IMO: Any attempt to make a religious belief into a law that punishes citizens for NOT practicing that belief is unconstitutional. It is NOT allowing people to follow their beliefs and morals, it IS theocrasy.
SUMMARY:While many say the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is the answer to decades of prayer, some faith leaders fear their religious rights will be infringed amid new abortion restrictions. Amna Nawaz spoke with three faith leaders about how their religions approach the issue of abortion.
SUMMARY:In his 113- page order blocking the enforcement of Texas' six week abortion ban law, U.S. District JudgeRobert Pitman called the law “an unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right.” But with the state of Texas appealing the order, long term abortion access remains in question. Stephanie Sy reports from Austin, Texas.
SUMMARY:The Supreme Court returned to the courtroom Monday morning to hear its first oral arguments of the new term in-person. The cases set for argument this term could make it one of the most contentious in many years.Marcia Coyle, chief Washington [DC] correspondent for The National Law Journal, was one of the two dozen reporters in the courtroom and joins John Yang with more.
SUMMARY:Since the 2020 election, laws restricting voter access passed in 14 states across the U.S., all with Republican-controlled state legislatures. They've sparked outrage from voting rights groups and from two former co-chairs of the Presidential Election Commission.Democrat Bob Bauer who served under the Obama campaign, and Ben Ginsberg a Republican election lawyer, join Judy Woodruff to discuss.
SUMMARY:The past legislative session in Texas focused on key conservative priorities, from restricting abortion to addressing transgender rights. The Lone Star State is now focused on a voting bill that would tighten election laws, after missing an opportunity to get it passed late last month. Political reporter Daniel Bush joins Judy Woodruff from Austin with more.
SUMMARY: In his first week in office, President Biden has made several moves to address equity in America. White House Domestic Policy AdviserSusan Rice, who has echoed the President’s commitment to expand opportunities for Americans, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
SUMMARY:President Biden underscored his sweeping break from former President Trump signing a new batch of executive orders to address the climate crisis. Those actions include a pause on new oil and gas leases on federal land and water, a focus on environmental injustices and building new clean energy jobs. Yamiche Alcindor reports.
SUMMARY:President Biden is doing a 180 from his predecessor's policies and is vowing to confront the issue of climate change head on. But most Republicans have pushed back on climate change efforts. White House National Climate Adviser and former head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
SUMMARY: The nation's top diplomat, U.S. Secretary of StateAntony Blinken, spent his first full day on the job Wednesday. Nick Schifrin joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the changes the Biden administration is making on the international stage.
SUMMARY: President Biden on Thursday focused on his campaign pledge to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. The President also rescinded the so-called "global gag rule" that bars U.S. funding for health groups abroad that offer abortion counseling, and he took steps to restore federal funding for groups making abortion referrals in the United States. White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor reports.
SUMMARY:A key part of one of the executive orders signed by President Biden Thursday will reopen enrollment for the Affordable Care Act. Biden's other executive action will revoke a policy that barred funding for groups overseas that performed abortions or offered information about them.Paige Winfield Cunningham, a Washington Post reporter covering health care policy, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.
SUMMARY: In this next installment of our series, “Roads to Recovery,” Christopher Booker reports on efforts to reform Connecticut's land use laws, and the complicated mix of history, politics, and racial dynamics that impact who gets to live where. Advocates say restrictive land-use laws have led to inequality and a lack of affordable housing, while some local officials worry about losing a say over what can be built and where. This segment is part of the initiative, Chasing the Dream: Poverty and Opportunity in America.
SUMMARY:The Biden administration has made the issue of housing inequality a priority, acknowledging the role of federal, state and local governments in creating and implementing racist housing policies over the years.Margery Austin Turner, Institute Fellow, Urban Institute, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the impact of these policies and the importance of the Biden administration’s recognition of the same.
SUMMARY:Argentina on Wednesday voted to legalize abortion, making it the first major Latin American country to take the step. María Victoria Murillo, director of the Institute for Latin American Studies at Columbia University, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss what the historic vote means for Argentina and the region.
SUMMARY:In just 12 days, President Trump's Supreme Court pick will face contentious hearings before the U.S. Senate. Where does nominee Brett Kavanaugh stand on key issues? Lisa Desjardins, and CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic, join Judy Woodruff to analyze Kavanaugh’s judicial record and recent statements on the politically charged topic of abortion, including whether Roe v. Wade is 'settled law.'
SUMMARY: In historically religious Ireland, the voting booths are in churches. But this is not the same country once dominated by Catholicism. A new constitutional amendment up for vote on Friday would allow Parliament to legalize unrestricted abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. And according to initial exit polls, it has succeeded. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY:A Supreme Court case centering on abortion and free speech involves California's so-called crisis pregnancy centers -- clinics run by anti-abortion groups -- and whether state law can require those centers to more fully disclose what they are and what they offer. Marcia Coyle from The National Law Journal joins William Brangham to discuss the case, as well as a defamation against President Trump.
SUMMARY: President Trump majorly expanded the so-called "Mexico City policy" -- or as critics call it, the "gag rule" -- in a new executive order Monday. The rule has blocked international assistance to any programs that mention or provide abortions. In the past, the policy has affected about $600 million in funding; today's expansion will affect $9 billion.Reuters' Yeganeh Torbati joins William Brangham.
SUMMARY: In the Supreme Court’s biggest abortion case in nearly 25 years, the justices voted 5-3 to strike down a Texas law — widely copied in other states — that imposed tight restrictions on family planning centers and doctors who perform the procedure. Abortion rights groups were ecstatic and both sides vowed to fight on. Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins Gwen Ifill to dig into the ruling.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): We return to the historic day at the Supreme Court.
Abortion rights advocates claimed a huge victory as the eight-member court came down 5-3 against a restrictive Texas anti-abortion law.
For more on end-of-term decision, we turn to “NewsHour” regular Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent of “The National Law Journal.”
Marcia, just to be clear, we’re talking about two different restrictive — anti, restrictive laws that were returned today.
MARCIA COYLE, “The National Law Journal”: Right.
GWEN IFILL: How did this court — take us back.
MARCIA COYLE: OK.
GWEN IFILL: How did this case get to the court?
MARCIA COYLE: OK.
The abortion clinics in Texas, a group of them, challenged the two Texas regulations that were contained in a law that is now known as HB-2. It was enacted back in 2013. The two regulations, one required clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic.
The second regulation required the clinics to meet the building safety and other standards of ambulatory surgical centers that are almost hospital-like.
GWEN IFILL: What was the practical effect of the law as it stood before the court waited?
MARCIA COYLE:Well, when the admitting privileges requirement went into effect, roughly 20 of the 40 existing Texas abortion clinics closed. The clinics estimated that when the ambulatory surgical center requirement would go into effect, which it hadn’t, that the 20 remaining clinics would go down to seven or eight.
GWEN IFILL: Was this something that — we have seen this happen with other cases that have made it to court, where there was actually a group that was looking for a challenge?
MARCIA COYLE: No, I mean, this was actually a reaction to what Texas had enacted.
Texas claimed that these regulations were designed to protect the health of women. The clinics claimed that the regulations were designed to stop abortions. So the clinics challenged them. They lost in the lower federal appellate court, but won in the trial court, but because they lost in the lower federal appellate court, they had to go to the Supreme Court.
And in the Supreme Court, they claimed that these regulations were unconstitutional under the court’s 1992 test that asks whether the regulations or restrictions impose an undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion.
So, you know, what is an undue burden? This is why this case attracted so much attention and concern. What was the court going to say? How was it going to apply that test? Well, the court in ’92 did say that unnecessary regulations that have the purpose or effect of imposing a substantial obstacle in the path of the woman constituted an undue, unconstitutional burden.
And that’s what five justices found today the way the two restrictions were implemented. That’s the effect of those.
SUMMARY: Abortion rights groups say the Supreme Court’s ruling against Texas’ stringent restrictions on abortion doctors and clinics was a major blow against “sham” laws trying to take away a woman’s right to choose. Gwen Ifill gets reaction from Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights and Steven Aden of the Alliance Defending Freedom, advocates on both sides of the court’s decision.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court heard its fourth challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this one from religious nonprofits demanding exemption from the requirement to provide insurance coverage for birth control, claiming the mandate violates federal laws protecting religious freedoms. Gwen Ifill talks to Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal for more details on the case.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): But, first, we turn to the Supreme Court, where the clash between religious freedom and women’s access to birth control played out once again today.
PROTESTERS: Hands off my birth control!
GWEN IFILL: Today marked the fourth time the high court has heard a challenge to the president’s signature health care law.
At the center of today’s case, the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Just two years ago, arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby challenged that mandate, and won. Justices ruled that family-owned companies run on religious principles could refuse to pay for their employees’ birth control.
Today’s case shifted the focus from private companies to the potential burden for religious nonprofits. The challenge comes in part from an order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor. Along with six other plaintiffs, they argue the law forces them to either violate their beliefs or pay a substantial fine.
MOTHER LORAINE MAGUIRE, Little Sisters of the Poor: We find ourselves in a situation where the government is requiring us to make changes in our health care, our religious health care plan to include services that really violate our deepest-held religious beliefs as Little Sisters.
GWEN IFILL: The National Women’s Law Center sided with the Obama administration, saying coverage alternatives for these groups already exist.
GRETCHEN BORCHELT, National Women’s Law Center: Women deserve insurance coverage for birth control no matter where they work. These employers want to take that benefit away from their employees. The alternatives that they proposed in court today are unworkable and, frankly, insulting.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court is hearing its first abortion case in nearly a decade, as pro-choice advocates challenge a Texas law they say limits abortion services. Judy Woodruff talks to Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal for a look inside the high court, and Gwen Ifill gets contrasting views on the case from Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): But first to the Supreme Court, and perhaps the biggest case of this term.
WOMAN: We pray for all of us to have courage.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Activists on both sides were out in force, as the high court heard its first abortion case in almost a decade.
WOMAN: As a religious leader, I believe that every individual has the right to make their own moral decisions.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MAN: Lives are precious to me, even lives conceived in rape, even disabled, even kids that are suffering with multiple surgeries before they’re five. Those kids glorify God.
JUDY WOODRUFF: On the docket, whether a Texas law imposes an undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion. The law passed in 2013, after a filibuster by then-state Senator Wendy Davis that drew national attention. Abortion clinics have to meet something akin to hospital standards and physicians must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
The state says its purpose is simply to protect women’s health.
SCOTT KELLER, Solicitor General, Texas: This case is not about overturning Roe vs. Wade. What this case — the issue in this case is, can Texas enact valid patient regulations and improve safety? And when over 210 women annually are hospitalized due to abortion, Texas can.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But opponents say more than half of Texas’ 41 abortion clinics have closed because they can’t meet the new standards. They say the law, known as HB-2, is really a backdoor way to stop abortions.
AMY HAGSTROM MILLER, Plaintiff/CEO, Whole Woman’s Health LLC: It has been a long and arduous road that has led us to this day, but that is nothing compared to what the women of Texas will face if HB-2 is not struck down. This law is cruel and it is harsh and it does nothing to advance medial health for women.
Did you notice the 'As a religious leader' slip of the tongue? "Every individual has the right to make their own moral decisions." One's morals ARE a religious issue and it is unconstitutional to use the law-of-the-land (local, state, federal) to impose your morals on anyone else.
"ABORTION OPPONENTS INDICTED OVER VIDEOS" U-T News Service, San Diego Union-Tribune 1/26/2016
NOTE:This is from the on-line print paper, so no links
Group targeted Planned Parenthood
A Houston grand jury investigating undercover footage of Planned Parenthood found no wrongdoing Monday by the abortion provider, and instead indicted antiabortion activists involved in making the videos that targeted the handling of fetal tissue in clinics and provoked outrage among Republican leaders nationwide.
David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs. Another activist, Sandra Merritt, was also indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. It’s the first time anyone in the group has been charged criminally since the release of the videos, which began surfacing last year and alleged that Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue to researchers for a profit in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood officials have denied any wrongdoing and the allegations have not been supported in numerous congressional and state investigations triggered by the release of the videos.
The footage from the clinic in Houston showed people touring the facility while pretending to be from a company called BioMax, which procures fetal tissue for research. Planned Parenthood has previously said that the fake company sent an agreement offering to pay the “astronomical amount” of $1,600 for organs from a fetus. The clinic said it never entered into the agreement and ceased contact with BioMax because it was “disturbed” by the overtures.
Organ-buying charges
In a statement announcing the indictment, Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson did not provide details on the charges, including what record or records were allegedly tampered with and why Daleiden faces a charge related to buying human organs. Her office said it could not disclose more information, and a court spokesman said it was unclear whether copies of the indictments, which typically provide more insight, would be made public Monday.
“We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,” Anderson, an elected Republican, said in her statement. “As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us.” In a statement Monday night, Daleiden said: “The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws. We respect the processes of the Harris County district attorney, and note that buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well. Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said Monday that the inspector general of the state’s Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas attorney general’s office have been investigating Planned Parenthood’s actions.
“Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation,” Abbott said in a statement. “The state of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.”
The state attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement: “The fact remains that the videos exposed the horrific nature of abortion and the shameful disregard for human life of the abortion industry. The state’s investigation of Planned Parenthood is ongoing.”
The Texas video was the fifth released by the Center for Medical Progress. The videos provoked an outcry from the anti-abortion movement and prompted numerous investigations of Planned Parenthood by Republican-led committees in Congress and by GOP-led state governments. Congressional Republicans unsuccessfully called for cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood.
Cleared by states’ probes
Officials in 11 states have cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing after investigating claims that they profited from fetal tissue donation, officials said. The states are Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Washington. Officials in eight other states— California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia — declined to investigate, citing a lack of evidence. Planned Parenthood has said a few clinics in two states used to accept legally allowed reimbursement for the costs of providing tissue donated by some of its abortion clients. In October, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept reimbursement and would cover the costs itself.
Federal law allows fetal tissue to be collected and used, but not for profit. Medical ethics prohibit altering the timing, method or procedures used to terminate a pregnancy purely to obtain fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood called Monday’s indictments the latest in a string of victories since the videos were released, and pointed to the 11 state investigations that cleared the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“This is absolutely great news because it is a demonstration of what Planned Parenthood has said from the very beginning: We follow every law and regulation and these anti-abortion activists broke multiple laws to try and spread lies,” said spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.
Before the Texas video was released, Melaney Linton, president of the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic, told state lawmakers last summer that it was likely to feature actors — pretending to be from a company called BioMax — asking leading questions about how to select potential donors for a supposed study of sickle cell anemia. Linton said the footage could feature several interactions initiated by BioMax about how and whether a doctor could adjust an abortion if a patient has offered to donate tissue for medical research.
Despite the lofty name of the Center for Medical Progress, public filings suggest only a small number of people are affiliated with the nonprofit, none of whom are scientists or physicians engaged in advancing medical treatments. The people named as its top officers are longtime anti-abortion activists with a history of generating headlines.
This month in federal court in San Francisco, Planned Parenthood sued the center, Daleiden and other abortion opponents involved in the videos. The suit accused them of engaging in a three-year criminal enterprise to target the group.
“These people broke the law to spread malicious lies about Planned Parenthood in order to advance their extreme anti-abortion political agenda,” Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement Monday.
“These anti-abortion extremists spent three years creating a fake company, creating fake identities, lying and breaking the law,” said Ferrero. “When they couldn’t find any improper or illegal activity, they made it up. “As the dust settles and the truth comes out, it’s become totally clear that the only people who engaged in wrongdoing are the criminals behind this fraud, and we’re glad they’re being held accountable.”
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Obama’s State of the Union agenda, a controversial invitation to the Israeli prime minister to address Congress and a fight among Republicans over a new abortion bill.
MARK SHIELDS: And I would just point this out quickly. Between 1948 and 1973, the productivity per hour, that is for goods and services produced by the average American worker, went up 96 percent. And their wages went up 91 percent. It was a golden era
In the 40 years after 1973, productivity again of the workers went up some 76 percent, and at the same time, their income went up, wages only went up 9 percent. We have a maldistribution of wealth in this country. And I think we’re approaching a debate on that subject.
IMHO having a buffer zone around women's health clinics DOES NOT impede free speech. Anti-abortion types can still intercept women approaching clinics. What they really want is to stand in front of the clinic door and impede women who wish to enter.
SUMMARY: In Massachusetts, a 35-foot restricted area outside of abortion clinics give patients and staff a buffer zone from protesters. But as Kwame Holman reports, some say the law restricts the freedom of speech of abortion opponents. Judy Woodruff gets a view from inside the courtroom from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal.
NOTE:The Supreme Court building has a buffer zone.
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Pro-choice advocates believe buffer zones around abortion clinics are necessary to prevent harassment and targeted violence, while opponents feel their free speech rights are being restricted. Judy Woodruff hears both sides of the debate from Steven Aden of Alliance Defending Freedom and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
The Supreme Court Monday declined to reconsider an Arizona law that would ban abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The justices, according to SCOTUSblog, refused to hear the case filed by the state of Arizona "without comment and without any noted dissents."
The ban, signed into law by Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2012, was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2013. The lower court ruled that the ban violated previous Supreme Court rulings concerning a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy up to the time when the fetus was "viable" enough to live outside the womb -- currently considered around 24 weeks.
In the appeal, filed by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, the state questioned whether the fetus' "viability", taken from the Supreme Court's previous decisions upholding abortion rights in 1973's Roe v. Wade and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was correctly used as the only critical factor when deciding on constitutionality. The appeal also included a reference to evidence of fetal pain and whether the previous precedents in two seminal Supreme Court cases should be revisited considering said evidence.
GWEN IFILL (Newshour): .....how a local battle in Texas over abortion legislation erupted into a national debate.
Chaos erupted in the Texas State Senate last night, as abortion-rights backers thundered their opposition to tough new restrictions. In the midst of the din, majority Republicans insisted the bill, which would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, had passed. But official records showed that didn't happen until after a midnight deadline had come and gone.
Just after 3:00 a.m., Lieutenant Gov. David Dewhurst, who presided over the session, conceded defeat.
LT. GOV. DAVID DEWHURST, R-Texas: Regrettably, the constitutional time for the first called session of the 83rd legislature has expired. Senate Bill 5 cannot be signed in the presence of the Senate at this time and therefore cannot be enrolled.
GWEN IFILL: The bill would have required clinics to upgrade to surgical-level centers, an expense that would have caused most existing facilities to close.
Had it passed, Texas would have joined Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, and Virginia, all states that recently adopted stringent new anti-abortion laws. The campaign to derail the measure was the brainchild of Fort Worth Democrat Wendy Davis, who declared her intent to talk the bill to death.
MAN: Is it still your intention to filibuster?
STATE SEN. WENDY DAVIS, D-Texas: Yes, Mr. President
GWEN IFILL: Sporting pink tennis shoes, Davis began speaking at 11:15 in the morning.
WENDY DAVIS: Members, I'm rising on the floor today to humbly give a voice to thousands of Texans who have been ignored. These are Texans who relied on the minority members of this Senate in order for their voices to be heard.
GWEN IFILL: News of the filibuster quickly grabbed national attention on social media and a catchy hashtag. Late in the day, President Obama tweeted: "Something special is happening in Austin tonight. Stand with Wendy."
Davis continued speaking for nearly 11 hours and had intended to go until midnight.
IMO: T his is just more of unconstitutional imposition of a religious based belief, by using the law of the land, on ALL citizens of the U.S., which opposite allowing the free practice of religion by individuals. Not to mention the effect on women's right to decide what to do with her own body.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): The central battleground in the debate over abortion rights has shifted in recent years to the states. In just the past two months, five states, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota and Virginia, approved more stringent restrictions in abortion.
In North Dakota, for example, the new law prohibits abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be soon as soon as six weeks.
REP. BETTE GRANDE, R-N.D.: North Dakota believes in the life of the unborn child, believes that the heartbeat is life.
JEFFREY BROWN: Such laws are aimed at undermining the standards set out in the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade. That decision gave women the right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, about 24 weeks into pregnancy.
Speaking last Friday at a Planned Parenthood conference, President Obama took aim at measures designed to limit abortion rights. He told the crowd such policies would -- quote -- "roll back basic rights" when it comes to women's health.
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): A judge and jury in Philadelphia began hearing testimony in the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell more than a month ago. But over the past two weeks, the trial has received more coverage from national news organizations after both sides of the abortion debate began fighting over its significance.
Gosnell is being tried on eight counts of murder, seven of them for allegedly killing babies that prosecutors say were born alive and viable. The eighth count is for his role in the death of an immigrant from Bhutan. Attorneys say she died of an overdose from a sedative she was given. The case stems from an FBI raid on his Philadelphia clinic in 2010.
Investigators found horrific conditions and say he performed some abortions after the 24-week legal limit in Pennsylvania. Gosnell's defense is scheduled to begin this week, and observers are waiting to see if he will testify.
Reporter Maryclaire Dale of the Associated Press has covered the trial since it began. And she joins us tonight from Philadelphia.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
