RSVP to attend NARAL Pro-Choice America's tele-town hall!
Our battle to stop the (52 year old) Brett Kavanaugh from clinching a lifetime appointment (of creative right wing extremists attack on our way of government.) to the Supreme Court is gaining momentum. So we're doubling down.
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell thought this would be easy.
But we haven't allowed them one inch -- and our efforts are paying off: Brett Kavanaugh is polling lower at this point in his confirmation process than any other recent Supreme Court nominee. He's being compared to Harriet Miers, whose nomination was withdrawn.
We're going to keep the momentum going and defeat Trump's nonsense nominee. And thanks to activists like you, we can win this.
Find out how you can plug in by joining the tele-townhall this Sunday.
Please RSVP to join NARAL's tele-townhall on Sunday, July 29 at 8pm eastern/ 5pm pacific to learn more. Once we have your information, you will receive a call on the number you provided us shortly before the townhall begins on Sunday.
In order to ensure we have time to set up the tele-townhall, we will only collect RSVPs until 2pm eastern on Friday, July 27.
______________________________________
More on Brett Kavanaugh after some personal thoughts regarding the hypocritical dogma-shackled attack on a woman’s right to self-determination and self-defense (gathered from past Colorado battles).
GOP religious extremists, and absolutists, continue trying to force their hateful obsession with interfering in and eliminating a woman's right to self-determination, including a woman's right to the self-defense of her own body with the attempts to rush through the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination before our critical November general election.
I'd love to ask these self-certain folks who presume they know "God's mind” why an unborn child is more sacred than a living one? Why is a woman’s right to self-determination and self-defense spit on by so-called freedom loving people?
Beyond that, if God hated abortion so much, why in heaven’s name does God spontaneously abort over half the conceptions that occur?
Medline Plus - a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Why does god murder/abort so many babies?
If your one of the religions that thinks abortion is murder why is god murdering so many babies?
Current estimates say that 60-80% of fertilized eggs probably fail to implant and then another 15-20% of the fertilized eggs that do implant spontaneously abort.
So... that gives us a 34%-16% survival rate for fertilized eggs or to flip it around God murders between 66% and 84% of all babies.
Why if God is opposed to abortions does he kill so many babies?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Few conceptions lead to a baby"
"However, there's some serious problems with the logic of ensoulation at the point of conception -- unless your God is a real asshole. The CDC as well as the March of Dimes and several fertility experts have conducted studies to see exactly how hard it is to carry a pregnancy to term. In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue.
From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God. …"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Abortion is not a government concern! Where’s the self-righteous GOPs concern for living children and their mother?
The crisis pregnancy is a deeply personal tragic situation that belongs within the circle of family, caregivers and spiritual guides - the state has no right pretending it know what God is thinking and that God thinks it's OK to force harmful situation onto woman for the sake of right wing tribal principles of faith.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~
Reflections on a previous version of prop. 67, Colorado's prop. 48 (2010):
Who's a person?
Proposition 48 (now prop 67) wants to define the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as “person” relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of Law.
What are we coming to? Can we please consider a fertilized egg for a moment? It is a seed, home to unknowable potentialities. Do proponents understand that depending upon which data you believe, fifty to sixty-five percent of all pregnancies spontaneously (god initiated?) abort?
Yes, those fertilized eggs are bundles of sacred life and a world of potentialities.
They deserve to be treated as sacred entities. But, death, passing on is a part of life, especially during those months of gestation.
The fertilized egg must achieve genuine viability before it deserves the mantle of “personhood.”
It seems most unreasonable to demand that a “Potentiality” deserves the same legal standing as an existing human.
From a political agenda perspective - I’m constantly amazed by the bizarre right-wing ability to proclaim their conviction in: “The Right to Life” and “The Sanctity of Life”... for an unborn being, then in the same breath support inflicting a thousand “9/11’s” upon another distant, yet innocent, citizenry. Right-wingers will exclaim: but that’s self-defense!
Why not ask: What about the troubled mother who must make an agonized decision based upon self-defense for herself and her existing family? How can the right-wing be so cruel to disregard the all around tragic ordeal abortion is for those involved?
When will our right-wing brothers and sisters grant women their own right to self-defense, dignity, empathy?
For a most thoughtful consideration of the dilemma look up Rachel Richardson Smith’s essay: “Abortion, Right and Wrong”
Also see:
By Phil Plait | November 3, 2008
and
_____________________________________________________
Some informative stories about what's in store with Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court
Why Donald Trump Nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
By Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker
… It is a decent bet that he will be on the Court, despite the outrage of the Democrats and the slimness of the Republican majority in the Senate (just fifty to forty-nine, assuming that John McCain is too ill to travel for a vote). …
He has a strong record of ruling against regulations, notably environmental ones. His position opposing gun control goes significantly beyond an embrace of the Court’s controversial ruling, …
Kavanaugh presented himself as being constrained by the government’s failure to contest the premise that the girl had a theoretical right to an abortion, but he was also willing to let the government make it prohibitively difficult, if not impossible, for her actually to get one. In this, he embodies what is likely the near future of reproductive-rights jurisprudence: the stretching into meaninglessness of the standard, laid out in the Supreme Court decisions following Roe v. Wade, that the government should not put an “undue burden” on a woman when she seeks to exercise her right to end an early pregnancy. (The next-near future may simply be the overturning of Roe.) …
Kavanaugh, who was a clerk for Anthony Kennedy, later worked for the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, during his investigation of President Bill Clinton. What that taught Kavanaugh about when to impeach a President has been a point of speculation.
In a 2009 article for the Minnesota Law Review, he wrote that Congress should consider exempting sitting Presidents from criminal indictment, because such cases were distracting and “inevitably politicized”; at the same time, he wrote, “If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.” Trump, anyway, seems satisfied. …
_____________________________
Brett Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS Nomination Is Bad News for Church/State Separation
JULY 9, 2018 BY HEMANT MEHTA
But here’s where it gets interesting.
Kavanaugh issued a concurrence (which he didn’t have to do) that said he thought the atheists had standing — and he would’ve preferred to rule against the atheists on the merits.
Watch how he butters up the atheists before pivoting to the typical conservative Christian talking point:
… In our constitutional tradition, all citizens are equally American, no matter what God they worship or if they worship no god at all. Plaintiffs are atheists. As atheists, they have no lesser rights or status as Americans or under the United States Constitution than Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, or members of any religious group.
…
… we cannot resolve this case by discounting the sense of anguish and outrage plaintiffs and some other Americans feel at listening to a government-sponsored religious prayer. Any effort to tell plaintiffs that “it’s not a big deal” or “it’s de minimis” would be entirely out of bounds, in my judgment. Plaintiffs’ beliefs and sincere objections warrant our respect.
…
… we likewise cannot dismiss the desire of others in America to publicly ask for God’s blessing on certain government activities and to publicly seek God’s guidance for certain government officials. Plaintiffs suggest that no one should be upset if government ceremonies were entirely cleansed of religious expression; they argue that such a regime would reflect true government “neutrality” toward religion. Others respond, however, that stripping government ceremonies of any references to God or religious expression would reflect unwarranted hostility to religion and would, in effect, “establish” atheism.
Kavanaugh, of course, agrees with the latter group. He thinks asking for government neutrality when it comes to religion is the equivalent of pushing atheism on everybody. Even though nobody is telling people to stop believing in God.
That’s the same warped logic Ken Ham uses when arguing that the prohibition of teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in science classes is somehow anti-Christian and a government imposition of Secular Humanism. It’s completely misguided. …
__________________________________________
Yes they are angry, can you blame them!?
STOP BRETT KAVANAUGH! THE SCOTUS NOMINEE IS BAD FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS - Posted on July 10, 2018
… We have a few weeks to stop this—here’s what you can do:
- REACH OUT TO YOUR SENATORS!
- Let them know that a non-answer on Roe is a threat to Roe!
- Some of the most important Senators to contact are possible Republican defections Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
- Also critical are Democrats who voted for Gorsuch from red states like Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia.
- California! It’s important to send letters to Senator Feinstein, who will report the number of letters during hearings on the nomination.
- Write op-eds, organize, and PROTEST!
- Share your abortion stories on social media.
- More details and information is available from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
____________________________________
TELL US AGAIN WHY THEIR “FREE SPEECH” IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SAFETY! - Posted on July 25, 2018
And in the United States too, these weasels have somehow found a way to complain about any of the ways politicians have tried to stop their harassment. They cry “Free speech” right after they yell “You’re a whore” at someone seeking medical care. AND JUDGES ARE OK WITH THAT, THEY LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT. They’re winning! See:
So First Amendment Lawyers: HOW DO WE FIGHT BACK? Non-First Amendment Lawyers: Get out there and counter-protest NOW!
______________
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination Is Bad News for an Open Internet
By APRIL GLASER, JULY 09, 2018, SLATE
… When it comes to issues involving the internet and the rights of users online, Kavanaugh has already given us a good idea of where he stands: His history reveals a judge who is more sympathetic to the handful of companies that control the internet—and to the government agencies that sometimes use it to surveil—than to the hundreds of millions of Americans who use it.
Kavanaugh has argued that the Obama-era network neutrality rules, … violated the free-speech rights of internet providers. …
_________________
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s brutal education in net neutrality
To err is human, but come on
Devin Coldewey@techcrunch / Jul 11, 2018
DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been nominated for the position of Supreme Court Justice, and on this occasion I think it warranted that we revisit in detail the sound intellectual thrashing this man suffered at the hands of his colleagues just last year on the topic of the internet and net neutrality. Because Kavanaugh was very, very wrong then and gives every indication that he will take his ignorance unapologetically to the highest court in the land.
To set the scene: In 2015 the United States Telecom Association sued the FCC, alleging the Open Internet Order that passed earlier that year, establishing net neutrality as we know it — or rather, knew it — was illegal.
This highly watched case was heard late in 2015 and the decision was issued six months later, in June of 2016. …
No comments:
Post a Comment