#DearJohn: For When Boehner Decides Your Rape Just Wasn’t Enough
Yep, you got that right! The job-focused, tax-focused economy-building new Congress is getting started right away, with a bill to… deny health coverage to rape survivors.
Oh, but, you know, that only applies the rape survivors who just don’t count. Meaning the majority of rape survivors. Under this new bill, the only rape survivors who would be able to receive funding would be those who were able to prove that their rapes involved “force.” If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don’t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don’t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape — that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family — you don’t get coverage. If you’re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen — if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday — you just don’t get coverage. And if you live in a state that doesn’t distinguish “forcible rape” from “rape,” you might not qualify, meaning that no matter what the circumstances of your assault were, well, sorry: You might not get coverage.
Please read Sady Brown’s piece on this and how it would be restricting to rape and incest survivors. Then call your representative and tell them you do not want this. Along with every Republican, there are quite a few Democrats who are also supportive of this measure. They include D Boren [D-OK2], J Costello [D-IL12], M Critz [D-PA12], J Donnelly [D-IN2], D Lipinski [D-IL3], C Peterson [D-MN7], N Rahall [D-WV3], M Ross [D-AR4], H Shuler [D-NC11].
Marianne, live on the last night of the Dew Drop Inn tour in Boulder, Colorado on November 11, 1996.
When I started recording this record, it was very interesting because none of these record guys wanted to let a woman produce her own record. They were very, very nervous about letting me do this and they were much more nervous when they heard it. But what sort of happened was I turned in the record, and I’ve never really had such a moment in my life. I mean, things were kind of better when I pooped in my pants. And I walked in… and you know, I’d sold millions of records for this company… and I walked in, I’d had some pizza and a nice glass of wine and I was like, “oh, we’ll meet the new girls and I know it’s a little dark but you know, everyone needs a good bottle of wine and some depressing songs every once in a while.” And so I walked in, and this is what I met. [Tori stares deadpan at the audience for 12 seconds.] So basically, what I said was, after this record went platinum, I said, “well, we didn’t do it because of anything you all did.” So I’m just saying it was because of you guys. Record companies, radio had absolutely fuck all to do with any of this whole year. And that’s the truth. But the one thing is, you guys did it. And this is one song that demanded to come tonight, because although she’s not on this planet anymore, she was probably the main song that gave me strength to withstand when everyone had said that I’d made a piece of shit.
A recently completed investigation of the killing of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan nine years ago makes public new evidence that a senior al-Qaeda operative executed the Wall Street Journal reporter.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, who is being held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — said at a military hearing in 2007 that he killed Pearl. But there have been lingering doubts about his involvement, and the United States has not charged him with the crime.
According to the new report, which was prepared by faculty members and students at Georgetown University, U.S. officials have concluded that vascular technology, or vein matching, shows that the hand of the unseen man who killed Pearl on video is that of Mohammed.
Then, shortly after, I read a comment from Andrew Breitbart in relation to throwing a "big ol’ gay party" at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference:
I will be the harshest critic of the activist gay left, who I fear more than al-Qaida.
"Gay left" > religious terrorists who kidnap and murder American journalists? Classy.
“Imagine if Palin had come out and said, “My initial response was to defend the fact that I had never condoned such violence, and never would. But the fact is, if I in any way contributed to an unhealthy political climate, I have to be more careful and deliberate in my public language rather than merely sharpen my defenses.” That would’ve been leadership: It would have made her critics look small, and it would’ve made her look big. Those who doubted whether Palin could rise to an occasion that called for more than sharp partisanship would’ve been silenced.”—
Great piece from Klein on Sarah Palin’s video response. This is exactly what I was hoping Palin would do but sadly didn’t. I do not blame her for the shootings but I think figureheads need to take responsibility for their words instead of hiding behind more words.
…and not blame “sides” or political affiliations for what led up to the shootings yesterday. I do think some people need to own up for recent gun-toting speak (please see Sean T. Collins’ piece on the disturbing trend of militarization in recent politics), and hopefully they will realize there’s no place in politics for it, but i realize that while they do speak for groups of people, it is not the majority. Instead of pointing at people and blaming them these days after, I think it’s more interesting and telling to see how they’re blaming others.
I came across a tweet today that said, in all caps, “DEMOCRAT GROUP USING SHOOTING AS FUNDRAISER ATTEMPT” with a link to this article on Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site, with relatively the same title as the tweet. That does sound pretty damning and I wanted to know who was trying to profit off of this horrible tragedy. In his piece, Warner Todd Huston says:
The email goes on to ask members to “join us in sharing your thoughts and prayers to the Congresswoman and her family by visiting our website where we have set up a page for you to do so.” Naturally once you click on the link you are taken to a page that prominently displays the group’s DONATE NOW button. It is not in the slightest way discreetly designed. As soon as you go to this so-called prayers page you see a large button asking for donations and another one underneath it urging visitors to “sign up” for email blasts and information.
Disgustingly, 21st Century Democrats is using this crime in a fundraising effort.
Gauche is hardly a strong enough word to describe this action.
But when you click on that link in his piece and go to the site of 21st Century Democrats, this is what you see:
A letter regarding the shooting, sending prayers to Giffords and her family, and then below the letter is a spot to enter your own message to share. This “prominently” displayed “DONATE NOW” button is nothing more than something set up in the sidebar that is part of the webpage design, and appears on every one of their pages because it’s, you know, part of the design. Not once in that letter are they asking for donations but according to Huston, this is a “fundraising effort.”
Sarah Palin also released a statement on the tragedy yesterday, which was placed on her SarahPAC site:
I don’t think Sarah Palin is trying to use this as a fundraising event but by Huston’s own speech, she might be.
It’s disturbing to me to read this continued hateful speech that is happening a day after this atrocious incident. It’s not progressing any discussion about the facts or possible solutions and is instead only continuing to divide this country in a time when we need to come together.
Reading the comments on Huston’s piece is even more disturbing. I won’t post them here but I only found one comment that denounced Huston’s piece that this as a fundraising event and they were attacked by other commenters.
My friend Ruben called me yesterday, after word got out about the shootings in his adopted home state of Arizona. “It finally happened,” he said. ‘Finally’ being the key word — for those of us who have lived in Arizona, yesterday’s events had a disturbing sense of inevitability. We had been waiting, powerless, for something like this to happen.
In Arizona, politicians are used to finding themselves in the literal line of fire. In August of 2009, during the height of health-care reform demonstrations, a protester was removed from a Giffords event at a supermarket when his pistol fell out of his holster and on to the floor. Months eariler, the glass front door of her office was shattered. During the general election campaign this year, her Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, invited supporters to come shoot automatic weapons with him. “Get on target for victory,” his ad read. “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office.” Kelly failed at the polls, but an automatic weapon may have removed Giffords from office after all.