Job security seems to have made Congress less productive

...................................................................................................................................................................
PostScript: Robinson and the political point of cruelty

By Rachel Manteuffel

Eugene Robinson drops a bomb in the middle of his column on the incipient cutoff of unemployment insurance payments for 1.3 million Americans. He argues that since it would make more economic sense to extend the benefits, “cruelty is the point” of cutting this hole in the safety net. Robinson cites rhetoric from Republicans such as Mitt Romney and actions from Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner in order to make the case that Republicans believe in cruelty and hardship as the base metal that will alchemically become gold. Though PostScript is not sure what, in this metaphor she started, the alchemical process part represents. Anyway, Robinson accuses Republicans in Congress of engaging in deliberate cruelty for ideological reasons.

AllDone basically makes Robinson’s case, though PostScript has scant reason to believe AllDone is a Congressional Republican:

We can’t save everyone. If you really feel strongly about it, mortgage your home and start a shelter, otherwise don’t try to sound more caring than the rest of us, because you aren’t.

Two commenters lived through unemployment, using unemployment benefits and other parts of the safety net:

pjs-1965

The wheel of fortune turns and I got really lucky. Started a high paying permanent job three weeks ago after over a year of unemployment. My time of unemployment taught me humility and compassion for those struggling in their lives and out of work. It ain’t no vacation. I am also grateful to Uncle Sam for the unemployment benefits. It wasn’t much but it sure helped.

cykler

I was laid off at 65; unemployment was about 65% of what I had been earning. Couldn’t survive on it, went to Social Security and Medicaid. Had I been 55, I would likely have been living under a bridge in Aurora, IL.

republicanatheist feels strongly enough about it to argue for the government/unemployment office to MAKE work for the unemployed, even if it’s pretty useless work. We could teach a whole new generation absurdism:

If you want an unemployment check, do some work. It could be counting paperclips. That will be more motivating than the requirements we now have.

Elsewhere, TheDoodeAbides riffs on the same theme, but PostScript thinks he or she is kidding:

Why don’t we build paupers’ prisons and get some WORK out of these deadbeats?

santaregina is also probably kidding:

And let them eat cake.

rjcat1 thinks Robinson can blame both parties for the bill that passed bipartisanly:

Mr. Robinson, 168 Republicans and 163 Democrats voted to cut off benefits.

And a different rj, rj2008, thinks not, because Republicans are flip-flopping:

Republicans voted to extend benefits 5 times under Bush.

Politifact agrees, though interestingly, it also cites similar Republican rhetoric even as the bills passed with Republican votes. Also, job security seems to have made Congress less productive. PostScript is just saying.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Effective governing is nearly impossible

...................................................................................................................................................................
4 reasons our political dysfunction isn't going to end soon
By Taegan Goddard, December 30, 2013

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats agree on, it’s that American politics is broken. Compromise is a dirty word, the nation’s problems go unsolved, and voter pessimism is at an all-time high. Most Americans think the current Congress is the worst in their lifetimes.

Four trends over the last generation have combined to make effective governing nearly impossible.

1. Few congressional districts are competitive. Technology was once seen as the savior of our democracy because it would allow for better communication between citizens and their representatives in Congress. In theory, lawmakers could instantly gauge the views of voters and accurately represent them in the legislative process. Instead, technology has allowed for very sophisticated gerrymandering of congressional districts to the point where there are just a handful of districts that can truly be considered competitive anymore. Many lawmakers have no incentive to compromise with the other party. In fact, being seen as bipartisan often opens these politicians up to fierce primary challenges. 

2. Political parties are much weaker. Campaign finance reform once promised the end of big money influence in politics. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law put an end to "soft money," the large donations made to political parties by interest groups that could then be doled out to individual candidates. But a series of court decisions weakened the law and gave rise to super PACs, which now control the big money instead of the political parties. These independent organizations typically have much narrower agendas than the national parties.

3. The parties come from different places. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he reportedly told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation." It actually took two generations for it to happen, but LBJ’s prediction came true for Democrats. The Republican party now firmly controls the South. Meanwhile, minority voters are the most reliable demographic group for Democrats. One party today is primarily white and concentrated in the South and rural areas, while the other is primarily an urban multiracial party. The two parties have much less in common than they once did.

4. Narrow-casting has replaced broadcasting. For decades Americans received their news from three evening newscasts. Each of the television networks competed for the biggest viewing audience across the entire country. The strategy required newscasts to at least try to be politically neutral to appeal to the most people. This changed with the advent of cable television and accelerated as the internet fragmented the news audience into even more narrow audiences. Being neutral is now considered a losing strategy for building a news audience on the internet.

Over time, there will certainly be new trends, challenges, and technologies to disrupt our current politics. But it will likely take a long time — perhaps a generation or more — to break the fever that has paralyzed our country.

...................................................................................................................................................................

"If you think that your religion teaches you that homosexuality leads to bestiality, I question your relationship to your God and to your horse"

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Forgotten Republican Rebrand
By Jason Stanford, December 30, 2013

Heckuva job with that rebranding, Republicans. They started 2013 hoping to rejoin modern America but ended it once again on the wrong side of history. By embracing Phil Robertson’s prejudice against gays and blacks and rebuffing Pope Francis’ call for economic justice, Republicans have made it clear that they would rather hold onto unchristian religious views than make the changes needed to win national elections again.

Almost a year ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal smacked his own party upside the head.

“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,” he said at the Republican National Committee’s winter convention. “We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.”

Republicans quickly made it clear that they had not had enough of that. Apparently expressing views abhorrent to most Americans has become a bedrock Republican value. Jindal has since walked the “stupid party” comments back. He’s walked so far back, in fact, that he has reached a time when open expressions of prejudice were not considered socially unacceptable.

In his interview with GQ, Robertson debated the comparative sexual merits of different orifices, called homosexuality a sin, and predicted that equality for homosexuality will lead directly to a broader acceptance of bestiality. That, and he remembered all the happy black folks picking cotton during segregation.

About the same time, Pope Francis criticized the “idolatry of money” and called “trickle-down” economics an “opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, [that] expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

If you think that your religion teaches you that homosexuality leads to bestiality, I question your relationship to your God and to your horse. And I don’t have time to teach remedial economics to those who still believe cutting taxes for the wealthy leads to greater tax revenue, job growth, and shrinking income disparity. Homophobia and supply-side economics are political faiths with no basis in science or the Bible I studied in Sunday school.

Republicans think otherwise. Noted moral exemplar Rush Limbaugh called the Pope’s views “pure Marxism.” Sarah Palin, whose Nobel Prize for Economics got lost in the mail again this year, said the Pope’s analysis was “kind of liberal.” And Rep. Paul Ryan, who was raised on Social Security survivor benefits before he proposed turning Medicare into Groupon for Grandmas, condescendingly said, “The guy is from Argentina, they haven’t had real capitalism in Argentina.” Yes, he called the Pope “the guy.”

Republicans have to attack the Pope’s views lest anyone notice that they have just cut off long-term unemployment insurance when there are three applicants for every job. What would you rather do? Call the Pope names, or explain why you cut food stamps for 47 million Americans—that’s 1 out of every 7 of us—during the worst long-term unemployment crisis since World War II?

Instead of taking a clue from a recognized churchman, Republicans treated Robertson’s anatomical analysis as if it were an expression of religious doctrine. When A&E briefly suspended Robertson, Republicans treated L’Affaire Duck as if U.N. troops had barricaded church doors. They compared him to Rosa Parks and hailed Robertson “as a hero for courageously revealing his self-truth and Christian ideals.”

“If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson,” said Sen. Ted Cruz on his Facebook page.

And Jindal, the oracle who inveighed against stupidity at the beginning of this year that celebrated it, completed his redemption when he said, “The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.”

Robertson can say whatever he wants, and Republicans are free to say that a reality TV star—and a fried chicken franchise, for that matter—represent their religious views better than the Catholic Church. But Republicans will never rebrand their party until they become more like Pope Francis and less like Phil Robertson.

...................................................................................................................................................................

How about we hold the Republicans by their ankles over this fire?

.................................................................................................

Strong messages that any ambitious woman's dream is possible

...................................................................................................................................................................
5 Reasons Why 2013 Was Good for Women in Politics
By Colleen DeBaise, December 30, 2013

There's still a gender gap when it comes to positions of power. But 2013 was a notable year for women in politics, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

As editors at The Story Exchange, we welcome such progress. When there are more females holding office, it stands to reason we'll see more gains in women's health, education and economic empowerment. And of course, we're all about role models. If "Your Honor" is a woman, that sends a strong message -- especially to the younger generation -- that any ambitious dream is possible.

Here's a look at the past year's milestones.

1. More women head to Capitol Hill and City Hall.

The 113th Congress kicked off in January with a record number of women in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives -- 98 female members out of 535 members (although, more dismally, that's still only 18.3% of Congress, according to the National Women's Political Caucus). This past Election Day, female mayors were elected or re-elected in a number of cities, including three in upstate New York (Albany, Syracuse and Rochester) and Houston, Minneapolis and Dayton, Ohio. Next year should be a good one to watch: Emily's List, a group that supports pro-choice Democratic female candidates, recently endorsed Heather R. Mizeur for Maryland governor in 2014. She'd be the first elected openly gay governor and the state's first female one (and she's a business owner to boot.)

2. Clinton versus Warren?

Unlike 47 other countries, the U.S. has never had a female head of state... which is why a Democratic-nominee showdown between Hillary Clinton, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state, and Elizabeth Warren, the senator and former Harvard professor, would be rather epic. The scenario became widespread speculation in 2013, although Warren's camp has pledged she will not seek the White House. One thing's for certain: There'd be much less fuss over these two powerful ladies if more women ran for public office. But we look forward to more Clinton-Warren buzz in the new year.

3. Hail to the Fed Chief.

Speaking of powerful ladies, Janet Yellen is poised to become the first woman to run the Federal Reserve in the central bank's 100-year history. What's particularly sweet is that she won the nomination after Lawrence Summers -- the same guy who made remarks about women's aptitudes in math and science, while he was Harvard's president -- dropped out. Now she'll just need to get the country's financial house in order. We wish her luck.

4. Wendy Davis's filibuster.

First she became a household name in June for speaking for nearly 11 hours (while wearing pink sneakers) to run out the clock on a bill that would have shut down abortion clinics in the Lone Star State. ("It was an amazing moment for democracy in Texas," she told Anderson Cooper in this video.) Now, Davis is running for governor of Texas. Many say she's given voice to women and highlighted governmental intrusion into reproductive rights. This much is clear: She brings new meaning to the phrase "stand up and fight."

5. Women take over in South America.

Nothing like Latin America, home to machismo, for putting the rest of the world to shame when it comes to female empowerment. The year ended with Michelle Bachelet defeating Evelyn Matthei (that's right -- both candidates were women) in Chile's presidential race. Meanwhile, over in Brazil, Dilma Rousseff is serving as president while in Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is in her second term as that country's leader.  There have been similar gains for women in Central America and the Caribbean. Need some inspiration? Look South.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Are forces beyond the Beltway remaking the terms of Washington debate?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Edward Snowden and Pope Francis Broke America’s Political Deadlock in 2013
By Peter Beinart, December 30, 2013

On poverty and surveillance, Democrats and Republicans finally found some common ground.

In 2012, Barack Obama travelled the country promising that if he defeated Mitt Romney, in 2013 the Republican Party’s “fever may break.”  Didn’t happen. In 2013, the GOP Congress remained just as hostile to Obamacare, citizenship for illegal immigrants, and a budget deal that includes higher taxes as it had in 2012. That’s the bad news. The good news is that in two areas, 2013 did witness a potential break in the Verdun-like standoff between America’s two parties. And the two men most responsible were completely unknown a year ago and don’t even reside in the United States: Edward Snowden and the Pope.   

First, Snowden. For a few years now, it’s been clear that while Cheneyism still dominates the Republican foreign policy elite, many grassroots conservatives are less than thrilled about a permanent, wildly expensive “war on terror” that gives the federal government virtually unchecked power to spy on Americans. By exposing the breathtaking reach of National Security Agency surveillance, Snowden empowered these conservative insurgents. In July, despite the unified opposition of House GOP leaders, 94 House Republicans voted to limit NSA spying. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Republicans who believe the government has gone too far in restricting civil liberties has jumped 18 points since 2010, and now exceeds the level among Democrats. 

Spying divides Democrats along similar lines. The party’s foreign policy elites are more willing to trust the NSA with vast surveillance powers, at least when they control the White House. And Democratic leaders don’t want to jeopardize their success in overcoming the party’s reputation as “soft on terror.” But as in the GOP, the further you get from the centers of governmental power, the unhappier Democrats are with NSA spying.

It’s now possible to imagine the surveillance issue dividing insiders from outsiders in the 2016 primaries in both parties. Chris Christie and Rand Paul have already begun sparring over the issue. And it’s a good bet that whoever challenges Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination will take a harder line against the Obama administration’s record on spying and drones. Despite the depressingly static nature of Washington partisan conflict, America’s national security debate is being scrambled in ways not seen since 9/11. And Snowden is a big part of the reason why.

The other figure scrambling Washington debates in a way Obama can’t is Pope Francis. First of all, he’s helping bury the culture war. It’s harder to claim that secular liberals threaten Christianity when they’re madly applauding the most prominent Christian leader in the world, and he’s applauding back. Second, Francis is fueling a debate about economic inequality and government’s responsibility to the poor. That’s mildly uncomfortable for Democrats, who since the Clinton era have been more comfortable talking about the problems of the middle class, and whose policy wonks generally believe it’s necessary to cut entitlements. But the really interesting impact is on the GOP. Because Francis is probably the non-American who Republican elites revere most, and because he stands outside Washington’s partisan scrum, his focus on poverty is convincing some GOP leaders that they should focus on it too. From Ralph Reed to Newt Gingrich to Paul Ryan, prominent Republicans have begun talking about remaking their party in Francis’s image. It’s unclear if they mean real policy change, or mere rebranding. But even if leading Republicans merely shift away from the radically individualistic, Tea Party-esque message of recent years to something closer to George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” it would change the tenor of America’s economic debate in ways we haven’t seen since the financial crisis hit.

If you look at American politics from the inside-outside out—at the fights over Obamacare, the budget and the confirmation of nominees—it looks predictable and depressing. But if you look from the outside-in, you can see the way forces beyond the Beltway are remaking the terms of Washington debate. Maybe 2013 wasn’t so bad after all.

...................................................................................................................................................................

"It is time to stand up and get rid of shortsighted, divisive, and pandering politicians"

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Baffling Reaction to a Mindless Television Personality by Equally Mindless Political Leaders
By Mark Riddle, December 30, 2013

The national firestorm surrounding Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's disgraceful comments bring to the forefront the struggle for equality and justice that remains an ongoing fight in America. 

Robertson's comments equating homosexuality to bestiality or implying African Americans were better off under Jim Crow laws are shameful, no doubt. But, what is even more startling is the almost instantaneous defense of Robertson by several prominent elected officials. From Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to his Lieutenant Governor Jay Dardenne to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, extremists could not wait to defend or rationalize Robertson's inflammatory rhetoric.

You might think that these seemingly educated politicians might pick up a history book, re-visit what Christianity truly stands for, or at least be mindful of racial and economic struggles before rushing to a microphone to capitalize on a reality television personality and pander to the most divisive elements of our culture. But you'd be wrong.

The politicos who rushed to support this vitriol are truly the ignorant ones in this saga.

Robertson's defenders in Louisiana must have forgotten about Katrina, the racial struggles of the Jena Six, or the fact that nearby Lake Providence, L.A. -- only about an hour and a half from Duck Commander HQ -- was deemed "the most unequal place in America" by CNN.

Perhaps the voters of Louisiana should ask their two top elected officials who exactly, besides themselves, they are serving with their spirited defenses of those on the wrong side of history? Aren't leaders supposed to lead and representatives represent all citizens, including the black, gay, and Asian ones?

So, while A&E makes its own business decisions on the program's future, it is past time for our nation to look inward and think about our way forward. Our national crises -- income disparity, poverty, massive debts, crumbling infrastructure, unfunded pensions, and a host of other problems -- combined with the seemingly insatiable need for those with any platform to divide instead of unite -- begs the question: where are the leaders who will solve the real issues at hand?

It must fall to the next generation to fulfill our country's promise. Our remarkable millennial generation is committed to equality, does not care whom one loves, and is determined to make all of our communities and our country a better place.

As Executive Director of New Leaders Council (NLC) I have the privilege of traveling the country and witnessing the development of the next generation of leaders we so desperately need. NLC's efforts also extend deep into what pundits often label "red" America.

In Louisiana we have a vibrant and thriving chapter, with a record applicant class this past year for our upcoming programs. NLC Alumni in Louisiana are preparing to step up into leadership roles across the state, including running for the highest offices. Perhaps one such alumnus may actually share a debate stage with Jindal or Dardenne some day, and can put to them the very questions they now refuse to answer. That is the kind of leadership we need: smart, honest, accountable, and unifying.

Our NLC community would respectfully disagree with Robertson and the likes of Jindal but point out that they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

Taking a step back, what Phil Robertson really taught us is that we have a lot of work to do as a country. We need to move past the bickering and the instinctive partisan politicking, towards real leadership. It is time to stand up and get rid of shortsighted, divisive, and pandering politicians.

Make it your New Year's resolution to support next generation progressive leaders in Louisiana and across the country as they change us all for the better.

...................................................................................................................................................................

People who identify as Democrats become more liberal, and those who identify as Republicans become more conservative-- nothing new about that!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Chalk up another topic beset by political polarization: Evolution
By David Lauter, December 30, 2013

By about 2-1, Americans accept the idea that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” but as with so many issues these days, answers to that question have taken on a growing partisan cast.

According to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center, six in 10 Americans say they accept the principle that species have evolved, while about one-third say that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

That overall division of American views has stayed fairly constant. But over the last few years, the gap between Democratic and Republican views has doubled.

In 2009, a majority of Democrats and Republicans took the evolution side of the argument, with 64% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans agreeing. In the latest survey, Democratic belief in evolution was about the same, 67%, but Republican support had fallen to 43%. A 10-point gap between supporters of the two parties had grown to a 24-point gulf.

What’s most striking is that the growing partisan gap seems to reflect politics, itself, rather than other factors. While Republican ranks include a high percentage of evangelical Christians and Democrats attract many secular voters, those religious differences didn’t explain the gap between the two parties. Even when Pew researchers factored out race, ethnicity and a person’s level of religious commitment, partisan differences on evolution remained, they found.

The differing views of Democrats and Republicans on evolution – and the fact that the two parties have diverged on the question – forms part of a consistent pattern: People who identify themselves as Republicans have become significantly more conservative on a range of issues in recent years, while people who identify as Democrats have become somewhat more liberal.

That trend of the two parties moving away from each other has affected views on the proper role of government, environmental issues and foreign policy, among other questions. Political scientists have cataloged a number of factors that could be influencing that change, including partisan media, a greater percentage of people actively engaged with political issues and the homogenization of views in both parties.

Beyond partisanship, the biggest gap in views on evolution involves religion. White evangelical Protestants and black Protestants are the two major groups in which majorities back the idea -- traditionally associated with biblical fundamentalism -- that humans and other species have existed in their current form throughout time. Majorities accept the idea of evolution in most other major religious groupings, including white, mainline Protestants; white Catholics; Latino Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated.

Other notable divisions on the issue follow lines of age and education. Older Americans are less likely than younger ones to express a belief in evolution; people with only a high school education are less likely to believe in evolution than are college graduates.

The survey, taken in the spring, but released Monday, has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

...................................................................................................................................................................
Test welfare recipients — and politicians — for drugs
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, December 27, 2013

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has admitted to using illegal drugs but is still serving as an elected official, getting $175,000 a year.

But if Ford lived in Kansas or Missouri — and was on welfare — the states would throw the book at him. They’d cut off the few hundred dollars a month he was getting for his family and teach him a lesson.

As The Star reported today, Kansas is getting ready to follow Missouri in testing suspected drug users who are on welfare.

The alleged goal is to coerce poor people into staying off drugs with the hammer of taking away their welfare payments.

The idea is extremely costly for taxpaying citizens. Not only are few welfare recipients on drugs — which reduces any savings from lower welfare payments — but the tests are expensive to administer.

Both states are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the tests, with the savings so far not adding up close to that amount.

Still, the conservative Republicans in charge of both state legislatures want to make it appear they are being hard on drug users. So they are picking on the easiest victims possible, poor people who can barely get by.

But here’s another idea: If the people getting some of the public money can be accused of being on drugs, what about the people passing out the money?

It would be a good idea to test the state legislators in Kansas and Missouri for drug use, too, and to suspend their publicly paid salaries if they are found to be on drugs.

Unfortunately, even though Kansas will test lawmakers, there won’t be any consequences. How hypocritical of Kansas.

That would send a message to the elected officials: Don’t try to rip off taxpayers. It’s the same message the lawmakers think they are telegraphing to welfare recipients.

Indeed, based on some of the crazy bills passed in recent years in both states, it would be easy for much of the public to wonder whether their lawmakers are on drugs. Testing them could be a good way to find out.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Back off, Republicans!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Abortion Rights Groups Say It's Time To Stop Playing Defense
By Kathy Lohr, December 29, 2013

Abortion rights activists are working on a counterattack to the 200 bills that have passed in states across the U.S. since 2010.

In the past three years, Republican-led legislatures have backed bills to regulate abortions and the doctors and clinics that perform them.

Bills to ban abortions at 20 weeks are among the laws that cropped up three years ago and have now passed in about a dozen states. This year, North Dakota pushed to end abortions at around six weeks of pregnancy.

"It really has been a wave of abortion restrictions moving across the country and it has affected providers and women and their families," says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks the laws for the Guttmacher Institute.

About a dozen clinics in Texas stopped providing abortions after a new law passed last summer. At least a dozen other clinics have closed across the country because of laws that say doctors must have admitting privileges at local hospitals, or because of another regulation requiring clinics to become mini surgical centers.

New York Takes A Stand

So abortion rights activists say they're pushing a new legislative strategy. In New York, lawmakers introduced the Women's Equality Act in 2013, backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

"Why the state of New York?" asked Cuomo. "Because the state of New York has had a long and proud history of being the first one to stand up on issues like this, on issues of inequality."

It includes pay equity for women and strengthens domestic violence laws. Andrea Miller, president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, says it also codifies Roe vs. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion.

"It says you have this right to make these decisions prior to the 24th week of pregnancy or thereafter if your life or health is at risk," Miller says. "It's quite simply, Roe vs. Wade put in state law to make sure that it's always there."

The bill didn't pass this year, but it will come up again in 2014.

Those who oppose abortion, including the New York State Catholic Conference, oppose the measure. Kathleen Gallagher, the conference's director of pro-life activities, says it's too broadly written.

"In our review, it's an expansion of late-term abortions here in New York, which we don't believe New York needs," Gallagher says.

Abortion rights activists dispute that, and say they'll work hard to get the package through.

Efforts In Other States

On the other side of the country, an abortion rights-friendly bill in California did pass. It expands the group of medical professionals that can provide abortions, allowing nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives to perform first-trimester procedures.

Dr. Joseph Speidel, a professor at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health in San Francisco, says the law sets a precedent for other states.

"The basis of the law change was a careful study that showed that the advance practice clinicians could do abortions as safely as physicians," Speidel says.

Activists point to what they say is another success, the Pennsylvania Agenda for Women's Health, a package of bills spearheaded by the Women's Health Caucus in the legislature. A portion of the agenda was recently introduced by state Rep. Dan Frankel, a Democrat.

"We want to change the conversation," Frankel says. "We want to talk about really, how do we enhance women's health?"

Frankel says women who are poor have limited access to health care, including abortions. He says the agenda, including workplace accommodations for pregnant women and creating buffer zones around clinics where abortion protests take place, would help.

"Those who are sincere in wanting to promote women's health in Pennsylvania ought to be able to endorse and help us pass this package of bills," he said.

In Texas, Rallying Against New Rules

The Pennsylvania bills may face an uphill battle, as legislators there have passed stricter laws — especially since an illegal abortion clinic was discovered in Philadelphia. It's operator, Kermit Gosnell, was convicted of murder in the death of one woman and several viable infants who were born alive and then killed.

Abortion rights activists call Gosnell an outlier, but those who oppose the procedures have used the case to lobby for more restrictions across the country, including in Texas, where Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed a new bill into law last summer.

The Texas measure bans abortion at 20 weeks and requires nearby hospital admitting privileges for doctors performing abortions.

Abortion rights groups say they're mobilizing in opposition to the Texas law, and around state Sen. Wendy Davis, now a Democratic candidate for governor, who conducted an 11-hour filibuster on the issue.

Activists say her decision to speak up inspired new supporters.

"We've had a lot of increased interest in volunteering with our work," says Merritt Tierce, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, a group that helps low-income women pay for abortions. "The most important thing that has come out of this is [a] conversation about abortion that needs to continue, that needs to intensify and that needs to stay focused on the complexities."

Nash calls the effort a starting point.

"What we have been missing has been a bill to rally around and to express the values of those who support reproductive health and rights," she says.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Rove predicts that the Seattle Seahawks will win their first Lombardi Trophy

...................................................................................................................................................................
Karl Rove's Political Predictions For 2014
By Karl Rove, December 28, 2013

It's time to see how well I did with my predictions for 2013 and to offer a set of 2014 forecasts.

I got 10 predictions for this year right. President Obama's job approval rating did drop—from 53% at year's start to 40% this week. There was a new administration scandal, the most significant being the IRS targeting of conservative groups. And ObamaCare's implementation was indeed "ragged and ugly" and "a continuing political advantage to Republicans" as forecast.

There was no grand budget bargain with entitlement reform. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez did die. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie won handily and the Virginia gubernatorial race was closer (2.6%) than many experts predicted. House Judiciary Committee Republicans are working on immigration reform while the comprehensive Senate bill backed by Mr. Obama is stalled. Hillary Clinton is now the front-runner in 2016 polls while the Obama girls got a new puppy.

Four predictions were wrong: unemployment hit 7% instead of 8%; Syria's Bashar Assad remains in power; Fidel Castro is still alive and President and Mrs. George W. Bush got a granddaughter, not a grandson. In one instance, the results were half-right. The debt ceiling was raised, but Mr. Obama wasn't forced to make spending cuts in return.

So what does my crystal ball say for 2014? Mr. Obama's Gallup disapproval rating will end higher than this week's 53%. Republicans will keep the House with a modest pickup of 4-6 seats. The GOP will most likely end up with 50 or 51 Senate seats (in the former case, keeping Vice President Joe Biden fully occupied for two years presiding over the chamber). Control of the Senate may not be decided until December's Louisiana runoff.

Propelled by union contributions, Democrats will outspend Republicans overall in House and Senate races.

Republicans will lose a net of one or two of their 30 governorships. They'll add to their numbers in statewide offices and state legislatures and see more Latino, Asian-American, African-American and women Republicans elected up and down the ballot.

Every Republican senator and virtually every representative challenged in a primary as insufficiently conservative will win. In reaction to ObamaCare, GOP political divisions are giving way to unity. Tens of millions more Americans will lose their coverage and find that new ObamaCare plans have higher premiums, larger deductibles and fewer doctors. Enrollment numbers will be smaller than projected and budget outlays will be higher. The White House will blame insurers and Republicans for the law's continuing failures.

At year's end, Kathleen Sebelius will still be HHS Secretary. Support for ObamaCare will drop below 30%, causing congressional Democrats to clamber for major changes and delays. The administration will resist most such ideas, except lifting the individual mandate penalty for 2014.

It won't be all sweetness and light for the GOP, however. Republicans will debate joining rebellious Democrats in gutting and delaying elements of ObamaCare or leaving it alone.

The White House will be even more hard-edged and partisan— and not just because of John Podesta's addition as counselor. Mr. Obama will do what he does when in trouble: attack. Expect more liberals to blame criticism of his actions on racism. The president's willingness to ignore or unilaterally alter provisions of laws on the statute books—otherwise known as lawlessness—will be challenged by a growing number of successful lawsuits.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan will increase his already considerable influence in the House, taking the lead on GOP antipoverty efforts and presenting the most serious comprehensive health-care plan congressional Republicans have offered.

Overseas, the Syrian civil war will be to Mr. Obama what Rwandan genocide was to the Clinton administration: a moral stain. Despite more American concessions, the Iranian nuclear deal will collapse as that country refuses to curtail its uranium enrichment. The administration will resign itself to a nuclear Iran and shift to "containment," further eroding U.S. credibility with Middle East allies. The new Afghan government will sign a Status of Forces Agreement, keeping Mr. Obama from squandering progress there as he did victory in Iraq by failing to get such an agreement (though Baghdad wanted one). North Korea's Kim Jong Un will test another nuclear device.

Outside of politics: "Duck Dynasty" will set another cable viewership record. Miley Cyrus will fade as a cultural phenomenon. Sandra Bullock will win an Oscar for "Gravity." Peyton Manning will win a fifth MVP award and the Seattle Seahawks their first Lombardi Trophy.

Instead of writing New Year's resolutions, send me your 2014 predictions, in care of The Wall Street Journal. Happy prognosticating!

...................................................................................................................................................................

The right wingers don't know the meaning of "religious liberty", but they love to tell atheists to leave the country.

...................................................................................................................................................................
This Week in God
By Steve Benen, December 28, 2013

First up from the God Machine this week is a closer look at Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) apparent confusion over the meaning of religious liberty.

A&E announced late yesterday that Phil Robertson’s suspension over bigoted comments has ended and production will begin anew on the “Duck Dynasty” reality show. New episodes will begin filming in 2014. In response, Bobby Jindal described the news as a victory “for the freedoms of speech and religious liberty.”

Perhaps now would be a good time for a refresher on Civil Liberties 101.

As we discussed last week, Phil Robertson’s free-speech rights were never in jeopardy – A&E is a private entity, and Robertson, as a private citizen, has always been free to say whatever he pleases about minority groups he doesn’t like. Whether Jindal understand this or not, the Constitution does not entitle Americans to their own cable reality shows – Americans’ freedom of speech does not mean Americans are entitled to have someone pay us for our speech.

But this applies equally to religious liberty. Americans’ ability to worship freely, or not, based on our beliefs and conscience is not dependent on paychecks from cable networks. Phil Robertson’s freedom of religion remains entirely intact whether or not he’s on A&E’s payroll.

Let me try to explain this another way:

1. You are not the star of your own televised reality show.

2. Your ability to worship and exercise your religious beliefs remains unaffected.

See how easy this was? Jindal and other conservatives have been eager to defend Robertson by arguing that religiously based contempt for minority groups is somehow more acceptable than garden-variety bigotry. They’re certainly welcome to believe that if they wish.

But what Jindal and his allies should not do is change the meaning of the First Amendment to suit a misguided culture-war agenda. The freedom of religion means something rather specific, and if the governor of Louisiana finds that confusing, it’s not too late for him to brush up on the basics.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* John Hagee, a prominent evangelical pastor who dabbles in Republican politics, argued this week, “[I]f atheists and humanists don’t like being wished a ‘Merry Christmas’ … well, they can just get out of the country.” [See more below.]

[snipped]

...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Pastor John Hagee Tells Atheists To Get On A Plane, 'Leave The Country'
By Shadee Ashtari, December 27, 2013

In a sermon on Sunday, Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee advised atheists and humanists to “take your Walkman and stuff it into your ears” or just “leave the country” if they don’t like hearing "Merry Christmas" or carols like "Joy to the World," according to a video of Hagee’s speech hosted on Right Wing Watch.

“Planes are leaving every hour on the hour. Get on one," Hagee added, speaking from his Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.

Sunday’s sermon was not the first time the televangelist suggested nonbelievers leave the country. In a June 2012 sermon, Hagee, who is also the CEO of Global Evangelism Television, told the “atheist watching this telecast” that “this country was not built for atheists nor by atheists.”

“It was built by Christian people who believed in the word of God. ... If our belief in God offends you, move,” Hagee said before informing atheists that "we don’t want you and we won’t miss you, I promise you.”

Hagee, who endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president in 2008, has also declared on multiple occasions that God sent Adolf Hitler as a "hunter" to kill Jewish people for “disobedience and rebellion.”

In a 2006 interview with NPR, he also claimed that Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people, was an “act of God” to punish a Gay Pride parade scheduled in New Orleans.

“And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades,” Hagee said. “I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment, sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

...................................................................................................................................................................