Click here to view this media
As Think Progress noted, after complaining and fearmongering about the mandate that will require insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives at no cost, and lying and calling emergency contraception "an abortion pill," which it's not, now he going to be fundraising with the drug manufacturer's chairman.
In particular, Romney denounced the fact that insurance plans would now be required to cover Plan B, a form of emergency contraception that he falsely referred to on numerous occasions as ?abortive pills.? This is what Romney said in Colorado on February 6, 2012:
ROMNEY: This same administration said that the churches and the institutions they run, such as schools and let?s say adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees free of charge, contraceptives, morning after pills, in other words abortive pills, and the like at no cost. Think what that does to people in faiths that do not share those views. This is a violation of conscience.
(Plan B works just like regular birth control pills and is not, in fact, an abortifacient.)
The Miami Herald?s Marc Caputo reports that next week the Romney campaign will be doing a major fundraising blitz across Florida, including an event ?at the Star Island manse of pharmaceutical magnate Phil and Pat Frost where dinner costs $50,000.?
As they also noted in their post, this is not the first time he's done this. Go read the post for the rest of the list. And as they reported, here's more on the campaign's response:
Bloomberg News reports that the Romney campaign refused to comment on this story:
Romney?s campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, didn?t respond to a request for comment on how the candidate, who opposes abortion rights, could accept support from the maker of ?abortive pills.?
The list of Mitt Romney's lies, contradictions, flip flops and obfuscations just grows longer and longer each day. I'm happy to see that Al Sharpton covered this topic on his show this Tuesday since it hasn't gotten a lot of airplay anywhere else that I've seen, but he should have noted that Romney was lying about Plan B being an "abortion pill." He failed to point that out in the segment above.
In continuing attacks on women’s access to abortion services, states have considered banning “tele-med” abortions by requiring a doctor to be present when a woman takes abortion-inducing medication or requiring women to meet their doctors face to face. Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin even have stopped providing abortions via medication entirely after lawmakers approved a restrictive law that makes incredibly difficult to continue the practice.
But a new study shows that the extra in-person face time Wisconsin law now requires doctors to spend with their patients is unnecessary. The research found that there was no difference between patients who called the clinic for their follow-up and those who went to the clinic, according to MedPage Today:
“Women choosing phone follow-up are not more likely to experience complications or be lost to follow-up,” she said in her oral presentation. “Phone follow-up is feasible for medical abortion and can assess the need for further in-person follow-up.”
Samberg said medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol has been shown to be safe and effective up to 63 days of gestation. The typical management requires a transvaginal ultrasound one week later and two to three office visits. A pilot study in 2010 showed that a phone follow-up of women undergoing medical abortion was feasible, and that 64% of the women did not require follow-up visits, she noted.
These findings follow a 2011 study proving that telemedicine is a safe and effective way to provide medication abortion services, particularly in rural areas. But despite scientific proof backing up the practice, Republican state legislators have pushed to stop the practice and limit women’s access to abortion care.
Rick Santorum — who ran one of the most anti-gay campaigns in history — is trying to fundraise from President Obama’s embrace of marriage equality and has sent out an email to his supporters criticizing his position. “While we were always suspicious of his sincerity on this issue, his public proclamation that he now opposes preserving marriage as one man and one woman – the very building block of our society – means the charade is now over and our fight begins in earnest,” he writes:
Yesterday was clearly a tragic day for America and a tragic day for all those who believe in traditional, conservative values.
President Obama made it abundantly clear that he would rather submit to the radical left of his party in an effort to shore up his reelection chances, than stand firm for one of our most sacred institutions.
But it shouldn’t come as any surprise that President Obama is trying to redefine marriage, because without a doubt he is the most liberal president in American history.
Santorum’s tone is far harsher than that of his former opponent and the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Speaking to reporters yesterday, the former Massachusetts governor reiterated that he opposes marriage equality, but noted, “that?s my own preference, I know other people have differing views.” During an interview with a Colorado station he went on to imply that marriage wasn’t an issue of significance.
Meanwhile, Santorum made a name for himself on the presidential campaign trail by peddling a series of wacky claims about gay people. The former senator infamously compared same-sex marriage to inanimate objects like napkins and basketballs, promised to annul all same-sex marriages, and defended his support for Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because ?they?re in close quarters” with straight servicemembers.
Republicans have responded to President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality by passing an amendment hours later reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and including two more anti-LGBT amendments in a defense bill.
Some members of the party, however, just want to ignore the issue altogether. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has supported using taxpayer funds to defend DOMA, dismissed the focus on marriage equality as a distraction from important concerns like jobs and the economy:
The speaker suggested the reignited debate over gay marriage is a distraction to other legislative business on Capitol Hill, especially considering the state of the economy.
?Republicans here on Capitol Hill are focused in on the economy,? he said. ?The American people are still asking the question, ?Where are the jobs?? and our focus is going to continue to be on the economy like it has been for the last year and a half.?
But if jobs and the economy are the Speaker’s focus, he might be pleased to learn that legalizing same-sex marriage has had a strong positive impact on state and local economies, brought in money for tourism, lodging and wedding planning, and offered much-needed relief to state budgets:
– MASSACHUSETTS: A 2009 study found that “marriages have had a positive economic effect on Massachusetts -? likely providing a boost of over $100 million to the state economy.” “Same-sex couples? weddings injected significant spending into the Massachusetts economy and brought out-of-state guests to the state, whose spending also added to the economic boost,” it concluded.
– IOWA: Last year, a study found that same-sex marriages brought as much as $13 million in new spending to Iowa in the year since the state Supreme Court overturned a ban.
– MARYLAND: A report last month from the Maryland Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce found that the recently passed marriage equality law could boost the state’s economy by $90 million a year if it survives a November referendum.
– ILLINOIS: In March, a study from the Williams Institute predicted that legalizing marriage equality would boost Illinois’ economy by between $39 and $72 million over three years, and bring in as much as $8 million in tax revenue.
– NEW JERSEY: The Williams Institute also found that legalizing marriage equality in New Jersey could add $119 million to the state’s economy over three years, along with $8 million in tax revenue.
– RHODE ISLAND: One state that has not legalized same-sex marriage, Rhode Island, could be losing as much as $8 million a year. Why? Because same-sex couples simply travel to Massachusetts to get married. Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state but only allows civil unions within its borders.
– NATIONALLY: A CBO report found that repealing DOMA could actually improve the federal budget by just under $1 billion in each of the next ten years, but only if marriage equality was legal in all fifty states and recognized by the federal government.
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) responded to President Obama’s embrace of marriage equality by issuing a supportive statement in which he reiterated that his private opposition to same-sex marriage should not prevent people from marrying ?whomever they want.? Now, Reid has gone a step further, telling reporters in Nevada that he would vote to legalize the freedom to marry in his home state:
Asked about the legalization of gay marriage at meeting with reporters Thursday, Reid said he believed those decisions should be made by states, based on the fact that domestic relations laws are set at the state level.
Asked then how he would vote if gay marriage was on the ballot in Nevada, Reid said, “I would follow my grandchildren and my children.”
“So you would support gay marriage?” he was asked.
He nodded yes as he walked away from the podium.
Reid is a Mormon who has previously said that he personally believes that marriage is a union between one mand and one woman.
On the rarest of occasions in Washington, the oft-derided “publicity stunt” tactic serves not to raise a politician’s profile or pet cause, but a worthy goal of highlighting possible wrongdoing. Such was the case yesterday when, debating the Pentagon budget bill in the House, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced an amendment to cut off all funding for Pentagon information operations — a euphemism for propaganda. Johnson used the opportunity to speak on the amendment to get into the Congressional record and recount a disturbing case suggesting Defense Department contractors retaliated against investigative journalists looking into their work.
Johnson was referring to USA Today Pentagon reporter Tom Vanden Brook and editor Ray Locker, who were smeared in a so-called “reputation attack” designed to flood the internet with information discrediting them just days after they made calls to defense contractors about possible waste and abuse. Johnson cited one of the companies they exposed — Leonie Industries — for having no military or propaganda experience. Last year, the Pentagon spent $202 million on such propaganda endeavors intended to target U.S. enemies like Al Qaeda and the Taliban — but those tactics and that money may have been used against the USA Today journalists.
Speaking during the House Armed Services Committee hearing, Johnson said:
As incompetent as this reputation attack campaign appears to have been, it raises the deeply disturbing possibility that a federal defense contractor that specializes in information operations may have targeted American journalists. It may have done so using taxpayer dollars and tactics developed to counter the influence of advresaries such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Mr. Chairman, although we don’t have compelling evidence that this money is well spent, I recognize that some of these investments may be effectively supporting our men and women in harm’s way. So I intend to withdraw this amendment. But I call upon the Department of Defense to launch an immediate investigation of this matter, to refer any evidence of criminal activity to the Attorney General, and to consider suspending all contracts with Leonie Industries until such investigation is complete.
Watch the video:
Johnson doesn’t want to harm U.S. troops, so he ended up withdrawing the amendment. But he took the time to shed light on an important case of Pentagon waste and what he rightly calls a “deeply disturbing possibility” that Pentagon propagandists retaliated against journalists doing nothing more than their jobs. Despite the “stunt” of introducing an amendment, Johnson did the country a service by highlighting possible waste and abuse by the Pentagon and its contrators.
Speaker John Boehner (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)This wasn't predictable. No, not at all.
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) really doesn't want to talk about gay marriage.Yes, that laser-like focus on jobs that they've had for a year and a half, in between all the votes about abortion and contraception and abortion and Planned Parenthood and repealing Obamacare and tax cuts for millionaires and oil companies and abortion. And, oh yeah, gays.
During his weekly briefing on Thursday, Boehner was asked several questions about his views on the issue, ranging from whether he considers marriage equality a civil rights issue to how much of a role he thinks the issue should play in campaigns. And every time, he had the same answer.
"I'm going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on, and that's jobs," he said. [...]
"The president and the Democrats can talk about this all they want," he said. "But the fact, is, the American people are focused on the economy and they're asking the question, 'Where are the jobs?'"
Boehner would indeed like to talk about anything but marriage equality. You know how he could make that happen? Having a vote or two on a real jobs bill. To quote, well, you, Mr. Boehner: "Where are the jobs?"
video details and more
On the same day a new poll shows supermajorities of small business owners support clean energy & limits on industrial carbon pollution, a new television ad is asking Virginians to stand up for clean air:
The ad focuses attention on a recent Department of Labor study showing that transitioning away from dirty sources of energy to clean technology development and innovation in turn creates jobs. In fact, the Labor Department study concludes that the transition to cleaner energy and technology has already created 3.1 million jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2012).Over 800,000 Americans have already told the Environmental Protection Agency that they support the new rules. It only takes a minute, so please speak up for clean air right now.
"Clean air protects health and enhances our economy," said Martin Hayden, vice president of policy & legislation at Earthjustice. "According to a Brookings Institute study, between 2003 and 2010, the clean tech sector outperformed the national economy as a whole, expanding 3.4 percent annually. Letting the EPA enforce the Clean Air Act and limit dangerous air pollution spewing from smokestacks will not only make it easier for Americans to breathe, it will also boost the clean technology sector and help create more jobs."
"Whether aimed at toxic air pollutants like mercury or dangerous carbon pollution, there are multiple benefits from job-creating clean air standards," said Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director at the National Wildlife Federation, the sister organization of NWF Action Fund. "EPA air standards that clean up power plants are good for our economy, the health of our families and communities, addressing climate change and for protecting wildlife and their habitat."
I’ve been investing in sectors for more than 25 years — first with mutual funds and now ETFs. Following the trends from one industry to the next is one of the best investment strategies I know.
Yet I have to admit some sectors rarely show up on my radar screen. Today I’ll tell you about one of them — and … [visit site to read . . . → Read More: What Constitutes the Industrial Sector?
Read The Full Article:
The third-place party in the Greek elections, PASOK, has been given the opportunity to form a new government, after the first two parties failed in their efforts. Nobody expects PASOK to be successful, meaning that new elections will ensue, probably on[...]
Read The Full Article: