehners and McConnells, the Romneys and McCains.
  
  No party regular who just "wants to win the next election" will have a place in the new Republican Party. They have to serve daddy first, the party second.

In other words, "Daddy" has plans. Those "ten billionaires" are playing the long game, not the short one.

Why did the Koch crowd not care that they lost the Senate in 2010 by running Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell? Why do they not care what Paul Ryan does to Mitt Romney's chances this year?

Because for now, the government isn't the prize. The Republican Party is. It sure looks like they're taking it step by step, consolidating each territory first before invading the next.

They'll take the government (Bob Rubin, watch out; your Midwest billionaire brothers are acing you out of the game). But not quite yet; they're getting their pieces in place, their ducks in a row.

This is exactly like their recent takeover of the already-slavish Cato Institute. The illusion of independence is meaningless to them — they now want direct control.

Which means they're preparing for a bigger move down the road. Trust me.

As to their "Tea Party" soldiers — these men are not just operatives; they're cruel human beings. Hate-the-ladies cruel. Alan Simpson cruel.

As operatives, they feel strong and effective, so long as they do daddy's bidding. As humans though, they're an angry, powerless lot. An irony on both fronts if you think about it.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Onion: "Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record"

Hysterical from the Onion. It's short and good, no excerpt really possible, just go read it and smile. Read the rest of this post...

Rachel Maddow on "legitimate rape"—What Todd Akin's statement says about GOP orthodoxy

This is The Rachel Maddow Show at its best.

Look beyond the fact that MSNBC is a one-eyed giant that finds only Republican fault. There is Republican fault to find, and Maddow has found a doozy. The analysis below is brilliant.

Consider the seed. The ostensible seed is Missouri [corrected] GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin's remarkable statement (my emphasis):

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

But this is not about that statement; it's about what that statement means. This segment has a different seed and a different bottom line.

Her bottom line determines her structure. She therefore starts in 1980 with the Leon Holmes' own remarkable statement, then steps to Stephen Freind in 1988, to Henry Aldridge (what a name) in 1995, and then to Fay ("God's Little Shield") Boozman in 1998.

The seed isn't the offense to women in Todd Akin's statement, it's modern right-wing orthodoxy. You can't understand "legitimate rape" and its implications without that backward look.

Watch; and as you do, try to anticipate her bottom line. (Click here to open large in a new tab.)



Do you see it now? A nice catch by Maddow and an unexpected, brilliant bottom line for the Todd Akin news event. It's not about that comment; it's about what that comment means.

Akin's comment means that modern right-wing voters and the low-end politicians (like Akin) who carry water for the smarter, more powerful Bigs (do you really think Rove believes this crap?) — those people think exactly like the witch-hunters of the 17th century.

In the 1600s, judges determined if a witch was guilty by subjecting her to "trial by drowning" (my phrase; actually "ordeal by cold water"). Basically, you tie the "witch" up and throw her in the river.

If she floats, she isn't a witch. If she drowns, she is a witch and needed drowning anyway. The proof is also the punishment. How convenient. [See also Update below.]

In this century, they're testing for modern witches who engage in "illegitimate" rape — witches who secretly wanted it.

Call it "trial by baby" — if the "witch" wasn't asking for it, she can't have gotten pregnant. As Maddow says, "by definition" if she got pregnant, she "cooperated" and lost the protection of "God's Little Shield".

And just like in 1600s (where these people apparently still live), the "proof" is also the punishment. If you didn't have "God's Little Shield" you got what you deserved — "God's Little Lemonade."

How convenient.

Right-wing orthodoxy: These people, enablers of the right-wing Bigs, are truly crazy. And non-crazy Bigs like Rove are using them to the hilt. Like with the climate, folks, this trajectory too has an end-point.

Update: I'm reminded that some versions of "ordeal by cold water" reversed the guilty indicator (see here and also here). True enough; still, I like my metaphor and they did often test-drown the "guilty." (Thanks always to commenters for corrections and factual adjustments.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Pat Robertson rushes to Akin's defense

So now we have Robertson. Bryan Fischer of the officially-designated hate group American Family Association, and Tony Perkins of the officially-designated hate group Family Research Council.  That pretty much answers any remaining questions about whether Akin is a bit too extreme.

Read the rest of this post...

Akin isn't a glitch, he's a feature of the GOP

You may recall that GOP Cong. Akin is running for the US Senate from Missouri, and recently made some quite incendiary comments about rape and abortion. Here's that from Marketwatch:

Akin, a Missouri congressman who is challenging Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, said on Sunday that pregnancy caused by rape is “really rare,” and that in the case of “legitimate rape,” women’s bodies have “ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

And here's the video of him making the comment:



Now the problem for the GOP: Akin needs to pull out by the end of today or it gets a lot harder, but not impossible, for the GOP to replace him with someone else. From CNN:

Missouri election rules allow a candidate to withdraw with little difficulty through Tuesday, which is 11 weeks prior to the Nov. 6 election.
After Tuesday, the candidate must get a court order and pay for any necessary reprinting of ballots. The state Republican Party would choose another candidate to run against McCaskill, considered one of the most vulnerable senators in the country.

Good piece by LZ Granderson at CNN about how Akin is only the tip of the iceberg - this is a GOP-wide problem. Here's a snippet:

The truth is the "legitimate rape" comment made by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin -- as in pregnancy from "legitimate rape" is rare -- is not a GOP anomaly, but rather another disturbing glimpse into the viewpoint too many social conservatives have about women's health and reproductive rights. And if abortion is not among the "real issues," why is the GOP platform committee considering adding a ban, with no mention of exceptions, to this year's to-do list?

Last March, in a discussion in the Kansas House about whether women purchase separate abortion-only policies, Republican state Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested women should plan ahead for rape the way he keeps a spare tire. A few weeks later, Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican, said some women might fake being raped in order to get free abortions.

Former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum suggested doctors who perform an abortion on a woman who becomes pregnant from an attack should be thrown in jail and this year suggested rape victims who become pregnant from an attack should be forced to keep the baby and "make the best out of a bad situation."

And we're to believe Akin is just a one-off.

Please.

Read the rest of this post...

Mike Huckabee, in defense of rape babies (seriously)

Shorter GOP: Time for America's women to make some rape lemonade.

Keep in mind that this is the guy a lot of Republicans wanted as their presidential candidate.  And according to the Village, he's the "nice" one.

Just wow.  Via Gawker:

This is what Mike Huckabee said today, as transcribed by the Los Angeles Times' James Rainey, about the upside of being raped and then getting pregnant:

"Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape," Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: "I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things."

Anyway, stop being so racist against rape-babies, everyone.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP adopts Akin-type anti-abortion plank, no exceptions for rape, incest

This follows on the news that the GOP permitted an officially-designated "hate group" to write the anti-gay language in the party platform. Read the rest of this post...

Officially designated hate group supports Todd "forcible rape" Akin

His only defender is an officially-designate hate group. Any questions?

The Family Research Council offered strong support for Todd Akin on Monday afternoon.

“This is an effort to try to direct attention away from … Claire McCaskill, who has been supportive of Planned Parenthood — an organization that’s been under investigation for criminal activity,” FRC President Tony Perkins said in between meetings of the RNC platform committee.

Speaking of "under investigation," the FEC investigated and fined a campaign run by Perkins for hiding a payment to former Klansman David Duke. From the Nation:

Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.

If the FRC wants to play "guilt by investigation," then let's.

So, the entire GOP is up in arms of Akin's comments, and the FRC publicly weighs in on Akin's behalf.  Real pulse of the nation, FRC has.  Let's hope the GOP takes all of their advice all the way to election day.  And in fact, it seems they are.  The Republican party let the FRC write the anti-gay language for the GOP platform.  The language also includes, of course, a swipe at judges - you'll recall that GOP attacks on judges in the past caused Sandra Day O'Connor to admonish Republicans for possibly inciting violence.

There really is no limit to how extreme the Republican party has become. Read the rest of this post...

GOP now trying to oust "forcible rape" congressman from Senate race

There's no way he's not pulling out of the race.  First the background from CBS:

The question he faced was simple: Should abortion be legal in the case of rape?

"From what I understand from doctors - that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said.

NYT has more:

Amid an uproar over provocative comments on rape and abortion that Mr. Akin made in an interview broadcast on Sunday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee declared that it would withdraw financial and organizational support for Mr. Akin, including $5 million in advertising already reserved for the fall. In the interview, Mr. Akin said victims of “legitimate rape” rarely got pregnant.

Crossroads GPS, a Republican advocacy group that had already spent more than $5 million to weaken Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, considered the Senate’s most endangered incumbent, announced that it was withdrawing from the state.

At the same time, Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts either called for Mr. Akin to step aside or strongly indicated that he should. In a radio interview, the conservative host Sean Hannity pleaded with Mr. Akin to drop out. “Sometimes an election is bigger than one person,” he said.

But Mr. Akin said on Monday that he would not drop out. “I’m not a quitter,” he said on Mike Huckabee’s radio program.

Romney and McConnell have abandoned the guy too. It's only a matter of time now.
Read the rest of this post...

GOP congressman says birth control is just like September 11

So, just to keep things straight, asking Mitt Romney to release his taxes is just like McCarthyism.  And asking insurance companies to cover contraceptives is just like September 11.  (Except thousands of people died on September 11, and no one ever died from birth control, unless you consider 100m sperm people and if so, then you've got other problems.)

What's important about this story is keeping in mind this is a member of Congress. He's from the state, Pennsylvania, where one of the 9/11 planes crashed. And he has the audacity to talk like this.

We've permitted Republicans to move the bar of decency, slowly but surely, again and again. They always get away with it, and by doing so, slowly move the culture further and further to the crazy.

GOP congressman Mike Kelly is very much what's wrong with the Republican party today. But he's also, sadly, a good sign of what's wrong with our country too. Read the rest of this post...

As CEO and President of Bain, Romney was responsible for aborted-fetus-disposal investment

During his tenure as CEO & President of Bain, Romney's company invested in a business that disposes of aborted fetuses.

BusinessInsider:

As "Chairman, CEO, and President" of Bain, he damn well would have remained responsible for these decisions. In which case, saying he had "left" and implying that he had no involvement or responsibility whatsoever is highly misleading.

The CEO of a car company may not have input into the decision of what specific cars the company makes or where it makes them (though he or she obviously could if s/he wanted), but this CEO is unequivocally responsible for these decisions.

Similarly, if Romney was CEO of Bain at the time it made the Stericycle decision, as well as the company layoffs and other unpleasant facts that Candidate Romney would like to disown, he certainly was responsible for these decisions.

So, enough with walking a fine line rhetorically.

Interestingly, Romney claims to have "left" Bain in February of 1999, and the aborted-fetus deal happened in November of 1999, so Romney et. al. are claiming that he had nothing to do with the deal, even though Romney remained President, CEO and stole shareholder. Interesting timing on Romney's claim to have left.

We're to believe that no one told Romney that they were going into the aborted fetus business. Uh huh. That's like me taking a leave of absence from AMERICAblog, but retaining total ownership and leadership, and Chris deciding to take the blog into the porn business without telling me. Or, perhaps a more apt comparison for a company run by a man who ran for the US Senate as a Republican: Chris decided to make the blog a GOP political blog while I was gone but still running and owning the thing.

Yeah, right.

Chris also raises the point of how you run a huge business like Bain when the President and CEO is missing in action for three years, but retaining his posts in the company. So Bain was rudderless for three years, rather than Romney temporarily stepping down as President and CEO. Really? Read the rest of this post...

Has Romney ever returned the money he made off of aborted fetuses?

Mitt Romney was the President, CEO and sole stockholder of Bain Capital, a company bought millions of shares in Stericycle, a company that disposes of aborted fetuses.

Romney is now trying to claim that he wasn't responsible for profiting off of something people like Romney himself would call the murder of young children, because the investment happened after his "leave of absence" in which he remained President, CEO and sole stockholder.

Okay, let's say we take Romney at his absolutely un-credible word. He had nothing to do with Bain making somewhere between $13m and $50m, depending on how (or when) you count it (some of the money was made before Romney finally actually left the company - i.e., gave up his jobs and shares - some was made later) off of the murder of young babies.

Regardless, Mitt Romney, as President, CEO and sole shareholder of Bain made a sizable sum of money off of the Stericycle deal. Mitt Romney made a sizable amount of money off of the disposal of dead aborted fetuses - off of the murder of young babies, to use the Republicans' own language.

Has Mitt Romney ever given back the blood money he made off of murdered babies?

Oh that's right - Romney won't release his tax returns, so no one knows. Read the rest of this post...

Romney involved in business that disposed of aborted fetuses

So between blatant lying and investing in a medical waste business that disposed of aborted fetuses, which one do you think the radical right will find more offensive? At least Mitt has been consistent in that he has never been able to stay consistent with his stories. Anything that he said yesterday has no relevance to what he's going to say or do today.

More from Mother Jones on the Bain Capital and Mitt Romney lies.

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.

But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney's exit from Bain.

Read the rest of this post...

Would you abort your Facebook friend?

Allison Benedikt at Slate reports that there's now an online trend of pregnant women having their sonograms photoshopped onto photos of their pregnant stomachs (I am seriously in the wrong business).  I've looked at a few, it's a bit odd, but whatever.

Benedikt makes an interesting observation about impact of anthropomorphizing the fetus:

[I]t got us thinking about how the more we treat fetuses like people—including them in our family photo shoots, tagging them on our Facebook walls, giving them their own Twitter accounts—the harder it will be to deny that they are people when the next, say, personhood amendment comes up, with legislators and activists arguing that “the unborn child” inside a pregnant woman’s womb should have the same rights as the living among us.

What I want to know is whether it's immoral to un-friend your fetus in the first trimester. Read the rest of this post...

GOP Rep. compares Obama contraceptive rule to socialism and communism

While the radio show he said it on compared the new rule to Nazism.

Just ignore the fact that communism and Nazism were deadly enemies, because that's a bit over these guys' heads.

Oh, and he's a Republican and from North Carolina.  In case there were any doubt.

The congressman's solution is to pass a law letting churches endorse political candidates, using their tax-free status to do so.

We're number one! Read the rest of this post...

American Airlines bounced flyer over pro-choice t-shirt

Besides being just another lousy airline, American Airlines is now the thought police and the decider of right and wrong. The wording on the t-shirt may be offensive to some, but that's the point. It's hardly as offensive as the background to the problem (or charging $25 for checked luggage).

It's disturbing to read that American Airlines made a passenger miss a flight because the airlines team allegedly didn't like the message. The airline needs to spend more time thinking about how to improve its business and a lot less time bothering customers that may have different views than the employees.

[O]n the plane of the first leg of my flight home, I spent the majority of [time] sleeping, using my shawl as a blanket. Right before we were set to land the flight attendant from first class approaches me and asks if I had a connecting flight? We were running a bit behind schedule, so I figured I was being asked this to be sure I would make my connecting flight. She then proceeded to tell me that I needed to speak with the captain before disembarking the plane and that the shirt I was wearing was offensive.

The shirt was gray with the wording, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--- a senator." [Note from John: T-shirt itself had the real word.] I must also mention that when I boarded the plane, I was one of the first groups to board (did not pass by many folks). I was wearing my shawl just loosely around my neck and upon sitting down in my seat the lady next to me, who was already seated, praised me for wearing the shirt.

When I was leaving the plane the captain stepped off with me and told me I should not have been allowed to board the plane in DC and needed to change before boarding my next flight. This conversation led to me missing my connecting flight. I assumed that because I was held up by the captain, they would have called ahead to let the connecting flight know I was in route. Well, upon my hastened arrival at the gate of the connecting flight, it was discovered that they did indeed call ahead but not to hold the flight, only to tell them I needed to change my shirt. I was given a seat on the next flight and told to change shirts.

Due to the fact that my luggage was checked, changing shirts without spending money wasn't an option. I consulted a friend with a law background who told me covering with my shawl would suffice. Upon boarding the now rescheduled flight with shawl covering my shirt, my ticket dinged invalid. I was pulled to the side while the gentleman entered some codes into the computer and then told, "it was all good." I did finally arrive home to pick up my daughter an hour and a half later than scheduled.

Read the rest of this post...

Are Americans in the Vatican – including disgraced Cardinal Law – behind the Nuns Crackdown?

As Joe reported here, the Vatican has opened a new front on the war against women with a crackdown of the largest and most influential organization of nuns in the U.S., the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

From Joe's story, quoting the NY Times (please click to get the full picture):

The Vatican has appointed an American bishop to rein in the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying that an investigation found that the group had “serious doctrinal problems.”

The Vatican’s assessment, issued on Wednesday, said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” ... Word of the Vatican’s action took the group completely by surprise, Sister Sanders said.

That's the background. Now comes news of who's running this Vatican operation — a bunch of American priests, possibly including disgraced Boston Cardinal Bernard Law (my emphasis and [bracketed notes]):

When the Vatican last month announced a doctrinal crackdown on the leadership organization representing most of the 57,000 nuns in the U.S. [see above], the sisters said they were “stunned” by the move. Many American Catholics, meanwhile, were angry at what they saw as Rome bullying women whose lives of service have endeared them to the public. ...

[I]t turns out that conservative American churchmen living in Rome—including disgraced former Boston Cardinal Bernard Law—were key players in pushing the hostile takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, or LCWR, which they have long viewed with suspicion for emphasizing social justice work over loyalty to the hierarchy and issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Vatican observers in Rome and church sources in the U.S. say Law was “the person in Rome most forcefully supporting” the LCWR investigation, as Rome correspondent Robert Mickens wrote in The Tablet, a London-based Catholic weekly. Law was the “prime instigator,” in the words of one American churchman, of the investigation that began in 2009 and ended in 2011. The actual crackdown was only launched in April.

Also named in the story are Cardinal Raymond Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis; Cardinal William Levada, a former archbishop of San Francisco; and Cardinal James Stafford, a former Denver archbishop.

Conservatives all. Levada has Ratzinger's old job as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "the Vatican’s powerful doctrinal watchdog."

At issue is not just the fact that Bernard Law and Raymond Burke were given "asylum" in Rome after being driven out of the U.S. in the wake of the child abuse scandal. It's that the Vatican dragged its feet to protect its priests while putting its female community into receivership:

“American Catholics have not forgotten how long it took bishops to wake up to the sexual-abuse crisis they created. And now they see that the Vatican took just three years to determine that it had no other option but to put 80 percent of U.S. nuns — whose average age is 74 — into receivership, an effort led in part by Cardinal Bernard Law,” Grant Gallicho, an associate editor of Commonweal, a liberal Catholic periodical, wrote on the magazine’s blog.

The average age of nuns in the U.S. is ... 74 years old? Man, do these guys owe them.

Is it safe to say that, like all troglodytes, these males hate women? Is it safe to say that if this weren't a "church," most of these types would be serving time for sexual abuse of minors in prisons around the world? I would say Yes on all counts.

The good news? There really are good Catholics — Catholics who are also actually good — Fr. Daniel Berrigan types, who live and breathe under the Bush-like dictatorship of the conservatives who control their organization.

What do you call a religious leader who loves power more than doing right? Not-religious.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

White House tours for fetuses? Sorry, it ain't so

What an asinine story.

Anti-abortion conservatives are trying to claim that the White House counts fetuses as people for the purpose of White House tours. Now stay with me here, because this is really, really, really, really hard to understand.

The White House Visitors Office is asking pregnant women who request tours to make sure to include their unborn child in the total count of how many family members are attending IF THE BABY WILL BE BORN BY THE TIME OF THE TOUR. In other words, if you're a mom, a dad, and a kid, that makes 3 family members. But if you're a mom, a dad, a kid, and another kid will be born by the time you go to the White House, then four of you are going, so make sure you ask for four tickets.

The conservatives are saying that this is an admission that a fetus is a person.

Uh, no, it's an admission of the existence of science: That pregnant women tend to give birth to little human beings. Read the rest of this post...