By Elaine Magliaro
Aaron C. Davis of The Washington Post reported last Thursday that the House of Representatives had “voted along party lines late Thursday to strike down a D.C. law on ideological grounds for the first time in almost 35 years.” The Republican opponents of the D.C. law, “which bans discrimination over employees’ reproductive decisions,” claimed that it “constituted a liberal attack on antiabortion groups in the nation’s capital.”
Davis said that the effort to strike down the law was initiated “by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in the days before he launched his presidential campaign.” Davis said it “sparked a fierce debate on the floor of the House late Thursday, with Democrats blasting the Republican move as an outrageous infringement on women’s reproductive rights and privacy.”
But why should our Republican lawmakers in Washington care about something as unimportant as infringing on women’s privacy and their right to reproductive freedom? After all, women lack a Y- chromosome and, therefore, can’t always think clearly. They should not be allowed to make certain kinds of decisions for themselves.
Cristina Marcos of The Hill said the D.C. law, “which is known as the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, prohibits employers from discriminating against workers, their spouses or dependents for obtaining contraception or family planning services. The law further bans employees from retaliation for having abortions.”
Marcos said that D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is a “nonvoting representative in Congress, condemned her colleagues for forcing a debate on a law that doesn’t affect their constituents.” Holmes said, “This resolution is wildly undemocratic. It is a naked violation of the nation’s founding principle of local control of local affairs and is profoundly offensive to D.C. residents. This resolution uniquely targets my district, but every member will get to vote on it except for me, the District’s elected representative.”
The final vote was 228 to 192. Thirteen Republicans sided with the Democrats and three Democrats backed the Republican measure.
Davis:
Citing the strong convictions of many House Republicans about the D.C. measure, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) brought the issue to a vote on the floor even though Senate action on a companion measure would not come in time to stop the D.C. bill from becoming law next week.
Boehner said, “The issue is one of religious liberty.”
Davis said, “Bringing the abortion-related resolution to a vote on the floor of the House highlights the social issues that have long invigorated the Republican base but increasingly repel moderate voters.”
During a news conference last Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that the bill was “an outrageous intrusion into workers’ personal lives” and “totally inconsistent with the anti-government rhetoric that we hear around here morning, noon and night.” She added, “If you don’t believe in governance, how is it that all of that is cast aside when it comes to women’s reproductive freedom?”
Good question, Rep. Pelosi. I wonder if any of the sexist Neanderthals who voted for the Republican measure considered that.
Davis noted in his article that the District has more residents than either the states of Vermont or Wyoming but has no voting representation in Congress.” He said all of the District’s “locally passed laws and spending decisions must go before Congress for review.” He said that the “last time Congress voted to overturn a D.C. law was in 1991, when both chambers passed, and the president signed, a measure to keep D.C. officials from changing the maximum height of buildings in the city.” He added, “The last vote by Congress on a social policy set by the city was in 1981, when federal lawmakers turned back the city’s effort to erase its felony sodomy law.”
Repeal of the DC law has to pass a Senate vote, which President Obama would have to sign by early next week. Davis wrote, “With no chance of that happening, Republicans have urged House budget leaders to block funding for the District to enforce the reproductive discrimination law through the next federal spending bill.”
SOURCES
House votes to strike down D.C. reproductive rights law (The Washington Post)
House votes to overturn DC’s reproductive health law (The Hill)
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Planned Parenthood calls these republicans “gynoticians”.
Reblogged this on rennydiokno.com.
Ha ha…I ain’t sayin’ nothin’ about vaginas…these clowns were born yesterday, but I wasn’t.
As my ole Pappy never used to say, “When ladies talk about lady parts, always take the opportunity to STFU.”
These people are insane! Insanely ignorant. Insanely stupid and just plain insane psychologically.
Somebody needs to strap a chastity belt on these guys so they stop creating legislation.
With glasses she’d look like Sarah.
This story out of Texas. Un-freaking-believable. Or not.
More from reporter Andrea Grimes: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/04/24/texas-house-proposal-force-people-carry-term-non-viable-fetuses/?fb_action_ids=10155516363510113&fb_action_types=og.shares
Leslie Salzillo also has the story with additional editorial commentary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/03/1381655/-TX-Republican-Lawmaker-Wants-Pregnant-Women-To-Carry-Deceased-Fetuses-Full-Term
Definitely worth clicking the links and reading, but have your barf bag handy.
I think Mike is right.
bettykath,
In this man’s case insanely stupid is all that is needed. It is a sad commentary on some voters that they would elect such an idiot.
To piggyback on Chuck’s links, RollingStone has this piece delving into the criminalization of pregnancy that is sure to bring about some heavy waves…once the people realize it.
Excerpt:
———————————–
Last July, Loertscher, suspecting she was pregnant by her boyfriend, did what to many people would seem like the right thing to do. Still deeply depressed and exhausted, she took herself to a hospital looking for help. A urine test confirmed that she was pregnant but also showed traces of the drugs. So Loertscher told the doctor everything. “I was worried for [the baby’s] health, so I thought if I was honest, they would help me, and help him,” she says. “The baby was my priority.”
What happened next shocked Loertscher to such an extent “I still can’t believe it happened,” she says. Insisting she get drug treatment, which Loertscher refused on the grounds that she was now clean, the hospital then notified county officials, who filed a petition to compel her into treatment maintaining that she was endangering the health of her unborn child. (The hospital declined to comment.) At that moment, Loertscher became the latest unwitting target of Wisconsin’s punitive “cocaine mom” statute, which gives state officials the power to detain, arrest or otherwise punish pregnant women for substance use. Though she was not afforded legal representation, Loertscher’s 14-week-old fetus was given a lawyer, known as a guardian ad litem. This court-appointed official represented the fetus’s interests during two hearings that resulted in Loertscher being incarcerated for refusing to enter drug treatment. “It seemed so crazy — I was like, ‘I’m not using anymore because I don’t want to hurt my child!’ ” she recalls. Nonetheless, she spent 18 days in jail — including 24 hours in solitary confinement, according to her sworn statement. She says she was given no prenatal care. At one point, she alleges, a guard even threatened to taser her after she refused to submit to a urine test. Finally, she found a public defender who negotiated her release.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/abortion-rights-at-risk-the-gop-opens-a-new-front-in-the-war-on-women-20150422#ixzz3ZBncc9p0
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Mike, but it isn’t just one incredibly naive, stupid, ignorant, insane person, 228 people voted for this insanity. And Texas, what I can say. Legislators again practicing medicine without a license. And Wisconsin. We need to clean out several legislative bodies, executive suites, and courtrooms. Go back to our founders? The ones who owned slaves, or suspended habeus corpus? There were those who wanted a much more robust Bill of Rights. The arguments against even the those 10 were that subsequent generations would just “know” about civil rights. Hah!
However, their incredibly cruel treatment of women helps keep women and caring men from focusing on the rest of these miscreants misdeeds.
I’d just like to suggest the portmanteau of “vaginalantes”.
This message brought to you by English, the most malleable language on Earth!
Co-sponsored by Dumb. You don’t have to be dumb to sponsor this kind of legislation, but it sure helps.
And Ignorance. Ignorance! Putting the “W” and WTF for over 1400 years.
I tried to figure out how he embedded the video, but couldn’t. Meteor Blades front page diary last night, Open Thread For Night Owls starts off with a video. Parody TV ad for a contraceptive from Inside Amy Schumer. All good parody is based on truth.
Open thread for night owls: Ask your doc if this birth control is right for you. Now ask your boss
Pingback: Comedian Amy Schumer Responds to Birth Control Debate with Hilarious Prescription Ad Parody | Flowers For Socrates
Pingback: Comedian Amy Schumer Responds to Birth Control Debate with Hilarious Prescription Ad Parody | Flowers For Socrates
Pingback: When Catholic Health Care Systems Own Your Doctor: The New Threat to Affordable Birth Control for Women | Flowers For Socrates