To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Friday, March 4, 2016

Justice Kennedy posed serious questions about abortion practices in Texas. Here's hoping this portends a good outcome for this case.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  "...Texas officials and antiabortion activists say the rules are designed to protect women’s health..."  Can these people be any more disingenuous ??? It is a wonder their pants doesn't immediately burst into flames from the enormity of their lies.
*  It never ceases to amaze how often fundamentalists are willing to lie to advance their "Christian" values.  In their minds, their sectarian ends justify all means.
*  I can't understand why abortion continues to be promoted as "an issue" by Republicans. No one is pro-abortion. The procedure is a legal, medically safe and private solution to unwanted, unplanned and unsupported pregnancy. It really is not anyone's business but the doctor, the pregnant woman and her family. States need to drop their dukes and quit enacting anti-abortion legislation. Individuals who are self-described "pro life" should spend their spare time and resources working to improve access to contraception and sex education, which would reduce unwanted pregnancy. This seems so utterly OBVIOUS, yet so many Republicans are anti-education and anti-Planned Parenthood. Truly I do not get it.
   *  It seems to be a combination of factors, primarily a warped sense of religion, a repressed sexuality and a political fear of empowered women.
*  The anti-abortion movement is not really interested in promoting life; it is far more concerned about subjugating women. Since almost the beginning of organized religion, subjugation of women has been a major objective of male-dominated theology and rituals (e.g., polygamy).  Indeed, a strong anthropological and historical argument can be made that the paramount purpose of organized religion is to subjugate females to males.  For example, many - probably most - of the "pro-lifers" oppose birth control, publicly funded prenatal care, food assistance programs, and most other government programs designed to assist disadvantaged children. (By the way, many people prefer being told what do rather than taking responsibility for their own lives. Hence, the large numbers of fundamentalist "pro-life" women.)  That is why abortion remains an issue even though it is not really an issue. 
*  SCOTUS - don't fail us now. You've been right on MANY progressive issues lately. Do it again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The odd thing Justice Kennedy noticed about abortion in Texas
By Danielle Paquette, March 4, 2016

As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for the most consequential abortion case in a generation, new criticism of state rules that shrink access to clinics came from the justice widely predicted to cast the swing vote.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations.

“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.”

Kennedy's qualm isn't obvious, but it appears to signal that he's concerned Texas's law is limiting women's access to abortions early in their pregnancies.

Medical abortions, induced with prescription pills, aren't necessarily safer than surgical abortions — both carry low risk. But the country's rising use of the pills, as surgical abortions simultaneously fall, can be viewed as a good sign by those who want to prevent more second-trimester terminations and still want abortion, in general, to be legal and accessible.

Falling use of the pills, at a faster rate than falling use of the surgical procedure, meanwhile, could indicate women are delaying their abortions — by choice or because a state-enacted hurdle slowed them.

While the majority of abortions in the United States happen in the first trimester, medical and surgical, the pill method happens extremely rarely in the second trimester. That's because risk climbs for incomplete miscarriage after about nine weeks, and, in that event, a woman who opted for the pills would have to return to her doctor to complete the procedure.

As the rate of abortions falls nationwide, the use of the pills, mostly taken before nine weeks gestation, are growing: The method surged 10 percent between 2011 and 2012, CDC data show, suggesting more abortions are happening earlier in pregnancies.

Kennedy was right about Texas breaking from the national trend: Between 2012 and 2013, the most recent report years from the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, the number of abortions in the state dipped. Surgical procedures fell 5 percent — and medical abortions plummeted 22 percent.

The justices seemed to split Wednesday over two provisions of the 2013 Texas law at the center of the Supreme Court case. One requires doctors who perform the procedure to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The other states all clinics must meet the standards for “ambulatory surgical centers” — an update that calls for, among other things, hallways that stretch eight feet wide.

Texas officials and antiabortion activists say the rules are designed to protect women’s health. They argued to the court Wednesday that women should be supplied the same care they'd receive at a hospital. They also argued that, should the requirements shut clinics down, the remaining providers would still be able to meet the needs of Texas women.

Abortion providers and two national physician groups, on the other hand, say the regulations are medically unnecessary and place an “undue burden” on patients, who now drive up to 150 miles to reach the nearest provider. The new requirements, they argue, caused more than half of the state's clinics to close. Some clinics would have had to tear down walls to become ambulatory surgical centers. Others were denied admitting privileges at hospitals that oppose abortion.

Kennedy has previously voted in favor of abortion restrictions. But in 1992’s Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which struck down a law requiring a woman to get her husband’s permission before seeking an abortion, he sided with the liberal justices in a plurality opinion:
“An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” 
On Wednesday, as lawyers for the clinics argued the new law placed an "undue burden" on patients, Kennedy appeared concerned about how the abortion climate has shifted in Texas. He asked whether the law encouraged women to get surgical procedures rather than drug-induced abortions, a switch that may indicate some patients are waiting longer to end their pregnancies.

Medical abortions trail surgical abortions by a large margin in the United States. In 2012, the most recent data available from the CDC, 69.4 percent of abortions in the United States were surgical in the first trimester, 8.7 percent were surgical in the second-trimester, and 20 percent were medical in the first trimester. (The researchers labeled the leftover 1.9 percent as "uncommon" methods.)

Some women prefer the medical method because they can take the pills at home. The pain, however, can be worse. Compared to the surgical procedure, which typically takes between 5 and 7 minutes (and often comes with a shot of sedatives), the medical method involves heavy bleeding and extended cramping.

Later abortions are also costlier, harder to find and slightly riskier for the patient. They also start pushing moral boundaries for, again, those who believe abortion should be performed in a safe environment but personally condemn the procedure.

It’s hard to say if Texas's law affected this outcome, since the data stops after the year it passed. Some clinics closed in preparation of the new rules. Some closed on the day it was enacted.

A study from the journal Contraception, though, examines what happened in the law's first six months: There was a 13 percent decline in abortions in Texas, compared to the same period the previous year, and a slight increase of late, second-trimester abortions.

Whether the drop-off in medical abortions “may not be medically wise,” as Kennedy asserted, remains to be seen. Researchers anticipate more answers in the 2014 data, which probably won’t drop until after the Supreme Court case is decided in June.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... wrap-up of false and misleading claims in the 11th debate ..." In other words, lies, lies, and more lies.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  It's too bad that ALL candidates, regardless of party affiliation, cannot be held accountable for the accuracy of their claims. Of course mistakes will be made but the obvious deviation from the truth is unacceptable.
*  The facts are trump tells lies 73% of every claim.
*  All politicians lie. It's the only way to stay alive in that business. But Trump's entire platform is built on nothing BUT lies (and slogans). And his lies aren't even calculated--they roll off his tongue without even a thought. It's quite remarkable.
*  Fact, the GOP is scheming to construct a brokered convention for the purpose of denying the American people democracy. Perhap the Department of Justice should look into this?
*  This has become a complete and total joke. We (America) has become a joke everywhere. We have Republicans trying to get the nomination and we hear very little about the hows and why this will happen. All we get a short sentences, and from Trump it is usually 2 or 3 words and not real information on how. The debates, if you call it that, are nasty and rude to each other and they constantly interrupt each other. ANd last night it hit a new low when it got into discussions of personal body parts. As BTW, Trump is wrong when he says that the military will do whatever he says as he says it as a threat! This is not how we are supposed to select nominees.
    *  Republicans lip and leap before they look .When they get caught they think more lips and more lies will save them. How dumb are you ?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Fact check: The Detroit Republican debate
By Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, D’Angelo Gore and Vanessa Schipani, March 4, 2016

Our wrap-up of false and misleading claims in the 11th debate includes:

• Sen. Marco Rubio said businessman Donald Trump inherited $100 million from his father for his business, while Trump said he started with only $1 million. Both are stretching the facts.

Trump claimed the government could save “hundreds of billions of dollars in waste” through negotiating prescription drug prices. But that’s well above the entire yearly spending for Medicare Part D.

Trump grossly exaggerated the U.S. trade deficit with China, and falsely claimed that the U.S. runs a trade deficit with “every country.”

• Sen. Ted Cruz claimed that a study showed the 1994 assault weapons ban “did nothing to reduce violent crime.” Not true. The study reported “mixed” results.

Trump repeated a bogus claim that the wife of a 9/11 terrorist left the U.S. two days prior to the 2001 attacks and that she “knew exactly what was happening.”

Trump said he was “always against going into Iraq.” He was an early critic of the war, but there is no record of him speaking against the war before it started.

Trump claimed that Trump University has an “A” rating from the Better Business Bureau, but the last rating we could find was a “D-.”

Rubio and Trump disagreed on whether Trump had “expressed admiration” for Russian President Putin. Trump had said it was “a great honor” to be complimented by the “highly respected” Putin.

Trump falsely claimed that Rubio was the first person who ever disparaged the size of Trump’s hands. Vanity Fair‘s editor did so more than 25 years ago.

And Trump, Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich all repeated claims we’ve fact-checked before.

Fox News hosted the March 3 debate in Detroit between Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

Rubio/Trump on Trump’s Inheritance

[snipped]

Trump on Medicare Drug Savings

[snippped]

Trump on Trade

[snipped]

Cruz on Assault Weapons Ban

[snipped]

Trump on 9/11 Terrorist’s Wife

[snipped]

Trump’s Position on Iraq

[snippped]

Trump on Trump University

[snipped]

Admiration for Putin?

[snipped]

Trump’s Hands

[snipped]

Repeats Repeated Again

Trump, Cruz and Kasich repeated these claims that we have heard before:

Trump falsely claimed he is beating Clinton “very, very easily” in a “recent” Fox News poll, when in fact the most recent poll released Feb. 18 showed Clinton ahead, 47%-42%. He also said he is beating her in “many polls,” as he has done before, citing the USA Today/Suffolk University poll and the Quinnipiac University poll. Trump is ahead 45%-43% in the USA TODAY poll, but that is the only one of the 10 most recent polls that shows Trump beating Clinton — and it is within the margin of error. He is trailing Clinton in the last Quinnipiac poll, 44%-43%, which is also within the margin of error.

Kasich said that in Ohio, “We’re up over 400,000 jobs.” As we wrote when he made a similar claim in both the seventh and ninth GOP debatesas well as the 10th — Ohio has gained 400,700 private-sector jobs under Kasich. But the job growth rate in Ohio was 9.3%, lower than the national private-sector growth rate of 11.7%.

Cruz claimed that the Affordable Care Act was “the biggest job-killer in America.” In the last debate, he said the law had “killed millions of jobs,” as he also said in the seventh debate. But the economy has actually gained millions of jobs since Obama signed the ACA into law, and it has added 2.4 million since January 2015 when the employer mandate went into effect.

For a full list of sources, see FactCheck.org.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"'... the American people should be proud of what they have achieved because this speaks to their resilience, innovation risk taking and grit.'"

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  "Obama Takes a Swipe at Donald Trump With 'America's Pretty Darn Great Right Now' " (Yahoo)  He(l)l,...The ENTIRE repugnican party will DENY everything Pres. O. says.  What he should do is tell them they are very wise and that they know what ALL Americans want and need,... Just to watch their heads explode from confusion. (A la "Star Trek.")
*  Fro the record I'M NOT SAYING THE JOB MARKET IS BACK TO NORMAL. I AM saying the barometer used 8 years ago(unemployment rate) was good enough to track the job market when it was reflecting poor job numbers. Now that is reflects GOOD job numbers, no one wants to use it. WHY IS THAT ?????
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama Takes a Swipe at Donald Trump With 'America's Pretty Darn Great Right Now'
By Arlette Saenz, March 4, 2016

Donald Trump’s slogan may be “Make America Great Again,” but President Obama today declared, “America’s pretty darn great right now.”

Though Obama made no mention of the Republican front-runner by name, his not-so-veiled swipe at Trump came as the president touted today’s jobs report and accused Republicans of “trying to talk down the American economy.”

“There seems to be an alternative reality out there from the some of the political folks that America’s down in the dumps. It’s not. America’s pretty darn great right now,” he said in a White House meeting with his economic team on a day when the Labor Department announced the economy added 242,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate remained at 4.9 percent.

“I don’t expect that these facts and this evidence will convince some of the politicians out there to change their doomsday rhetoric, talking about how terrible America is, but the American people should be proud of what they have achieved because this speaks to their resilience, innovation risk taking and grit.”

Politicians should be talking about the progress made in the economy, he added, “not fantasy, not name calling, not trying to talk down the American economy, but looking at the facts understanding that we’ve made extraordinary progress in job growth, how can we continue to advance that.”

“There’s a huge gap between the rhetoric that’s going on out there and the reality of success that we’re seeing in America’s economy even as we acknowledge that there’s more work that can be done,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Thursday, March 3, 2016

" Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and David Vitter (La.) are both blocking the agreement ..." Isn't that just great?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Nice PR move for an election year.  Good thing Republicans are the way they are.  If they had any brains, they'd be dangerous.
*  As always, Democrats need to step in to clean the GOP's mess
    *  As always, GOP won't release the funding to the state on the right time.
    *  Its their water crisis, and now they don't even have the decency to do the right thing
*  People are suffering and some have even died. For God's sake, stop with the Republicans are angels. They are not helping US citizens. Probably because they are poor people, the Republicans don't care if they do die. As to accepting responsibility, when have you accepted responsibility for Bush's lies that got us into war and for 4700+ soldiers that died? How about responsibility for nearly bankrupting the country?
*  Not to sound too harsh, but... Shouldn't Michigan be paying for all of this? From the outside, this all started by trying to save save money. It was obviously a mistake and now that mistake is going to be fixed with federal money? Isn't Michigan mostly responsible for this?
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP senators holding up Flint aid deal
By Jordain Carney, March 3, 2016

Two Republican senators are blocking a deal over aid for the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis.

Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and David Vitter (La.) are both blocking the agreement, two Senate aides told The Hill. 

Senators can use the procedural move to anonymously stall legislation or a nomination without having to publicly announce their opposition, though some do. 

Vitter, whom Democrats previously suggested was slowing down a larger energy bill, said that he was "quite hopeful" the Senate would soon be able to move forward.

"In the meantime, I’m working with my colleagues to ensure that my language to help promote fishing opportunities for anglers in the Gulf is not neglected in the process,” he added in a statement.

The Louisiana Republican's fishing-related provisions were included in a sportsman's bill passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

That legislation, however, has not been added to the the energy bill, while another sportsman's bill from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee — which has more Democratic support — was included.

Meanwhile, Lee is blocking the deal over concerns about funding, Senate procedure and whether the drinking water crisis is a local issue, according to The Daily Beast, which first reported the hold.

Key senators suggested this week that talks on the deal are ongoing. Negotiations on Flint are entwined with a larger bipartisan energy reform bill, after Democrats pledged to block the legislation until they get an agreement to give aid to Flint.

The procedural roadblocks are the the latest hurdles for a bipartisan group of senators that has been trying for approximately a month to get a deal, which requires the agreement of every senator.

Lawmakers announced late last month that they had reached a $250 million deal, but quickly ran into budget problems as well as pushback from some conservative lawmakers.

Democrats initially wanted $600 million in aid, including $400 million to match state funds to repair and replace old pipes in the city and the balance going to a research and education center on lead poisoning.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the female justices repeatedly noted that abortion is safe ..." Yeah, safer than colonoscopies being done in doctors' offices!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Finally, let the women speak, they know more than the men that this is all trumped up bull spit to appease the conservative base and make it harder for women to seek an abortion, though it is their right.
*  If this is about protecting women's health, why don't they care about women when they get a colonoscopy?
   *  a Colonoscopy is not regularly performed in a hospital but in a outpatient clinic same as a abortion.
*  Is it required by law that they do have admitting privilege in order to perform a colonoscopy? If not, why is it required when performing an abortion if the procedure is safer than a colonoscopy?
*  For the first time in 40 years the court is free of Scalia's bullying
*  Look at all these male commenters temper tantruming here that they can't control women. Get over it, you insecure deutschebags and go control your own equipment.
*  The females of SCOTUS are holding fast to the truth. And calling them out on their brazen lies. We could use a few more women on the bench!
*  How can the right claim to want less Government in people's lives , but want more Government in woman's #$%$....
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Best Moments in the SCOTUS Abortion Case Where the Female Justices Ran the Court
By Julie Zeilinger, March 3, 2016

The Supreme Court heard Wednesday the most important, highest-stakes abortion case in a generation. In light of the rapid increase in state-level attacks on abortion access, the case seeks to determine exactly how difficult obtaining an overwhelmingly safe, common medical procedure can legally be. 

The three female justices demonstrated that if they have their way, unnecessary obstacles to abortion may soon be knocked out of the way. As Dahlia Lithwick reported in Slate, the justices came to court ready to fight: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor even "blew past" Chief Justice John Roberts' attempts to move on and instead continued to ask questions at their own will.

Here are a few other times the female justices, armed with knowledge and evidence, went to bat for the American women they serve.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called out the "ambulatory surgical center" requirement. 

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt generally challenged HB2, a Texas omnibus abortion bill passed in 2013, but specifically targeted laws that require doctors to obtain admitting privileges from a hospital no more than 30 miles from the abortion clinic where they work and to meet building standards that render them "ambulatory surgical centers."

Many have pointed out that such standards are medically unnecessary, and the Notorious RBG was quick to echo them.

"What is the benefit of the medical — the two pills that you take — what is the benefit of having an ambulatory surgical center to take two pills when there's no ... surgical procedure at all involved?" Ginsburg asked Scott Keller, the Texas solicitor general who was arguing on behalf of Texas, according to Bustle.

While the defense responded by pointing to "complications" associated with drug-induced abortion, studies are on Ginsburg's side: These rates are relatively low.

Sotomayor also questioned the logic behind legally permitting a non-abortion dilation and curettage — a procedure commonly, legally performed in association with miscarriage — to occur in a doctor's office while requiring a nearly identical procedure performed for the purpose of abortion to be performed in an office that must meet hospital-like standards, Slate reported.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned the defense's claim that the law exists to protect women from abortion complications when the procedure rarely has any.


Irin Carmon ✔  @irin
Here's Kagan repeatedly pressing Texas's SG on *why* the law exists.
10:30 AM - 2 Mar 2016
Not only does the low complication rate of abortion seemingly render hospital-like building standards unnecessary, but it seems to throw the entire logic of paternalistic protection at the core of HB2 into question, according to Kagan. Standards for much riskier procedures — like colonoscopies and liposuction — aren't legislated in the same way, she pointed out. 

And she's right. As none other than John Oliver pointed out in a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that abortions have a mortality rate of just 0.00073%, a rate about 10 times less than what one study found was the risk for dying as the result of a colonoscopy.

Ginsburg also questioned the defense's claim that abortion is risky.


Notorious R.B.G.  @NotoriousRBG
Pretty cool signs before the Supreme Court today. Our faves, via @ppsatnc @carolinestu @joshdorner @number7cloud
1:53 PM - 2 Mar 2016
Despite Keller's repeated defense that many of HB2's requirements address the complications of abortion, the female justices repeatedly noted that abortion is safe, MSNBC reported.

The indomitable Ginsburg particularly combated this faulty argument, even resorting to what Mother Jones described as a "hint of exasperation."

"Is there really any dispute that childbirth is a much riskier procedure than an early-stage abortion?" Ginsburg asked (referencing plenty of evidence that indicates there is none).

Justice Stephen Breyer doubled down on this argument, suggesting that additional burdens placed on women may actually put them in more danger.

"Are there going to be more women or fewer women who die from complications?" Breyer asked according to MSNBC.

Of course, the determination of these justices may still not be enough to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy, the vote many expect will make all the difference. But hopefully Kennedy will take not only Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and even Breyer's perspectives into consideration, but also U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli's apt closing statement. 

As Verrilli hauntingly warned the justices, "If you do find that this law is upheld, what you will be saying is that this right really only exists in theory and not in fact."
...................................................................................................................................................................

You go, Suzan DelBene! We're proud of you!

...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP’s First Hearing On ‘Baby Parts’ Quickly Goes Off The Rails
By Alex Zielinski, March 3, 2016

On Wednesday morning, Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in a case that could severely restrict a woman’s access to a safe abortion — an issue that brought hundreds of pro-choice protesters to Washington, D.C. But that wasn’t the only discussion about abortion rights taking place on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

Behind the closed doors of the Capitol, members of the House held the first congressional hearing on Planned Parenthood’s involvement with the sale of fetal tissue. This hearing, dubbed the “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives” by the conservative representatives behind it, was a wide-ranging discussion of the morality of abortion that Democratic lawmakers protested was more like a witch hunt than an objective discussion.

Four of the six people called to testify at Wednesday’s hearing were openly anti-abortion, and the discussion often veered into territory that left lawmakers at a loss for words.

“In our society, have we reached a point where there is an Amazon.com for baby parts, including entire babies?” Rep. Diane Black (R) asked at one point. No one knew quite how to answer.

The hearing was scheduled after a anti-abortion group created a series of videos that claimed Planned Parenthood profited off selling baby tissue — a campaign that sparked investigations into the organization across the country. According to chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican who led the recent congressional fight to defund Planned Parenthood, the purpose of the hearing was to discuss “ethical issues that surround procuring and selling baby body parts”an illegal act that Planned Parenthood never participated in, according to each of the nearly 30 states that have investigated the health organization.

Although these videos have now been discredited due to their highly edited content, and two of the videographers involved have been indicted in Texas for tampering with government evidence and other crimes, GOP representatives were still eager to pursue the issue. They brought a handful of experts — the majority of which were openly anti-abortion — to talk about this unfounded crime.

Instead of investigating whether clinics are illegally selling fetal tissue, though, the hearing mostly focused on the ethics of simply donating fetal tissue from aborted fetuses for scientific research, an act that’s been legal since the 1970s.

“Last summer’s videos revealed that something very troubling is going on related to fetal tissue and research,” said Blackburn in her opening remarks. “But this hearing is about bioethics…not election election-year politics.”

However, the hearing was rooted in partisan political debate.

“This is not an objective hearing, this is a debate against a woman’s right to chose,” Rep. Suzan DelBene (D) interjected during the hearing’s first round of questions.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D) called Blackburn’s personal investigation into the researchers and doctors who use fetal tissue a “witch hunt” eerily reminiscent of former Senator Joe McCarthy’s abusive investigative tactics in the 1950s.

“The unfortunate truth is that this partisan pursuit of the manufacture, false allegations of anti-abortion extremists is putting Americans in harm’s way,” said Schakowsky. “And it must stop.”

Gerard Donovan, the director of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, was quick to compare research done on fetal tissue to the world’s most unethical studies, including Auschwitz physician Joeseph Mengele and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Using his own definition of “personhood,” he went on to side-step the focus of the meeting and share his thoughts on abortion.

“Because we know that the fetus is alive, and human, we must find some explanation for why it should not be treated with the same dignity that we accord all other human lives,” Donovan said, who went on to talk about fetal pain, an issue also unrelated to tissue procurement.

“We wouldn’t have kittens or puppies put to sleep without keeping them out of pain,” he said. “I don’t think we should do that for kids either.”

Those on the other side of the debate were upset about the political takeover of legal research tactics.

“I feel like I’m a time traveler to the Salem Witch Trials,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D). “Unfortunately, this time, those being burned at the stake are our scientists, who hold future medical breakthroughs in their hands. They are joined by brave women’s healthcare workers who are simply trying to care for their patients.”

R. Alta Charo, a professor at University of Wisconsin’s Law School and the School of Medicine & Public Health, addressed the elephant in the room, stressing that banning fetal tissue research has little to do with a woman’s choice to end a pregnancy.

“Federal review has repeatedly found that the option to donate tissue has no effect on whether a woman will choose to have an abortion,” Charo said.

She went on to note the Center for Disease Control’s recent request for fetal tissue donations to accelerate the study of Zika, the virus that’s linked to severe brain defects in thousands of newborns. It’s ironic, she added, that “the absence of this kind of research could lead to more abortions” by women who find out their fetus has been affected by the disease.

“If we cut off this research, we’re facing a global emergency,” she said.

Many of the anti-abortion testifiers encouraged the use of adult cells over fetal. But researchers have found that fetal cells are far superior to those of an adult when it comes to transplants and disease research because the cells are far more flexible and quicker to proliferate than adult cells, among other reasons. And they’re key to understanding future medical scenarios.

“Our ability to examine the earliest stages of human development are vital to our understanding and our ability to treat many diseases in the future including diseases of pregnancy, diseases of the placenta, and diseases of children and adults,” said Lawrence Goldstein, director of University of California, San Diego’s Stem Cell Program.

The hearing ultimately devolved into a moral debate over abortion rights, similar to the discussion taking place in front the Supreme Court at the same time.

Rep. DelBene summarized the day’s events with a simple, pointed question: “Do you think ideology should shape the rules about scientific research?”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Wow, splitting hairs much?

...................................................................................................................................................................
A Kentucky Lawmaker’s Hilariously Stupid Attack On Marriage Equality
By Zack Ford, March 2, 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court ended the debate on whether same-sex couples can marry, but one Kentucky lawmaker has a new plan to circumvent this decision. State Rep. Joseph M. Fischer (R) is happy to let same-sex couples marry, but only different-sex couples will be able to enter “matrimony.”

Fischer has introduced HB 572, the “Matrimonial Freedom Act” — an epic 454-page bill that creates the new status of “matrimony.” Declaring that the Supreme Court has established an “absolute Tyranny over these States,” the bill asserts, “we have full power to define marriage and to establish a new institution of matrimony in this Commonwealth,” adding, “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

“Matrimony” is a simple concept. Any couple can marry, and any individual who is married is considered to be part of a “matrimony” if “the married couple is composed of two individuals of the opposite sex.” Conversely, the bill outlines that “if the married couple is composed of two individuals of the same sex,” it is not considered a “matrimony”:
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “matrimony” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one male human being (“husband”) and one female human being (“wife”) united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
The bill is over 450 pages long because, once it defines “matrimony,” it proceeds to add the term throughout all of Kentucky law. For the statutes that define the basic parameters of marriage, duplicate language is added defining “matrimony” by the exact same parameters. But anywhere that the law outlines a privilege, benefit, or responsibility previously made available to marriage, the word “marriage” is replaced by the word “matrimony.”

For example, the bill amends Kentucky statute 216.515, which addresses the rights of residents of long-term care facilities. Where that law grants married residents the right of private spousal visits as well as the right to a shared room with their spouse if they both live in the same facility, HB 572 replaces the word “is married” to “has entered into matrimony.” Thus, the law would only apply to married different-sex couples, not married same-sex couples.

A cursory glance at the long bill suggests that it effectively removes all marital rights from every possible state statute, from parenting rights to insurance rights and so on — reserving these privileges only for couples that have “entered into a matrimony.”

Fischer’s long bill has a short partner, HB 571, which would amend the Kentucky Constitution to declare, “Only a matrimony between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a matrimony in Kentucky” — just in case the law didn’t make it clear.

It seems highly unlikely that the separate-and-unequal status of matrimony would pass any sort of constitutional muster. Justice Anthony Kennedy made clear in the majority opinion in Obergefell that the language of “marriage” was irrelevant. “The challenged laws [banning same-sex marriage] burden the liberty of same-sex couples,” he wrote, “and they abridge the central precepts of equality.” The laws were unequal because “same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples.”

Fischer’s plan of providing benefits only to opposite-sex couples through a “matrimony” runs directly afoul of this reasoning. A marriage by any other name enjoys the same constitutional protection.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"I'm running away from Billboard Christianity that plasters slogans and quotes on t-shirts and newsfeeds ..." Isn't that the only kind of xtianity there is?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Gosh. I have a ton more reasons why it should suck to be a Christian. He never even scratched the surface.
*  Just remember...you can be a decent human being without deference to supernaturalism and superstition. Swallowing b.s and worshipping a monster will not let you live forever no matter how much you convince yourself.
*  I'm an American and not Christian.  If you need that sentence explained to you, you're part of the problem.
*  Keep your gospels to yourself and those who believe as you do. You will be a lot better off in the long run. If you disagree, please give me your address and I will come knock on your door at dinner time and offer to tell you about the great and mighty flying spaghetti monster in the sky. He asked that I spread his word about angel hair pasta to the world. Deny him and you will go to a place where sauce will never stick to your pasta and have to eat that way for eternity. Bow to him for he is the one true pastafarian. Ramen.
*  I too used to believe the Christian faerie tale until the behaviour of the Church towards gay people made it impossible to keep up the pretense. I decided that if I needed an imaginary friend perhaps a gay god like Apollo might be more suitable, but I decided to embrace the truth of atheism instead. Wise choice, I'd say.
*  You know you've created God in your own image and likeness, when God hates all the same people that YOU hate.
...................................................................................................................................................................
It Really Sucks to Be a Christian Right Now
By Steve Austin, March 1, 2016

I don't like being a Christian today. Actually, I should say, I don't like most Christians today. Wait. What I really mean is, I don't want to fight with Christians anymore.

I was once a youth pastor, a speaker, a worship leader, an avid blogger, and a radio host. Everything that entered my brain was spit out in 140-characters. I remember the days of running to church, running to leadership positions in the youth group, running to conferences and conventions and choirs. I remember running to tell others of my faith. I remember running to Bible studies and opportunities to spur others on and sharpen one another.

These days I run away.                                                                                                                                                                                

I cringe when I think of sitting and discussing anything more than the extremely superficial with those who aren't my most-trusted confidants. I'm content to show up five minutes after Sunday service starts, sit on the third row from the back with my wife and children, and sneak out during the benediction. For the first time in ten years, I have no leadership role or even anything that would resemble involvement in my local church. I go a few times a month, and that's it.

Why am I ok living this way? Because I've stepped out of the conflict among Christians. When I am anonymous, I have no chance to offend someone with a Facebook post, to feel like I have to choose sides in a cultural debate in order to honor God, or to be ostracized for seeing the world differently.

I'm too liberal for the Republicans and too conservative for the Democrats. I'm a 30-something Southerner, born and raised in the buckle of the Bible Belt. I was dunked by the Baptists, spoke in tongues in the Assemblies of God, went to a Church of God college, returned to my Baptist roots as a youth pastor, became a Methodist, and now I'm back in the with the AG's, but agrees with about 80 percent of the Catholic Church's teachings. I attended George W. Bush's first inauguration as a senior in high school but have voted Democrat in at least one general election. I study the King James Bible with a concordance but I read The Message on my iPhone for enjoyment, while having a glass of wine and smoking a cigar.

I'm a walking contradiction.

Maybe there was once room for people like me. Maybe everyone is like me, if we're all honest with each other. But our culture no longer allows contradictions. I run from discussions with other Christians because it almost always ends poorly. A loss of friendship, a loss of faith, a loss of fervor. I'm tired of being burned.

But maybe disengaging from any political or cultural stance is actually making me a more faithful follower of Christ.

I'm running away from Billboard Christianity that plasters slogans and quotes on t-shirts and newsfeeds, but I'm running toward the Jesus of the Gospels, who takes me just as I am, despite my contradictions. I don't know if the rapture will actually happen and I don't know the solution to the refugee problem. I don't know if Donald Trump is a Christian any more than I know how I feel about Hillary Clinton's private email server. I don't know if the King James Bible is the only legitimate version or if The Shack is actually heresy.

But God never asked me to know any of this.

I don't have all the answers, but I do know Jesus. So maybe my political views don't matter anyway. What I know for sure is God loves me, and wants me to love my neighbor. I am doing my very best, as a very broken human being, to live these two realities out in the best way I know how. Otherwise, I'm keeping my mouth shut.

I used to live my life publicly, but I no longer have the energy to fight with other Christians. Maybe running away from the fight is the best way for me to run towards Christ.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The fact that Justice Thomas even questioned the fairness of prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns, never mind broke his 10-year silence to do it, speaks volumes with respect to his misguided priorities."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Justice Thomas, please go silent for another decade or two. Thanks, women everywhere.
*  It's disgracful that anyone (glenn) disputes how wrong this question is because there is so much daily evidence of abusers killing intimate partners. It's an epidemic and guns give these cowards an easy way out.
*  Are you really that stupid? The abuser, no matter which gender, is the one who should be prohibited from owning gun. If you don't want someone to take your guns away, then stop abusing women.
*  A day or two ago, I read an article about a policewoman who was killed the day after she was sworn in. The cause: She responded to a call involving domestic violence.  If Blue Lives Really Matter, we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Those people definitely include anyone with a history of domestic violence of any kind.
*  This man is certainly far from being the brightest bulb in the chandelier and how he ended up on the SCOTUS is way, way beyond me.
    *  It was a cynical move by Daddy Bush to replace a Black liberal with a Black conservative. Exactly what they don't want to allow Obama to do in the reverse.
...................................................................................................................................................................


Justice Clarence Thomas Speaks About Arming Domestic Abusers
By John Rosenthal, February 29, 2016

Last Tuesday, in the middle of the night in Phoenix Arizona, a 26-year-old man shot his mother, father and two younger sisters, then set the house on fire.

On Wednesday, a 71-year-old woman was watching television when her husband walked in the room naked and began firing shots at her, he then left the room and shot himself in the head.

On Thursday, a convicted domestic abuser with a lengthy criminal record in Kansas entered his workplace after being served with a protective order and murdered three coworkers and injured 12 others.

On Friday, a Washington man murdered his wife, her two teenage sons, and their neighbor before killing himself.

On Saturday, a Virginia father killed his wife after she had alerted the police to a domestic dispute, when the police arrived he killed a young police officer on her first day on the job and injured two others.

On Sunday, a 36 year-old Ohio man killed his girlfriend after the two had an argument, he later killed himself.

Today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke his 10-year silence during oral arguments to question whether or not it was fair to prohibit convicted misdemeanor domestic violence abusers from owning guns.

In addition to the legal arguments made by the government attorney, it is important to note that a gun present in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500 percent. Similar to sexual assault, women are murdered by and large by men already in their life, not strangers. In one study, female homicide victims knew their killer in 94 percent of incidences. Another study found that 34 percent of the time a woman's killer was a former or current intimate partner. In contrast, only 2.5 percent of male homicide victims were killed by their former or current intimate partner.

A third study found that 57 percent of mass shootings were domestic violence related, so while women only make up 15 percent of the total gun homicide victims, they make up 50 percent of the mass shootings victims. In addition, nearly 30 percent of mass shooting perpetrators had a history of domestic violence charges.

All people have a right to safety from preventable gun violence. To suggest that the firearm rights of known domestic violence offenders should be prioritized over the safety of their abused partners, is outrageous. The fact that Justice Thomas even questioned the fairness of prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns, never mind broke his 10-year silence to do it, speaks volumes with respect to his misguided priorities. Today I couldn't help but speak up. But unlike Justice Thomas, I will not speak up for abusers. I am speaking up for the thousands of women being intimidated and murdered by their partners with firearms that they should no longer have the right to own.

Prohibiting known domestic abusers from owning guns is just common sense and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should know as much.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

"The Republican mainstream is clearly not as organized, or as coordinated, as the Democratic side. The GOP has been lurching toward dysfunction for decades ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
2016 isn't the 'year of the political outsider'
By Noah Berlatsky, March 1, 2016

The conventional wisdom goes like this: 2016 is the year of the political outsider. As one, the electorate has risen up to reject the stale, be-suited, lobbyist boot-licking, establishment-approved drones, and has instead opted for edgy populist authenticity — right or left, it hardly matters. Poofy white hair and gaudy orange hair are in; sober perfect coiffures are out. People are sick of broken promises and bank bailouts, and the establishment can do nothing but tremble weakly before all that righteous democratic wrath.

That's the narrative that's generally been used to explain the surprising success of Bernie Sanders on the Democrats' side and the stunning ascendancy of Donald Trump on the Republicans'. The Vermont senator is a self-declared socialist who romped to victory over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and who continues to win the hearts of young voters, despite Clinton's persistent leads elsewhere. Trump, meanwhile, is a businessman and reality television star who has never held public office. Yet he has won primary after primary with a mix of blustering braggadocio and sneering appeals to anti-immigrant nativism.

Is this really a sign that outsiders are strong and the center is weak? That isn't exactly the narrative that emerges when you look more closely at Clinton vs. Sanders. Yes, Sanders is an unusual candidate, and one with relatively little support among Democratic Party actors. But he didn't emerge as the alternative to Clinton because he's an outsider. He emerged as the chief rival for Clinton because other, more mainstream candidates declined to get in the race. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Kaine, Julian Castro, John Kerry — none of them ran.

And why didn't they run? Maybe the entire Democratic field just didn't feel like bothering this time out. But it seems more likely that nobody ran because Hillary Clinton, who has been running for president for a decade (if not more), sewed up support within the party well before the first ballots were printed, much less cast. Clinton effectively outmaneuvered and defeated all her mainstream opponents very early on, which is why none of them (except poor Martin O'Malley) decided to challenge her.

With Warren and Biden and everyone out of the way, the path was open for Sanders to position himself as her sole opponent. There's no doubt he's run a strong campaign, but he's also clearly fallen short of the vote percentage he'd need to win the election in every contest so far — brutally so in South Carolina. His chances to win the nomination are low and fading — which just underlines that he, or someone like him, was always the candidate Clinton wanted fo face. The fact that an outsider became the main challenger has less to do with pent-up, wholesale rejection of the mainstream, and more to do with the fact that the mainstream consolidated early. Sanders' rise is a result of Clinton's strength, not her weakness.

The Republican mainstream is clearly not as organized, or as coordinated, as the Democratic side. The GOP has been lurching toward dysfunction for decades, and more so than ever since George W. Bush's disastrously failed presidency. Still, there's a real sense in which Trump's rise is due as much to the party's strengths as to its weaknesses. In a year where a Republican victory in the general election seemed at least as likely as not, the GOP drew a crowded, qualified conservative field of current and former governors and senators, including Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, and yes, even Ted Cruz, whose much-vaunted outsider status is more a pose than a reality. It's not so much that no one could stand against the wave of outsider resentment as that all the powerful insiders thumped each other so thoroughly that the outsider was able to sneak around the bloodied remains.

Still, a competent party should have been able to winnow its bevy of insider candidates down before there was quite so much Trump-mentum. But the problem isn't that party insiders lack power. The problem is that they put their power behind the wrong candidate: Jeb Bush.

The GOP never adequately dealt with George W.'s legacy of lost wars and financial collapse, which they want to forget but haven't been willing to reject. Jeb's entrance into the race, complete with last name, gave the party the equivalent of a neurotic collapse, as they proved unable to either nominate him or coalesce around anyone else while he was still in the game. In that sense, the suggestion that Trump knocked Bush out of contention seems exactly reversed. Instead, it's Bush and his family who laid the GOP establishment low, so Trump could walk over it.

This year, as most years, there are many voters who dislike politicians in Washington; hating politicians in Washington is a tradition that goes back to Thomas Jefferson, at least. But the argument that there's some giant populist upswell of left and right against the middle isn't convincing. The Democratic Party structure looks as strong as, or stronger than, its ever been. The Republicans are a mess — but that's at least as much because of the center's combustible mixture of strengths and weaknesses as it is because of some sort of spontaneous sweeping populist anger.

The "year of the outsider" sounds both revolutionary and gratifyingly bipartisan. But it obscures more than it reveals. The election is not about cross-ideological populist anger. It's about one party that is functioning quite well, thank you, and another that is not.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson ... goes to bed every night praying that the GOP nominee is a 'person of integrity, intelligence, ideas and courage.'" That's not Drumpf.... er, Trump.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Not to be backed by the republican establishment, is a victory in itself. Now may the people be heard without the demagogue leadership informing the citizens and the political puppets what they think is best and taking this country down!
   *  Normally, I would agree with that. But Trump is even worse than the Republican establishment, as bad as that is!
*  The Choice is either supporting: Führer Trump, or Being a Decent American who opposes Racism, Fascism, and Misogyny.
*  i notice none of the elected present are taking blame for the wreck they have stood watch for, and are content to let the ship of state sail on with further clones of the motley crew that brought the Columbia to such a passage.  ...................................................................................................................................................................
A look at what GOP governors, senators say about Trump
By Associated Press, February 29, 2016

Governors and senators are often regarded as political bellwethers in their states during the presidential primaries. But 2016 is no typical election year, with Donald Trump as the GOP front-runner.

The Associated Press surveyed some of America’s Republican governors and senators, and looked at their public statements about Trump. Here’s what they had to say:

ALABAMA

“Obviously he must have thought that David Duke, and that type of person, was OK with people in Alabama and the South. I want to tell you they are not OK with us,” said Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley.

Bentley said Trump’s rival Ohio Gov. John Kasich was “really the only grown-up in the room,” but that at the end of the day he will back whoever is the final GOP nominee.

GEORGIA, INDIANA, KANSAS, MISSISSIPPI, TEXAS:

Each of the governors from these states, all Republicans, said they would support whoever wins the GOP nomination but stopped short of expressing any enthusiasm for Trump.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback put it this way: “I’ll support the Republican nominee over Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott offered this twist: “I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is going to be. But that Republican nominee is going to be Ted Cruz.”

Indiana Sen. Dan Coats said: “I am increasingly concerned by Donald Trump’s statements and behavior, and I have serious concerns about his ability to win the general election and provide presidential leadership.” His comment about Trump came in a statement endorsing Trump rival Marco Rubio.

FLORIDA

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has said he doesn’t plan to make an endorsement before his state’s March 15 primary. But writing in USA Today in January, he said the excitement for Trump among voters comes from more than his “ability to give the most interesting interviews or speeches.”

“I think he is capturing the frustration of many Americans after seven years of President Obama’s very intentional government takeover of the U.S. economy,” Scott wrote.

MAINE

Maine Gov. Paul LePage said in a radio interview that Trump “wants to make America great again” and that the candidate “is the only one doing that right now.” But Sen. Susan Collins had backed Jeb Bush. A spokeswoman for the GOP moderate said Collins won’t “be making any further endorsements until the nominating process has concluded.”

MARYLAND

Gov. Larry Hogan’s chief of communications, Matt Clark, said in a telephone interview he was declining “to answer a hypothetical” on whether Hogan would support Trump, because Trump is not yet the nominee. He added in an email follow-up: “It’s premature to speculate on who the Republican nominee will be. The overwhelming majority of Americans have not cast a vote for any candidate in a primary, and that includes Governor Hogan.”

MASSACHUSETTS

Gov. Charlie Baker has ruled out voting for Donald Trump in the Massachusetts Republican primary, saying “he’s not my guy and he’s not my candidate.” The Republican on Monday indicated he was choosing between Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Baker wouldn’t say whether he would support Trump if the New York billionaire emerged as the party’s nominee and says he isn’t willing to concede that Trump will win the nomination at this point.

MICHIGAN, TENNESSEE

These Republican governors provided mostly non-answers on whether they’ll back Trump if he’s nominated.

“We’re not there yet. One of the important things about the democratic process is that you let it happen. And we’re in the middle of that,” said Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s spokesman Ari Adler said: “We are not answering a hypothetical question about an election in November for which we don’t even know who all the candidates will be.”

WISCONSIN

Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who ended his own bid for the nomination last fall, said he signed a pledge that he wouldn’t support anyone other than the GOP nominee “and I’m a person of my word.”

But when Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson was asked on a radio show whether he would support Trump, the Republican would only say that he goes to bed every night praying that the GOP nominee is a “person of integrity, intelligence, ideas and courage.” He added that “these elections are just ... it’s just depressing.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"To judge by some of the comments after the Latino service, if the election were held today, Trump would get zero." Zero for a zero!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Evangelical voters scare me also. People who base their vote on dogma to an ancient book over reality of the world makee nervous.
    *  Basing their vote on an ancient book would be a good idea,  If they would take the New Testiment as a guide.  Unfortunatly, the old, angry, vengful, mystical testament Is what they choose.
*  The only people who believe that Drumpf has a chance at taking the WH, are the completely deluded, wide-eyed bigots and all-'round haters - most of whom call themselves christian. The reality, however, is that without at least 40% of the Hispanic/Latino and African-American votes, the closest Drumpf will ever come to the WH is as a tourist on the mid-day tour. Dream on, TrumpChumps.
*  Evangelical Latinos do themselves a great disservice voting for ANY republican.
*  Everyone on Trump's side makes a big deal about him winning 44% of Hispanics in Nevada, forgetting that Nevada is a closed primary, and about 11% of Hispanics are Republican. Trump got 44% of 11% of Hispanics in Nevada. He should not expect to do much better nationally.
*  Every time a politician is "motivated by God" a lot of people end up dead.
*  IMHO if Trump is doing well with any Evengelicals they are probably the ones espousing the "End Times" and are hoping he will hasten them along by starting the war to end all wars in the Middle East. Then they can all be carried away in the rapture...but wait, they won't ALL be taken, the vast majority will have to wait for the final judgement. Nahhh...they're sure that THEY will be the ones taken...not the ones from the church down the street. THEIR faith is the TRUE one...Uh Huh...
...................................................................................................................................................................
In A Houston Megachurch, Bad Omens For Trump And The GOP Come November

At the Latino and youth services at Lakewood Church, fans of The Donald are hard to find.

By Howard Fineman, February 29, 2016

If today’s Republican Party had a mother church, it might be Joel Osteen’s suburban Lakewood Church, an evangelical outreach machine with an arena sanctuary, 50,000 members and a service on Sirius radio, so that you can be saved via satellite.

It’s also a good place to see where the GOP’s 36-year-old Reagan-built base is becoming outmoded, like the Brutalist architecture of the downtown buildings here and the shabby concrete on the triple-decker highway overpasses.

In many ways, Donald Trump is the logical summation and endpoint of a Republican Party built primarily on the support of straight, church-going white people, especially in the South.

And interviews with some of the Lakewood faithful suggest that if Trump is the GOP presidential nominee, that demographic could well become a prison from which there would be no escape other than a woman named Hillary in the White House.

After Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012, the Republican National Committee published a blunt self-analysis, insisting that the party would face doom if it did not massively reach out to Latinos, gay people, millennials and the rest of the remixed society of 21st-century America.

At Lakewood, where the main interest is saving souls wherever you can find them and whatever they look like, they understand what the GOP analysts were saying.

A recent youth service in the early evening looked like any concert scene, except that of the thousands of young people in the rows and aisles, some were clutching dog-eared study Bibles as they swayed to loud country-rock tunes about being saved.

It was a hip, integrated young crowd: interracial couples, plenty of piercings, hobnail boots, neon hair. And no love for Trump.

“As far as I’m concerned, he’s a fringe candidate,” said Charlie Hurd, 26, a former college basketball player who now teaches elementary school gym. He sat in a side row with a Bible open on his lap.

“His whole thing is to say nasty things and not offer anything real," Hurd said. "And the things he is offering aren’t going to help.”

Preston Jameson, 24, a mattress store manager, said that he was sticking with home-state Sen. Ted Cruz in part because he doesn’t buy the idea that Trump is a real Christian, given his bluster and bitter antagonisms. “I want a politician who's motivated by faith in God," he said.

Trump is doing well among evangelicals generally, and may well win the category in most of the states on Super Tuesday. But the sentiment at the Lakewood youth service is a larger warning for the party, in 2016 and beyond.

An afternoon service for Latinos, held in both Spanish and English and attended by several thousand people, offered up even more for the GOP to worry about. Evangelical Christian Latinos, many of whom are converts from Catholicism, are a growing and increasingly important constituency in realms of both faith and politics.

They are the tip of the spear of what was, once upon a time, the Bush family’s successful effort to reach out for Latino votes. In his second-term races for both governor of Texas and president of the U.S., George W. Bush won over 40 percent of that vote.

To judge by some of the comments after the Latino service, if the election were held today, Trump would get zero.

“If Donald Trump is the nominee, then Hillary Clinton will be president and none of the people here today will vote for him,” said Hilda Flores, a Republican who owns a wedding venue business. “I am a Republican, but the idea that he is going to try to deport 11 million people -- wrong! Wrong!"

"I’m not for Ted Cruz either, for that reason," she went on. "I’m going with Marco Rubio. At least he has tried to do something to make a deal on that.”

Patrick Campbell, a white man who was attending the service with his Latina wife, agreed as he hurried out the door with his kids.

“Donald Trump?" he said. "Forget it!”

In 2012, Romney won only 27 percent of the Latino vote. He lost badly among millennials as well.

Trump -- who's unpopular with Hispanic voters and under-30 voters nationwide -- will have to do a YUGE amount of repenting if he hopes even to approach Romney's performance among the youth and Latinos of Lakewood, judging from the Sunday before Super Tuesday.

Editor's note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Hillary is the only candidate who will not need on the job training."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Cheers for a very well written, thoughtful, insightful oped. I completely agree and only hope most American's voting will understand this is a job, just like any other.... I won't even begin to describe the absolute mess the GOP is running into, while the Democratic base smoothly flows without horrendous, childish attacks on one another to the point of Congress men/women beside themselves trying to "figure out" what they'll do if Trump wins the nomination... Sad day.  Nevertheless, again, well thoughtout and written in portraying Hillary's achievements that make her the MOST QUALIFIED candidate for the top job of the US of A!!!! She's got my vote.
*  I am so tired of hearing she voted for the war. Nobody voted for the war. They voted to allow Bush to take us to war if he decided it was necessary
*  We will be so lucky to have her continue to build on Obama's presidency. Him and Clinton the greatest presidents inbrecent history.
*  "Establishment" Democrats brought you social security, medicare, and medicaid. They brought you civil rights and tthe right of women to control their own bodies. I LIKE establishment Democrats. Wake up. You're putting the people who want to take all of that away into a position in which they can do it. If they win Congress, the Presidency, and 1 supreme court appoitnment, they will be able to take it all away.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Give Hillary Clinton Another Look
By Madeleine M. Kunin, February 29, 2016

It's time to give Hillary Clinton another look. I've known her for a long time, and I've known Bernie even longer.

Most people have forgotten that Bernie Sanders ran against me as an independent for governor in 1986. I had just completed my first term. He received 14 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

His message then was the same as it is today: income inequality. The difference is that today his words are booming out to the entire country. And his words resonate.

I don't argue with his message; I argue whether that message alone qualifies Bernie to be president.

I've known Hillary and worked with her. She can be serious and funny. She inspires fervent camaraderie in her staff. She is the most intelligent woman I have ever met.

More importantly, she has the right temperament to lead us safely through the labyrinths of a dangerous world. She is both tough enough to be commander in chief, and compassionate enough to understand what our country needs to do to restore faith in the American Dream.

I first knew Hillary at governor's conferences when she sat there as President Clinton's spouse at the side of the conference table, taking notes while working for the Children's Defense Fund. I knew her when I was deputy secretary of education, and she took on the brave health care reform fight. Sometimes I sat in the same room with Hillary and Bill. What I remember most is not the subject being discussed, but their equal respect for one another. She paid close attention to what he said, and he listened intently to what she said. I learned what a good listener she was.

When I was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland (1996-99) I saw her negotiate with world leaders and receive respect. At the Davos World Economic Forum in 1997, (where we took time out to ski together), after she had given her speech, presidents and prime ministers were already urging her to run for president.

I was there in in 1995 at the Fourth World Women's Conference in Beijing when I heard her voice soar over the crowd of thousands of women gathered from very part of the world, under stormy skies in drenched sari's and black burkas: "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights."

I can still hear the exultant cheers that made the sun come out. Year after year, Hillary has been voted the most admired woman in the world.

I trust Hillary. I trust her to keep our country safe, I trust her to motivate our country to take the lead on fighting climate change, I trust her to reduce the extraordinary high level of child poverty, which she focused on in her book, "It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us," published 20 years ago.

The truth is, she cares for the same people as Bernie does -- those who are left out. The difference is that she understands -- through years of experience and activism -- that American revolutions have never occurred overnight. Even the LGBT revolution, unusually swift as it was, is happening 47 years after the Stonewall riots in New York City. Change happens in America, more rapidly than in other countries but we move forward step by step.

And I trust her to raise American families' income by giving us equal pay for equal work, affordable childcare and paid family and medical leave.

And, most importantly, I trust her to respond competently and carefully to whatever crises our country may face in 2017 and beyond.

Hillary is the only candidate who will not need on the job training. She will not make a rookie mistake, and she will stand toe to toe with anyone -- a five star general, a committee chairman, or Vladimir Putin.

Why do I trust her? Because she has fought for these changes for her entire public life. Women running for high office or seeking a promotion in the private sector are often told they are not qualified. Then they work hard to get more experience, obtain another degree, and wait patiently for their qualifications to be recognized, only to discover that they are turned down because they have become "over qualified" We cannot allow that to happen to Hillary.

I like what Bernie stands for, but I believe Hillary is ready to be president.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Ah, yes, good ol' Mitch McConnell.....

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