As Mel Brooks sang in The Producers, "If you got it, flaunt it". The radical right wing of the Republican Party (which these days is most of the Republican Party) did that over and over in two hearings on HR #3 and HR #358, which attack reproductive rights. In their usual way, they were all smarmily singing loudly and from the same page.
What did they flaunt? They revealed how they plan to undo Roe v. Wade. They made it clear what weapon they plan to use and in what arena, which we, the pro-choice movement, have for too long abandoned. All the weapons they need are there, and we left them there for the right to pick up and use to beat us up.
The visible weapons are
THE HYDE AMENDMENT.
LEGISLATION REMOVING FEDERAL FUNDS.
The "hiding in plain sight" weapons are
THE "LET WOMEN DIE" PROVISIONS;
THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS;
INJUNCTIONS STOPPING ANY AND ALL FEDERAL FUNDS TO ANY AND ALL STATES, CITIES PROGRAMS OR AGENCIES.
They will attempt to first eliminate every women's access to abortion while also beginning their assault on all Americans' access to birth control. Yes indeedy, birth control is now in the crosshairs!! Certainly, that is what the Pence bill defunding Planned Parenthood is all about. Title X funding disburses money for women's health in general - pap smears, mammograms. And yes, that includes birth control or family planning, something that is now bizarrely controversial. Basically, health care for millions and millions of women.
But they do not plan on stopping there. The theory is throw as many bills against the wall as possible, with a lot of similar and dangerous elements. Then watch which elements they attach to which bill as they try through a variety of legislative maneuvers to paint the Senate into a corner, while the President keeps silent. To these extremists Republicans, his present silence means consent. That is certainly how they will propagandize it.
HR #3, NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND HR #358, PROTECT LIFE ACT, aka LET WOMEN DIE ACT
Those were two subcommittee hearings in the House. On Tuesday the 9th, the Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee with Chair Trent Franks convened on HR #3. The hearing for HR #358 was held on Wednesday the 10th in the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce with Joe Pitts, Chair. At each hearing, two anti-choice witnesses were invited but only one pro-choice witness. Sara Rosenbaum of GW University was the pro-choice witness for both hearings. She testified on the impact this legislation would have on the subsequent availability of health insurance with abortion. To be precise: there would be NONE. If passed, HR #3 eliminates private and employer provided insurance for abortion coverage. 87% of all employer plans cover abortion. 90% of all insurance access to abortion coverage would be eliminated. Tens of millions of women and families would lose access to abortion.
Who needs the public's boomerang reaction to overturning Roe, when you can eliminate abortion quietly while people don't yet notice?
One of the many awful provisions in HR #3 is turning the various Hyde restrictions in the numerous appropriations bills into permanent law that will reach far beyond where it gets now. Presently, the Hyde restrictions have to be passed via the appropriations process - from poor women in HHS to military and veteran women to Federal employees and even into Medicare for disabled women. Codification would not only make it permanent but extend its reach - to the tax code in their view of the world.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have spent 30 years not fighting the Hyde amendment. 30 years of quiet acquiescence, with often only a one sentence demurral by those of us who oppose Hyde. Silence can mean consent in many minds.
Anti-Choice witnesses Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Cathy Ruse with the Family Research Council at HR #3 hearing and Helen Alvere of George Mason University and Douglas Johnson with National Right to Life at the HR #358 hearing repeatedly touted the "universal" agreement that Hyde is correct. Even Democrats who purportedly call themselves pro-choice, they asserted, agree with the policy that there should be no federal funds for abortion. Silence can mean consent.
In an excruciating display of fakery, the four of them lauded President Obama's support for, in the President's own words, the 'federal tradition" behind Hyde. One of the congressmen, Michael Burgess (R-TX), even said that this bill was doing the President a favor by putting forward a bill ( HR #358) to make doubly sure that there would be no taxpayer money going for abortions!!!
Do not underestimate the political value of invoking a Democratic president. It will loom large as the battle progresses. At the Democratic press conferences about the two bills, Democrats boldly stated that in no way would the President sign either bill. Apparently, their strategy was hoping such statements would make the President make it clear how repugnant these bills are. Unfortunately when David Axelrod was asked by Chris Bowers about these bills, rather than a strong statement condemning them, Axelrod acted like he wanted this to just evaporate into the air.
To this day, we try to protect ourselves from one assault after another by only dealing with the technicalities, with little success. The right has now found a vein of attack that they can mine over and over. They can use funding issues and the tax code to launch one after another. If this one doesn't work, they can find another. It is a very rich vein....a veritable Silver City lode of potential attacks.
As David Waldman writes, "H.R. 3 hides even bigger dangers than redefinition of rape".
" Take the rape provisions out, and you're left with a bill that paves the way for using the tax code to select every American's health care options for them, direct from Washington."
So what is hiding in plain sight? The remedies sections of both bills are a veritable cornucopia of ways to control women's access to all reproductive rights - from abortion to birth control. Ironically, the right's anathema to lawsuits stops when they can use them to have a veto over everyone else's rights.
Both bills have sections entitled Non-Discrimination and Remedies. Doerflinger and Johnson kept coming back to what they euphemistically call "conscience provisions" in their testimonies. They were very wedded to them. WHY? Because without them, they could not get what they wanted: the most draconian, onerous and sweeping anti-choice legislation in forty years.
It's been coming, in bits and pieces, all over the country. For example, the recent South Dakota bill that effectively made legal the intent to kill abortion providers or bills which redefined rape to the bruised, battered and bloody standard. Their radicalism knows no bounds, but under some level of mainstream outrage these bills have then been dialed back.
But most outrageously, they have not dialed back the segment of HR #358. That bill was marked up on Friday the 12th, but they kept the section that effectively lets women die in emergency rooms.
A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.
In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.)
Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.
The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.
They kept that exemption. As awful as it sounds to refuse to save a woman's life, it's still there, as is a similar provision in HR #3.
Why? Because it allows any anti-choice zealot to launch one lawsuit after another to claim discrimination. Pay close attention to these wording below that give the anti-choice activists a wide berth to control women's reproductive health:
HEALTH CARE ENTITY - note how vague and broadly defined that is. A disgruntled nurse, or receptionist, hospital bookkeeper, it is so broadly written. There must be thousands of such anti-choice health care "entities".
ACTUAL OR THREATENED - Threatened????? What could the word "threatened" possibly encompass? A policy, a mailer on hospital emergency procedures making reference to EMTALA? A training schedule for interns or residents on abortion procedures and many more?
Would there even need to be actual instance of supposedly forcing someone to do a procedure or hand out birth control they disapprove of? No, it may be quite sufficient to apply for a job where abortions are done, announce you are anti-choice and then bring a lawsuit when you don't get hired. George Bush's last executive order (which was just rescinded), actually had just such provisions.
PRIVATE PARTY RIGHT OF ACTION This is the BIGGIE. The Non Discrimination and Remedies sections in both bills (I use HR #3 below) have enforcement mechanisms ranging from utilizing the HHS to the US Attorney General. Those would require anti-choice presidents to direct the agencies. However, both bills have private party right of action. The National Right to Life Committee, or Focus on the Family or the Live Action folks who have long targeted Planned Parenthood clinics are just waiting to spring into action. They can plant themselves into situations in which they are" threatened" with discrimination because they are anti-choice, let thousands of lawsuits bloom while they shop for the right anti-choice judge(s)
ENJOINING ALL FEDERAL FUNDS. Their biggest weapon of all. Draconian. If a judge finds for the plaintiff, the anti-choice fanatic, then that judge can, with only one violation enjoin all federal funds. The injunction would not be limited to health care funds. They could stop education funds or transportation funds or law enforcement funds> To whom? To anybody and everybody, basically. That's how vague the bill has been written. They could, with the cagiest plaintiffs attorneys work to enjoin all federal funds for the state of New York, the City of New York, the NYPD or all the school districts in NY State over a single lawsuit over a single woman's reproductive requirements.. Likely? Perhaps not, but these are activists committed to ensuring that not one woman in this country gets an abortion and their actions over the last forty years have certainly shown that the ends justify all means.
...preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of Federal financial assistance to a State or local government, or to a specific offending agency or program of a State or local government
To say that would be chilling would be an understatement. Sub-zero would be more like it. What state government could stand on a woman's right to an abortion with Medicaid or at a hospital if ALL federal funds could be stopped? What hospital would keep training doctors if all federal funds from Medicaid to Medicare would be withheld?
Funding has become the dangerous back door that will de facto overturn Roe v. Wade
HR #3 ENFORCEMENT SECTIONS: SEC. 311. NO GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN HEALTH CARE ENTITIES.
`(a) Nondiscrimination- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance (either directly or indirectly), may not subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
`(b) Health Care Entity Defined- For purposes of this section, the term `health care entity' includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
`(1) IN GENERAL- The courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this section by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including--
(A) injunctions prohibiting conduct that violates this section; and
`(B) orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of Federal financial assistance to a State or local government, or to a specific offending agency or program of a State or local government, until such time as the conduct prohibited by this section has ceased.
`(2) COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION- An action under this subsection may be instituted by--
`(A) any health care entity that has standing to complain of an actual or threatened violation of this section; or
`(B) the Attorney General of the United States.
? CT-Sen: In almost a parody of Republican fat-cattery, not-very-likely GOP senate challenger Scott Frantz loves to race his million-dollar antique yacht down to Bermuda, while at the same time extolling the virtues of companies patriotically avoid American taxes by moving their operations offshore to the very same island.
? IN-Sen: Treasurer Richard Mourdock is officially kicking off his primary challenge to apostate Sen. Dick Lugar today, and he's announcing that a majority of local Republican party leaders in the state are backing him. The thing is, while Lugar may well get teabagged, Mourdock really isn't a teabagger. The establishment might be trying to get out in front of Lugar's political demise by rallying around the most acceptable alternative, but while Mourdock's no Charlie Crist, even conservative guys like him don't often assuage the true movementarians. We'll see.
? MA-Sen/Gov: Fresh off his victory last fall, Deval Patrick is opening a federal PAC that, the Boston Globe says, "will pay for his expenses as he travels the country as a prominent spokesman for President Obama?s reelection campaign." But Patrick insists that he'll finish his second term, and then "return to the privates sector." That was actually the Globe's typo? man, I hope it was a typo. Meanwhile, Scott Brown insists he's running for re-election, not president.
? NV-Sen: Guy Cecil, the executive director of the DSCC, is heading to Nevada this week, reports Politico's Molly Ball, to meet with three potential challengers to Sen. John Ensign: Secretary of State Ross Miller, Treasurer Kate Marshall, and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. (The DS has already met with Rep. Shelley Berkley.)
? RI-Sen: Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian says he'll probably decide by June whether to seek the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Warwick is considered a "moderate" (whatever that means), and could face an impossible primary against a more conservative candidate. Recall that now-Gov. Lincoln Chafee came very close to losing a primary in 2006 against Steve Laffey while he was a sitting senator.
? VA-Sen: Former Dem LG (and current ambassador to Switzerland - and Lichtenstein!) Don Beyer says he's enjoying life abroad too much to contemplate returning home for a senate run. And hell yes he gave a shout out to Lichtenstein!
? WI-Sen: Your state becomes ground zero for the future of organized labor in America, drawing attention from around the country and around the world, and the stakes are huge. What do you do if you are Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl? You basically disappear and issue the most anodyne statement possible, saying that you "hope these matters can be settled in a respectful and balanced way." Eh, maybe we're better off like this ? it's not like Kohl would be a big asset in this fight anyway.
? IN-Gov: Mark Bennett of the Terre Haute Tribune Star has an interview with former House Speaker John Gregg, who reiterates he is giving the governor's race "real serious consideration" (as we mentioned yesterday) but hasn't offered any timetable about a decision. The piece is mostly interesting as a backgrounder on Gregg, who has been out of politics for almost a decade.
Meanwhile, Brad Ellsworth says he won't be running for anything at all in 2012 (so that would include IN-Sen as well), but veteran state Sen. Vi Simpson says she is "thinking about" entering the race.
? NY-10: City Hall News has a good, in-depth look at the situation in the 10th CD, where we noted recently that Rep. Ed Towns' son Darryl, thought by some to be interested in his father's seat, is instead taking a job in the Cuomo administration. This could be a resume-burnishing delaying tactic, but with the elder Towns teetering, several big names who aren't heading off to Albany could make the race, including Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries and NYC Council Members Charles Barron and Tish James. Jeffries is publicly saying he won't make a decision until Towns does, while the more pugnacious Barron is convinced Jeffries won't primary the incumbent ? and says he's "cut from the same cloth" as old Ed. If you're a fan of juicy ethnic, racial, religious, machine, big-city politics, set against the backdrop of redistricting and the VRA, this race is one to watch.
? PA-St. Sen.: How common is this? In the potentially bellwether-ish special election to replace deceased Dem state Sen. Michael O'Pake, Democrat Judy Schwank is going on the air with television ads. Her Republican opponent is reportedly set to follow. NWOTSOTB, but do state legislators commonly advertise on TV in your area?
? WATN?: So Arlen Specter's hung out a shingle. Unlike a lot of dudes in his position who become rainmakers in big DC lobbying firms, the almost quaint name of Specter's new law firm is "Arlen Specter, Attorney-at-Law," and he's practicing in Philly. Meanwhile, Specter's primary conqueror, Joe Sestak, sure is busy ? he's been going on a 67-county (that's all of `em) "thank you" tour in the wake of his narrow defeat last year. While the pace is probably less punishing than on the campaign trail, this kind of perambulation is usually the sort of thing most politicians are relieved to give up after they lose ? so obviously people are speculating that Sestak wants to get back in some day. Sestak himself says he wants "to stay in public service of some sort," and won't deny rumors that he's interested in a 2014 gubernatorial run., but I just can't see Sestak as gov material.
? Polltopia: You know how in a WWF tag-team match, there are those moments when one dude taps out and his partner comes in, but for a few seconds, they're both kinda in the ring at once, wailing on their hapless opponent at the same time? Just watch here as Stone Cold Mark Blumenthal puts Scott Rasmussen in a headlock and Nate "Superfly" Silva busts out the folding chair. When the bell sounds, we know pretty much what we did before: you can trust the outcomes of a Rasmussen poll and a pro-wrestling match just about equally.
? Redistricting: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo has releases his "Redistricting Reform Act of 2011," which would create a non-partisan commission that would draw both state lege and congressional district lines. The members of the commission would still be political appointees, though, with the governor apparently holding the final card. Cuomo has threatened to veto any old-style gerrymanders, but it's not clear to me that this bill has much of a chance, particularly since other reports say Cuomo is willing to trade this for a much bigger priority, like property tax reform.
Meanwhile, Politico has the unsurprising news that many members of Congress have recently started making generous donations to their home-state legislatures, in order to win a little love during the redistricting battles ahead. I do wish they would just post the full chart of their analysis, rather than pick out tidbits. We'd never do that to you!
? Census: Bunch more states a'comin' this week: Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington will all see redistricting data by Feb. 25th.
? Dave's App: Version 2.1 has been released, with all sorts of new features. Dave is also adding new 2010 census data as he is able.
? Special Elections: Johnny Longtorso, keeper of the special election flame, files this report:
We've got a whopping nine state legislative races in Connecticut on Tuesday. Eight of the nine are Democrats who resigned to join the Malloy administration, while the ninth (also a Dem) resigned due to a misdemeanor conviction. One race of note is HD-36, where CT-02 loser Janet Peckinpaugh is the Republican nominee. A couple of these races were close in 2010 (HD-99 and 101), so we may see some flips on Tuesday.
Also, in Missouri, there's an open State Senate seat in Kansas City, which should be an easy Dem hold.
And last Saturday, Republican state Rep. Jonathan Perry defeated Democratic businessman Nathan Granger in a special election that decided control of the Louisiana state senate. The chamber had been split 19-19, but now the GOP has the edge. Of course, it would only have been a matter of time before the next Dem party-switcher changed the equation, but this was actually a close, hard-fought race.
That wasn't even much of a challenge. Looks like the Flintstones Truthers are going down in the first round.
Ken Ham and the good folks at Answers in Genesis are in full out damage control mode. Getting caught red-handed discriminating against what they perceived to be a gay couple, they now realize that their chance to get a $40 million welfare hand out from the government to build a giant Dineysore Boat is now seriously in jeopardy.
And they didn't help their cause much by finally admitting to the AP (which was published everywhere) that despite their previous lies, they did have a policy that no gays were allowed in the Creation Museum:Museum spokesman Mark Looy told The Kentucky Enquirer that the promotional material for the Date Night made it clear the event was for heterosexual couples only.
Of course, that itself is a lie (as I've already pointed out, there was no such disclaimer on their promotion), but at least they no longer are denying the fact that they do discriminate. Not against insane people that shoot folks in the head, but definitely gay people.
Which of course means that their $40 million government welfare handout is in serious jeopardy. As Gov. Steve Beshear previously stated:Gov. Steve Beshear said Thursday that he will require the state's contract with developers of a Noah's Ark-based theme park in Northern Kentucky to prohibit the project from receiving state tax incentives if there is discrimination in hiring based on religion or other attributes.
"We're going to require that anybody that we deal with is going to obey all of the laws on hiring and not discriminate on hiring," Beshear said. "As a matter of fact, part of the language that will be in agreements ... is that they are going to abide by the law in terms of hiring and that they agree not to discriminate, so we will certainly have the ability to deal with it if we find that it happens."
Add to that the fact that their advertisements for Ark Encounter jobs already are requiring a Christian Purity Pledge, and I think you can pretty much put the nail in the coffin on their $40 million government welfare handout to build a giant boat and tell kids that a 600-year old man herded T-Rexes and Sauropods onto it a few thousand years ago.
Seeing their $40 million scam go up in smoke, it's no surprise that the con artists at Answers in Genesis are lashing out. An AiG flak was on hate radio merchant Bill Cunningham's show today, lying repeatedly (they make a good living off of that, so they know how to do it well by now) about what happened and, get this, calling me "intolerant" because I don't believe that gay people are going to hell, humans used to ride on saddled dinosaurs, and they should get $40 million in tax breaks to spread this.
Yes, Ken Ham tried really hard to be part of the Dependency Class, but it looks like the gig is up. I wish Ken Ham the best of luck building his Giant Dineysore Boat without the financial assistance of the government, but I'm not sure that he'll be able to. He definitely has proven his ability to con weak-minded people into believing that the Flintstones was a documentary and build a business model that takes advantage of kids' love of dinosaurs (and now dragons). Ham is a skilled grifter, I will concede that point. But can he pull off a $150 million scam? Prove me wrong Ken, Brandon and I would love to visit!
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are great for any kind of income investing, including covered call writing. No record keeping of individual trades is required, and your gains compound tax-deferred.
The two main types of IRAs are the Roth IRA and the Traditional IRA (the latter is also known as a “deductible IRA”). The difference . . . → Read More: Roth IRA vs Traditional IRA
Read The Full Article:
You know, when Wikileaks let the cat out of the bag on just how rich and greedy Mubarak was, the people got royally pissed.Now, Matt Taibbi let the whole litter of the critters out off the bag, in "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?" and we need to get[...]
Read The Full Article:
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE?
Happy Birthday, White-Haired Dollar-throwing Tree-chopping(?) Walking-Poligrip-Commercial Dude!
Make sure you say "Happieth Birthdayeth" to George Washington today---he's 279, which is 34 years older than our flowering Oligarchy now known as the United Koch Brothers of America. From the day he took office, Washington knew that corruption and special interests would be a fact of life in the halls of power. (Today Republicans would probably try and impeach him for the cherry tree episode---whether it was true or not.) And here's a news flash for obstructionist Republicans: President Obama is simply following in the footsteps of the Father of our Country:
As president, he was particularly sensitive to the diverse interests of the new country and fervent in his efforts to prevent its fragmentation. ... He promoted roads, canals, the post office---anything and everything that would bind the different states and regions together. ... Never taking the unity of the country for granted, he remained preoccupied throughout his presidency with creating the sinews of nationhood.
---From To the Best of My Ability, edited by James McPherson
Y'know who else talked about unity and built roads and post offices? Hitler. So thank god the lamestream media was on the case to call him out on his caliphatic socialist agenda:
[H]is critics believed he wanted to become another "King George." ... The Philadelphia Aurora, one of the major opposition papers, in 1796 editorialized: "If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington. If ever a nation was deceived by a man, the American nation has been deceived by Washington."
---From Rating the Presidents by William Ridings, Jr. and Stuart McIver
I'm guessing that was written by an ancestor of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey or the Cheney clan. But which one, Spock? Which?one???
But I'll say this: he knew how to handle his cabinet?
"Jefferson, you're on the two. Hamilton? You get the ten. I'm calling dibs on the one. That's all me, baby. What's that, Adams? You wanted the one? All right, that's it: You don't get to be on anything. That's right. I'm taking back the quarter. Anyone else want to complain? I didn't think so."
---Washington, 1789, as quoted in Jon Stewart's America: The Book
Shine up yer shoe buckles and pay your respects to "#1" here. He did okay. He surely did.
Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]
Warnings of a Massive Stock Market Top from Dr. Robert McHugh.
When I looked at the February 17th, 2011 major Bradley model turn date back about five months ago, I never in a million years would have believed the rally from March 2009 would last that long, and had no idea if . . . → Read More: Market Ready to Roll Over?
Read The Full Article:
Where charm is concerned Gov. Walker needs a transfusion. Compared to jolly Richard Trumka, who also once again stated the concessions Wisconsin state unions already made, Walker looked unyielding and elitist. But considering he was put in power by[...]
Read The Full Article:
Fox News has been forced to air footage of Wisconsin labor protesters shouting "Fox lies" and "tell the truth" during its live coverage of the labor protests.
Protesters Shout "FoxLies" During Live Report From WI Capitol. On the February 18 edition of YourWorld, protesters chanted "Fox lies" during correspondent JeffFlock's live report on the labor protests from the Wisconsin Capitol building.During the segment, guest host Chris Cotter stated, "Well, I'll tell you,Jeff, those folks protesting Fox -- I'm wondering if they would prefer astate-run television network providing all the coverage." [Fox News, YourWorld, 2/18/11]
Protesters Chant"Tell The Truth" During Live Segment From Madison, WI. On the February 21edition of The Fox Report, labor protesters chanted "tell thetruth" throughout correspondent Mike Tobin's live report on the protests fromMadison, WI. [Fox News, The Fox Report, 2/21/11]
Protesters InterruptLive Fox Interview With Chants Of "Tell The Truth." On the February 21edition of Your World, labor protesters in Madison interrupted guesthost Stuart Varney's live interview with Brett Healy of the conservativeMacIver Institute. Varney later interviewed Healy via telephone while footageof a protester holding a sign saying, "Fox News will lie about this," aired:
[Fox News, Your World,2/21/11]
Fox Aired "Fox News Lies" Protest Sign. During a report by Mike Tobin on the February21 edition of Special Report, aprotester held a sign stating, "Fox News lies!":
[Fox News, Special Report, 2/21/11]