Archives

New York Times

This tag is associated with 6 posts

It’s a “March for Life”

powerofone

2017 Theme March for Life

But if you want information about the (correction,  it’s Friday,  not Thursday,  repeat as necessary  ) Friday , January 27, 2017 March, you probably should search for “Anti-abortion March.”

The New York Times managed to “report” that Kellyanne Conway will speak at the 2017 National March for Life in Washington, DC on Friday , without once calling the March by its proper name. The only time the organization responsible for 44 years of the “Anti-abortion March” is named, is when giving the job title of the president of March for Life, Jeanne Mancini.

march-for-life-cropped-white-coat-january-22-2009-016

2009 National Rally for Life

This year’s March wasn’t held on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as it has been in the past, due to the inauguration events on Friday and, I suspect, the Women’s March on Saturday. The inauguration events didn’t prevent us from attending the 2009 March the day after Barack Obama was sworn in, but I imagine the concern about the two opposing groups clashing in front of the Supreme Court was just too much this year.

Friday  is probably not the best day for families, school groups and people who have regular jobs, but I expect it will be well attended, since we’ve been promised a “heavy administration presence.” There have been related Marches for Life all over the country all week (Idaho, San Francisco, Tulsa and Raleigh, where it was noted that both the Women’s March and the March for Life were held at the same time – but across town from one another.)

mygenerationYou might also search for “Rally for Life,” as the Texas Rally for Life will be held in Austin on Saturday, January 29.  Beginning at 12:00 – 1:00 PM, marchers will gather at 18th & N. Congress Ave. and then begin the short march to the South Steps of the Texas State Capitol.

(Edited to correct the day of the week of the March for Life in Washington,  DC.  BBN) 

March 9, 2016 Republican Delegate Count – UPDATE

Hawaii is in. Look here – or here – for updates.Further breakdown of allotments is available at the Washington Post website.  (UPDATE) The New York Times also has clear graphics (and faster) here:

NYT Delegate Tracker

NYT Delegate Tracker

.

 

Screenshot_20160309-065641

Washington Post Delegate Tracker

Sinking Economy? Obama says sink it faster

Hitting the debt ceiling, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and about to go over the “fiscal cliff” if a compromise isn’t worked out. The Obama strategy is to spend more, borrow more and pretty much sabotage the “bipartisan” deal.

How grand is that?

And who does the New York Times blame?

via Republicans Balk at Obama’s Short-Term Stimulus – NYTimes.com.

The Obama administration is arguing that the sluggish economy requires a shot in the arm, and it included tens of billions of dollars of little-noticed stimulus measures in its much-noticed proposal to Congressional leaders last week. But Republicans have countered that the country cannot afford to widen the deficit further, and have balked at including the measures in any eventual deal.

A cold, dark winter

Perhaps we could convince the Powers That Be that recovery from Hurricane Sandy calls for emergency measures and a kinder EPA?

Take a look at this New York Times article on energy regulations from yesterday.  I fear that due to the Obama re-election, the limits on US Energy source production, the restrictions on new refineries and plants, the mandates that choke current mining, drilling, manufacturing and processing will get worse through regulations from the Executive Branch, especially the Environmental Protection Agency.

Believe it or not, there are supposedly educated people convinced that “fracking” contaminates our water sources, ignoring the fact that the gas is 8000 to 10,000 feet under ground and water aquifers are much more shallow, at an average of around 500 feet below the surface. Even that Scientific American article admits that it’s highly unlikely that fracking is the cause of any contamination, given the relative depths. Note that the testing was near “natural gas wells,” and the authors blamed leaky pipes for the presence of gas in water, not the fracking. However, they apparently did not test near other well types or near gas pockets that weren’t tapped by humans.

And finally, perhaps it’s time for We The People to convince our Governors, State Attorneys General, and both State and Federal Legislators to invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Texas media lies about Texas “Sonogram Law”

An article, based on lies, by the Texas Tribune’s Emily Ramshaw was picked up by the New York Times Sunday (January 29th) edition.

The lies are neatly tied up in these two sentences:

” This past fall, doctors were required to start performing a transvaginal sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, a shift they say has had frustrating consequences for clinics and patients.”

and

“Now the physician performing the abortion — not an ultrasound technician, for example, or a secondary doctor — must conduct the sonogram on a separate day.”

(I have a “Google News search” for articles on the Texas Sonogram law, so I get emails as soon as they’re published. These same lies are duplicated in other articles and op-eds, like this one in “The Jurist,” from a law professor at the Saint Louis School of Law.)

Editor-in-Chief, Evan Smith, and Ramshaw at the Texas Tribune must know they’re publishing emotional falsehoods. Even Judge Sam Sparks knew better.

Anyone who has read the text of HB 15 or Judge Sam Spark’s ruling would know that we’ve had a formal informed consent process and a 24 hour waiting period since 2003, that there is no mandate to use a “transvaginal sonogram,” and that “an agent of the physician who is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers” may perform the sonogram. The doctor is required to show the sonogram “images,” to make the heartbeat audible and to describe the development of the embryo or fetus. That the language did not require that the actual, real-time sonogram be conducted by ” the physician performing the abortion” was clear to Judge Sparks. As he said,

     “The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate—in the best case by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in records that are,at best, semi-private.”

Still, Ramshaw revealed some truth:

    “. . . a scheduling struggle when doctors providing elective abortions are in short supply and rotate between clinics.

“They’ve had to set aside a whole other day doing ultrasounds, visits that in most parts of medicine would be dedicated to people with less training than a physician,” Hagstrom Miller said. “The effect on their travel schedule, on their reimbursement, on patients’ access to them has been tremendous.”

In the typical elective abortion, there’s rarely any on-going doctor-patient relationship and the real problem is bureaucratic and financial.  The clinic owners are mostly worried about the money and their ability to get doctors to show up for the informed consent and to return the next day to perform the abortion.

And it’s not all about money.  The doctors who “rotate between clinics” usually fly in, sometimes from another state, for “procedure day.” The “Sonogram law” doesn’t force the woman having the abortion to look at her sonogram. But it does force the doctor to spend time counseling the women – possibly more time than the abortion itself will require. They will now have to look the women in the eye and describe the development of the child. How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing the heart or limbs?

Obama: clueless or arrogant?

President Obama has announced his intention to address a joint session of Congress on night of the first Republican debate, September 7, 2011. Maybe the White House just didn’t know that NBC was set to broadcast the debate?

Believe it or not, the President’s press secretary indicates that the answer to my question is “arrogant:”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said “of course not” when asked whether White House officials chose the time of Mr. Obama’s speech to interfere with the Republican debate. “One debate of many was not reason not to have a speech when we wanted to have it,” he said.

According to Politico, one of the sponsors,

“Carney added that POLITICO and NBC News are “welcome” to reschedule the debate.”

According to the New York Times blog, The Caucus, 

NBC News, Politico and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation; it is to be televised by MSNBC, CNBC and the Spanish-language network Telemundo and streamed on the Internet by Politico. It is to be moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris.

@bnuckols tweets

Click here to get your “Choose Life” license plate

Rick Perry RickPAC

Yes, I'm still for Governor Perry!

RickPAC

What to read around here

Archives

SiteMeter