Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a bill that would target clinics that offer reproductive choice.
Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a bill Thursday that would have required licensing of abortion clinics. He's also expected to veto another bill that would require a doctor to be present whenever an abortion pill is prescribed or swallowed.
The abortion pill measure won final approval from the Republican-led Minnesota House on Thursday, just hours before Dayton rejected the licensure bill. Dayton said in a statement that the proposed law would have forced "inappropriate and unworkable" new requirements on the few facilities that offer abortions. The bill's language, he said, was so vague -- it said clinics could be monitored for "conduct or practices detrimental to the welfare of the patient" -- that complaints could have been filed for almost any reason.
That last part is pretty much the whole idea; I'm sure that Dayton recognizes that, as well as most of those reading this do. Here's some background, on both bills.
The House had passed the measure on a vote of 80-47 and the Senate supported it 43-23.
If my arithmetic is correct (let's call the margin of error plus or minus one, assuming that all GOPers voted in favor), six Senate DFLers voted for it, and 15 in the House either did that, or abstained. Not cool!
Here are a couple of somewhat more positive items:
- A bill being introduced in the U.S. Congress aims to make life a little less insane for some mothers that receive direct government assistance.
A handful of House Democrats, encouraged by the recent bipartisan agreement that stay-at-home moms should be considered just as hard working as anyone in the workforce, will introduce legislation to apply that standard to mothers on welfare as well.
Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.
The Women's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.
If I'd been paying attention, I would have posted this yesterday, and what I posted yesterday, today. Yesterday was Equal Pay Day; here's what that means.
Congrats, ladies! By today you've earned the same as men did in 2011. That gap means that the typical woman working full-time, year round, makes about seventy-seven cents for every dollar a typical man does, and those missing twenty-three cents can really add up. In a year a woman loses $10,784 to a man-enough to buy about 2,700 gallons of gas. It can add up to a loss of $431,000 in pay for the typical woman over a forty-year career. No small chunk of pocket change.
But, hey, the almighty market says that women get 77% of what men do, for the same work, and you never question the almighty market, right?
You can download the report, "The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation," here. It rebuts the common claim, generally advanced by conservative white men on "wingnut welfare" (that is, working as political/corporate propagandists, or something like that), that women don't get paid as much because their jobs aren't as "hard."
There is a Paycheck Fairness Act languishing in the U.S. Congress. Perhaps if the elections scheduled for under seven months from now go well, it will get somewhere.
There is still anti-choice legislation proceeding through Minnesota's House and Senate. This post references the legislation in the House, which has many co-sponsors, and has been through a number of committees. The pages link the Senate companion bills, if you're that interested.
HF 2340 seems reasonable enough, ostensibly just providing for licensure and inspections, of the sort that go on at any facility that provides health care services. Until, that is, you take a good look at the (possibly ALEC/AUL-generated) text, and realize that it would provide means for "inspectors," directed by forced-birthers in charge of government agencies, to hammer facilities, or even close them down, over trivial "violations." It's an example of what's known as a TRAP law.
The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providers-but not other medical professionals-in an obvious attempt to drive doctors out of practice and make abortion care more expensive and difficult to obtain. Such proposals are known as TRAP laws: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers.
HF 2341 would make it much more of a hassle, for women to use pregnancy-terminating medication like RU-486. This example of forced-birth zealotry has been popping up all over the country, as well.
Unhappy with women's rapidly expanding access to early medication abortion, in no (small) part because it reduces the ability to harass and stigmatize women for terminating a pregnancy, anti-choice advocates have repeatedly attacked medication abortion in much the same way they have surgical abortion: spreading lies and distortion about the medical safety of abortion procedures, stigmatizing abortion (and contraception) and seeking to pass one law after another creating spurious barriers to access to abortion, all under the guise of "protecting women."
Last week Mitt Romney told us that it was President Obama waging the war on wisdom. His aide told us that 92.3% of all job losses were to women. Supposedly this meant, ipso facto, that Obama fired all of these women, or at least caused their firing. Like any good Republican lie, there is a kernel of truth in Romney's statistic.
Saying that a lot of women lost jobs is important. Actually analyzing where those losses came from is even more important. Forbe's Rick Ungar actually did a great job of further uncovering where these job losses came from. The job losses came from fields that Republicans don't think should be jobs anyway. Public sector jobs.
The Republicans, for once, have been very, very efficient. Killing two birds with one stone type efficient. You see, most of the job losses came from Republican states hammering teachers and state workers. The teaching field just happens to be dominated by women. Union clout stomped, and women were just a collateral bonus.
We all know women are not treated equally in the workplace. There used to be mechanisms for them to get an equal stake. Unions in the workplace and equal pay laws in the courts.
It is almost as if Republicans politicians are idiot savants. Totally dysfunctional in all aspects of life, except for a very specific realm in which they show genius. They cannot run a country or a state, but when it comes to destroying opponents they are brilliant. Heck, Governor Walker is the ultimate "Rain Man". First, he destroyed the unions, who were the only ones lobbying for professional women. Once the lobbyists were gone, he repealed the equal pay laws so they had no protection in the courts either.
In Minnesota we have the same war being waged. With a Democratic Governor they have to be more subtle, but it is a two pronged war non-the-less. They cannot completely destroy the unions, so instead they are trying to slowly chip away at union rights in female dominated professions.
I would ask anyone to take an honest look at the agenda against teachers unions, and come to a different conclusion. A collective voice for women in the workplace is being silenced. It is being silenced in the name of power and control. It is being silenced in order to maintain the current, unhealthy power structure. Please join me after the break.
Bottom line: Women vote Democratic. Women have few voices in our society. Part of the war on women is destroying those who speak for them.
Sharon Sund, congressional candidate for the third district, has received the endorsement of longtime DFL leaders former Congressman Don Fraser and the Hon. Arvonne Fraser, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
The Frasers expressed admiration for Sharon's dedication working for change for the better in the U.S., particularly her leadership on the Affordable Care Act. Sund led grassroots delegations to various congressional offices to advocate for health care reform. Sund has advocated at the local, state and national levels on issues of healthcare, affordable housing, and education.
"I am greatly honored to receive the support from the Frasers," Sund said. "Their collective experience and knowledge of the key issues facing America will help me defeat Erik Paulsen in the fall."
This article provides some detail on likely consequences, for women seeking to exercise their voting rights, should the photo ID/poll tax amendment pass. As far as what it will mean for women's rights, health, and opportunities in general, should vote suppression have its intended effect - a continued strong right-wing presence, in state government - I think most people reading this have a pretty good idea.
The implications for Election Day registration, vouching and absentee ballot issues are unknown. The League of Women Voters believes that the impact of the photo ID issue disproportionately affects women in a negative way...
Brave women fought for years for the right to vote and many never had the opportunity to exercise that right! Honor their memory and take an active role in our democracy to ensure that all people have equal and open access to voting. Voting is a right, not a privilege.
I'm linking this without further remarks, from me.
Sharon Sund, candidate in Minnesota's third congressional district, earned her first national organization endorsement yesterday from the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC). Sund was one of twenty-three candidates nationwide who received early endorsements.
Sund said, "I am honored to have received the first national endorsement in this race. This NWPC endorsement, along with the incredible grassroots effort we have mounted in the third, will help us defeat Erik Paulsen in November. It takes means, money, and people power to defeat an entrenched incumbent. I am also humbled to have the most grassroots contributors in this race for endorsement."
Betty Folliard, a former state representative and Sund senior adviser said, "This National Women's Political Caucus endorsement propels Sharon to the national stage where this qualified, experienced woman belongs. It's a strong indicator to DFL delegates and other folks just how well organized Team Sund really is."
Folliard continued, "Sharon Sund has support from over a dozen current and former elected officials and no wonder: currently only 17 percent of Congress is women. Now we need more progressive, pro-choice organizations to join the National Women's Political Caucus in endorsing this incredible woman to win this congressional seat in Minnesota's third district."
Rosemary Rocco, senior policy advisor to the Sharon Sund Campaign noted, "The National Women's Political Caucus, founded in 1971, is the oldest national organization dedicated exclusively to increasing women's participation in all areas of political and public life. NWPC's endorsement of Sharon is a welcome example of leadership for organizations in Minnesota focused on this same purpose."
Rocco went on to say, "Endorsing Sharon on Saturday will offer women who are concerned about the assault on women's rights a real champion to take on Mr. Paulsen-a guy who really does talk like a moderate but votes like Michele Bachmann. Further, anyone who is still thinks that an African American woman cannot win in the third congressional district need only look at the outstanding field of candidates NWPC has endorsed this year."
The National Women's Political Caucus endorsed several women who are first time candidates for the U.S. House, including Tammy Duckworth in Illinois and Tomeka Hart in Tennessee.
Sund added, "I am proud to be included with such talented women who will fight the radical right's current war on women and make 2012 the year of the woman."
A Minnesota elected official joined many from other states by using her legislative platform to highlight the crass extremism of the War on Women. The article has video.
Saying she is sick of the "war on women", Representative Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis) proposes that reproductive health bills treat men and women equally. She proposes that men have counseling before a vasectomy because it might prevent a "live birth" and have a stress test to make sure Viagra won't cause them to have a heart attack.
I'm thrilled that women's rights are a front-and-center issue this campaign season, but it does come with an excruciating price tag: Conservatives bloviating about how they looooooove "strong women". This is a standard talking point that Republicans trot out when they're called out for anti-feminism. At its core, it's a nonsensical claim and works more as a distraction than a real argument. The image of the steel magnolia---a woman who dispatches her responsibilities with ease, who has a lot of energy and occasionally is sassy to her husband, because she's far more competent than he---has a lot of emotional resonance, for conservatives, as well as feminists.
For the last decade, Republicans in Congress have agreed to renew the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This is a no brainer, right? Our federal government spends a infinitesimal percentage of the federal budget to fund programs across our nation that help reduce violence against women and resources for abused women.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization this year, and for the first time since its original passage, it's facing pushback from Republicans.
Female senators are not happy about the sudden resistance to a usually uncontroversial bill. A few new provisions in VAWA add protections for undocumented people, the LGBT community, and Indian reservations, which have prompted a change of heart from anti-immigrant Republicans like Jeff Sessions, who said, "there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition."
In a Senate floor speech today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) argued that our values should demand that everyone deserves protection from domestic abuse:
The bill includes lesbian and gay men. The bill includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. The bill gives native American tribes authority to prosecute crimes. In my view, these are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence. I ask my friends on the other side: If the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence any less real, is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I don't think so.
If a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, 'Well you're illegal, I'm sorry, you don't deserve any protections'? 911 operators, police officers, don't refuse to help a victim because of their sexual orientation or the country where they were born, or their immigration status. When you call the police in America, they come regardless of who you are.
Al and Franni Franken have been working on this issue for a long time. Its one of their top priorities. Both of them have been working hard behind the scenes to build support for this across the aisle.
While Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL), the teabaggers and other sociopaths amongst the Republicans will want to demolish the many years of good work that has occurred, I hope the bridges that Al and Franni have built will be able to survive the insanity of the Fox News spotlight and the determined effort by many Republicans to prove in yet another instance that all Republicans are mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers.
It's been well over forty years since the modern feminist movement in the U.S. really got going, but the evidence leaves no doubt that many men - including plenty that weren't yet born during the 1960s - are profoundly intimidated, even terrified, by women in anything other than subservient roles.
There are indications that the current deluge of assaults on women's rights and freedoms aren't flying as easily and gracefully as their proponents no doubt took for granted that they would. They've got the "silent majority" on their side, you know.
But the times, they are a-changin'. And as Republicans (and some of their Democratic enablers) have become increasingly bold and blatant in their War on Women, Americans-and even usually tone-deaf Democrats in Congress-are waking up and fighting back and, most importantly, realizing that fighting for women isn't just the right thing to do; it's the politically smart thing to do too. For Democrats, it's electoral gold. For Republicans, it's a losing issue, driving women away from the Grand Ol' Party in droves.
They're all great, but this is the best piece of "highlighting the crazy" proposed legislation, in the matter of reproductive health and choice, that I've seen yet. It's from Ohio.
Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.
I'm male. Moreover, I was raised in a 1960s-70s small-town Midwestern culture, where traditional "maleness" was provided ample emphasis, to say the least. Thankfully, I seem to have got past that, at least to the point where I rarely find myself feeling unsure or self-conscious when writing about "women's issues" (that is, everybody's issues, but "women's issues" remains the popular standard, for lack of a better one, I suppose), from a progressive standpoint. I've encountered an exception to that relative self-assurance, though, when it comes to the insidious form of sexism generally referenced as "paternalism." The facet of it that I'm looking to discuss here, is the notion, whether explicit or largely unconscious, that women need to be protected from certain grubby realities, not because they can't handle them, but because they're really "above" them. The specific "grubby reality" that I'm referencing, is competing for political office.
What got me thinking about all this, is this report (PDF), "Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics," which is briefly summarized in another article, here. These articles are not paternalistic; certain elements of what the study concluded, though, are suggestive.
1. Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates.
4. Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confident, and more risk averse than their male counterparts.
5. Women react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern campaigns.
DFLers waded into the raging national contraception debate Tuesday with a call for a new law that would require insurers to cover birth control without co-pays.
More than half the states have similar laws, but the "Contraceptive Equity Act" introduced by Assistant House Minority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, and Rep. Tim Mahoney, DFL-St. Paul, comes at a time of heightened controversy over birth control. Republicans in the Legislature were lining up to oppose the bill before it was officially introduced...
(State Sen. David) Hann said mandating coverage for things like birth control is the equivalent of expecting car insurance companies to pay for new windshield wipers.
Hann, a GOPer from Eden Prairie, is one of Minnesota's more high profile right-wing political kooks. I'm pretty sure that he's planning a run for governor in 2014.
There are indications that Republicans at the federal level are backing off on attacking birth control, at least somewhat; not because they've suddenly developed better-functioning intellects, but because they realize what a political loser this is for them. It's doubtful, I think, that conservatives in the Minnesota legislature will be influenced by that fact. When you're at 23% job approval, I suppose that there's not much point in worrying about going even lower.
Women in Minnesota earn less than men even when they have equivalent training -- 80 cents on the dollar, to be exact -- and the wage disparity is greatest for women with advanced degrees, according to a new study of women's well-being.
The disparity puts Minnesota in a bind because in 2010, women for the first time made up the primary breadwinners in the majority of family households, said Lee Roper-Batker, president of the Women's Foundation of Minnesota, which commissioned the report.
More recent items on women's issues, below the fold.
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a bill 
If I'd been paying attention, I would have posted this yesterday, and what I posted yesterday, today. Yesterday was Equal Pay Day; 
There is still anti-choice legislation proceeding through Minnesota's House and Senate. This post references the legislation in the House, which has many co-sponsors, and has been through a number of committees. The pages link the Senate companion bills, if you're that interested.
It's been well over forty years since the modern feminist movement in the U.S. really got going, but the evidence leaves no doubt that many men - including plenty that weren't yet born during the 1960s - are profoundly intimidated, even terrified, by women in anything other than subservient roles.
I'm male. Moreover, I was raised in a 1960s-70s small-town Midwestern culture, where traditional "maleness" was provided ample emphasis, to say the least. Thankfully, I seem to have got past that, at least to the point where I rarely find myself feeling unsure or self-conscious when writing about "women's issues" (that is, everybody's issues, but "women's issues" remains the popular standard, for lack of a better one, I suppose), from a progressive standpoint. I've encountered an exception to that relative self-assurance, though, when it comes to the insidious form of sexism generally referenced as "paternalism." The facet of it that I'm looking to discuss here, is the notion, whether explicit or largely unconscious, that women need to be protected from certain grubby realities, not because they can't handle them, but because they're really "above" them. The specific "grubby reality" that I'm referencing, is competing for political office.
The Contraceptive Equity Act 
