PEOPLE FOR BLOG

From Wisconsin to Washington, Anti-Choice Legislators Push Unconstitutional 20-Week Abortion Bans

In Congress and state legislatures across the country, right-wing politicians are pushing hard to construct new barriers to women exercising the constitutional right to have an abortion.

Earlier this month the U.S. House passed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and GOP legislators in Wisconsin are staging a parallel attack. They introduced a similar 20-week ban, which Gov. Scott Walker has indicated he would sign, and have scheduled a hearing on the bill for next week. PFAW supporters in Wisconsin will be out in force to demonstrate their commitment to protecting this core right.

A couple of important points about 20-week bans: first, they are plainly unconstitutional. One of the main holdings of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was a woman’s right to an abortion before the fetus becomes viable – that is, the point when a fetus could survive outside the uterus. As Imani Gandy writes at RH Reality Check:

In the past 40 years, the Court has never wavered from the fetal viability benchmark…Courts have consistently smacked down legislative attempts to ban abortions at 20 weeks. But states are undeterred by such pedestrian concerns as constitutionality.

Pushing these bans are a deliberate effort to prompt a challenge to the Roe decision, which anti-choice groups believe they can win.

Second, the overwhelming majority of abortions (close to 99 percent) happen before 21 weeks. Those that happen after that are often because of a complicated situation – such as the discovery of a severe fetal abnormality – and the path forward should be determined by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians looking to score points with their base.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these bans are part of an anti-choice agenda with a much broader goal: banning abortions across the board. From mandatory waiting period laws to “personhood” efforts which would give embryos full legal rights from the moment of conception, the anti-choice movement is playing the long game and slowly “chipping away at choice.”

When legislators try to insert themselves into decisions that should be made by women and their health care providers, it’s more than a political ploy. It’s a real threat to every woman’s health and autonomy.

PFAW

Arkansas Attorney General Delays Ballot Initiative to #GetMoneyOut: Coalition Will Continue Pressing

This week Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge rejected a proposed 2016 ballot initiative that seeks to increase disclosure in election spending and support an amendment to overturn Supreme Court cases like Citizens United. Groups leading the effort, including the Arkansas Democracy Coalition, People For the American Way and other national allies, plan to resubmit the ballot initiative language today, as the objections given by the attorney general are minor and can be easily addressed. Once submitted the attorney general will have ten business days to respond with her decision.

The rejection has generated a flurry of media attention and comes in the wake of a series of events in support of the initiative held last week in Little Rock. As PFAW and allies prepare to potentially launch a full-scale ballot initiative campaign, the decision of the Arkansas Attorney General remains an obstacle in the path of making Arkansas the 17th state to pass a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

Paul Spencer, Chairman of Regnat Populus, a convening organization of the Arkansas Democracy Coalition, said in a news release the group would revise the measure and submit a fifth version.

“The people of Arkansas deserve the opportunity to vote on these important issues,” he said. “We intend to respond to the very few points the attorney general has raised and trust that the office will not find any further reasons to block the campaign to put this on the ballot.”

PFAW

PFAW Telebriefing Explores Ferguson, Baltimore and the Fight for Racial Justice

As police violence plagues cities across the nation, communities are actively responding with initiatives to mitigate violence and work toward justice. Elected officials, faith leaders and community activists have come together to strengthen their communities in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore. As Pastor Barry Hargrove, president of the Progressive Baptist Convention of Maryland and an active minister in our African American Religious Affairs Program, explained, “There are lots of things happening behind the scenes, happening on the ground, that are not being reported.”

On Tuesday, PFAW hosted a telebriefing for members about the Black Lives Matter movement. PFAW Communications Director Drew Courtney moderated a dialogue among Hargrove, Missouri State Senator and member of affiliate PFAW Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network Maria Chappelle-Nadal, PFAWF Director of Youth Leadership and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, and PFAWF Director of African American Religious Affairs Leslie Watson Malachi.

In the telebriefing, these leaders answered questions about Baltimore and Ferguson and discussed progressive measures taking place in their own communities. In both Baltimore and Ferguson, local leaders have turned toward broad and responsive solutions – such as community policing, social justice education curricula, and prayer rallies – to address targeted violence against minorities.

Despite these steps, Chappelle-Nadal noted that there are still “a significant number of issues that have not been addressed by the legislature.” Chappelle-Nadal, as well as Hargrove, Gillum, and Malachi, encouraged participants to continue advocating for local policies that can help to provoke a systemic change in police practices and empower communities.

Call participants posed many productive questions, including a member who asked what steps could be taken to address tension between the police and communities. Hargrove suggested working within “spheres of influence,” whether it be faith-based organizations or public policy proposals. He also encouraged dialogues between police and community members; Chappelle-Nadal echoed this sentiment by urging citizens to build connections based on commonalities rather than differences.

Listen to the full briefing here:

PFAW

PFAW’s Drew Courtney Discusses Josh Duggar and Mike Huckabee Hypocrisy on ‘Politics Nation with Al Sharpton’

On Friday, PFAW Communications Director Drew Courtney joined Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s ‘PoliticsNation’ to talk about Mike Huckabee’s response to Josh Duggar’s sexual abuse scandal. After Duggar admitted to sexually abusing young girls as a teenager, Huckabee, a presidential hopeful, posted a lengthy Facebook status supporting Duggar and his family. He claimed Duggar was victimized by the public’s “insensitive bloodthirst” for scandal, and called Duggar’s actions inexcusable, but not unforgivable.

Courtney said that while he doesn’t believe he should tell Huckabee how to respond to the allegations, it is fair to look at how Huckabee has responded to other issues. As Courtney explained, Huckabee “responded with outrage when gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military. He responded with outrage every time we’ve seen laws to protect LGBT people at work.” And Courtney reminded viewers that Huckabee has even “responded with so much outrage to marriage equality that he’s compared gay people to Nazi propagandists and people who have sex with sheep.”

Huckabee’s support for the Duggars is shaded by his own hypocrisy, Courtney explained: Huckabee “seemed kind of stunned by the judgment that he feels the Duggars have received, but he’s responded with bitterness and judgment at every step along our country’s way to legal equality for gay people.” Courtney commented, “I hope that, frankly, [Huckabee] remembers this feeling next time he decides that he should be attacking gay and lesbian families in order to score some political points.”

Watch the clip here, from Mediaite. 
 

PFAW

Correcting an Imbalance: Expanding Benefits for Survivors of Domestic Violence in Montana

The following is a guest blog by Montana Representative Jenny Eck, a member of People For the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network and Minority Whip in the Montana House of Representatives.

It hasn’t been easy, but after years of debate and hard work, Montana now has a law extending the unemployment benefits available to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. This is a huge development. It means that someone trying to leave an abusive spouse can now focus on tasks like seeking counsel, navigating the legal system, looking for a new place to live, moving children into a new school district, or finding another job in a new town – without the added burden of finding the money to make it all happen.

At the bill’s signing, Governor Steve Bullock said, “No Montanan should be forced to choose between the physical safety of themselves and their children, and their economic security.” It’s a stark choice, and one that nobody should have to make.

Yet for the hundreds of women in recent years who have been murdered at their workplace by current or former intimate partners, this choice is all too real. Intimate partner violence is a leading cause of fatalities for women at work, and women are at a significantly higher risk than men of being the target of a violent act while on the clock. A 2012 Labor Department study found that of all workplace incidents of intimate partner violence from 1997 to 2010, 38 men were victims, while women numbered 346 over the same period. There are severe economic ramifications, too – according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, women in the U.S. lose around 8 million days of paid work each year because of intimate partner violence.

Leaving an abusive relationship is hard enough; the state shouldn’t make it even harder. Yet historically, that is precisely what Montana has done. Until HB 306 was signed into law, survivors of sexual assault were eligible for just 10 weeks of unemployment insurance. Victims of a natural disaster, on the other hand, were entitled to 28 weeks of benefits. This disparity was shocking; surely suffering the trauma of sexual assault can be just as debilitating as living through an earthquake or tornado.

The new law corrects this imbalance. Extending support to these survivors was the right thing to do, and it will save lives as a result.
 

PFAW Foundation

On the 7th Circuit, It's Time for Ron Johnson to Get Out of the Way

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson is once again playing politics with the nation's oldest appellate court vacancy. This time, he's changing the rules when they don't work for him, violating an agreement he previously made with fellow senator Tammy Baldwin. His latest efforts to delay filling a five year-old vacancy on the Seventh Circuit are absurd and should simply be ignored by the White House.

Here's the background: Since taking office in 2011, Johnson has been anything but cooperative. He set the tone just five days into his term, when he expressed opposition to nominee Victoria Nourse as well as district court nominee Louis Butler because he had not been consulted in advance on their nominations, both of which had occurred before he was even elected.

He also demanded changes in how Wisconsin's senators identify potential judges to recommend to the White House. For decades, senators had used a Federal Nominating Commission comprised of members selected by the senators. Consistent with practice in other states when one senator is not of the president's party, and regardless of whether the president at the moment happened to be a Democrat or a Republican, a Wisconsin senator of the president's party chose more commission members than the other senator. But Johnson refused to go forward unless he could name as many members as Baldwin, a demand Baldwin agreed to in 2013 in an effort to get the long-stalled process moving after years of inaction.

Under their agreement, each senator would name three commissioners. But to make sure he could keep the Seventh Circuit seat vacant for as long as possible, Johnson ensured that the commission not address that vacancy until it first made recommendations for two district court vacancies. Slowing the process even further, the commission was not allowed to work on the second district court vacancy until the president made a nomination for the first one. This meant that it was not permitted to even start looking for potential Seventh Circuit judges until last summer, 15 months after its formation.

The White House, consistent with its practice of extensive outreach to senators of both parties on judicial nominees, opted to cooperate with this effort. Although presidents generally give home-state senators substantial influence in selecting district court judges, senators usually play a much smaller role in filling circuit court seats. Nevertheless, even with the substantial delay built into the system, President Obama gave Johnson the benefit of the doubt and chose to hold off on a Seventh Circuit nomination until the Wisconsin senators could receive and act on the recommendations of the nominating commission.

But that effort failed. The Commission's charter required it to recommend no fewer than four and no more than six potential nominees to the senators within 75 days of the application deadline. If it couldn't do that, the senators could grant it a one-time 30-day extension. By the end of last year, it was clear that – under the charter that Johnson agreed to – the commission could not make any recommendations.

With the process that the senators asked the president to wait for completely broken down, the White House can make its nomination knowing that they've done all they can do to give the senators input.

Earlier this month, Sen. Baldwin sent the White House the names of the eight people who had advanced as far as the interview stage with the commission. She didn't express support or opposition for any of them. But with the commission process having failed under its own terms, Baldwin acted to make sure the White House could exercise its constitutional prerogative to move forward on the nomination with at least some useful information.

Johnson's response has been interesting. A couple of weeks ago, Johnson said the whole committee process should start again. Then late last week, he released a statement suggesting the White House should consider two of the applicants (those who had the support of five of the six commissioners). He accused Baldwin of a "unilateral breach of a successful agreement," although it is hard to describe an agreement as "successful" when it has undeniably failed under its own charter to make recommendations to the senators. He also claims that "[f]illing vacancies for federal judges in a particular state is the prerogative of the U.S. senators of that state," glossing over the distinction between circuit and district court nominations.

In his statement, Johnson claims he never wanted the commission charter to require a minimum number of circuit court recommendations. So now he is just ignoring the part of his agreement he negotiated that he didn't like. That turns the "give and take" of negotiating an agreement into a "take and take," which summarizes Johnson's actions relating to judicial nominations since he took office.

It isn't just Johnson's own history that provides context for recognizing the motivations behind his current actions. The past few weeks have seen plenty of examples of Republican senators trying to keep circuit court vacancies open for as long as possible rather than let President Obama fill them. Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey blocked committee consideration of Third Circuit nominee Phil Restrepo for half a year, until the local press coverage became too much for him to bear. In Indiana, Republican Senator Dan Coats this month called for the creation of a nominating commission to fill an Indiana slot on the Seventh Circuit. This came as a surprise to Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly, who noted that he's been working on identifying potential nominees for over a year consistent with an agreement he and Coats had reached. Of course, up-ending that agreement and moving to a commission process would create so much delay that it would likely be up to the next president to fill the vacancy, a president that Coats hopes will be a Republican.

But back to Wisconsin, where it is long past time to fill a vacancy that has been open for more than five years. Both President Obama and Senator Baldwin have gone to incredible lengths to accommodate Ron Johnson. Now that the system that he demanded and agreed to has fallen apart, it's time he got out of the way. If he has objections to whoever the president nominates, the proper place to air them will be at a Judiciary Committee hearing.

PFAW

The Growing Call to #GetMoneyOut

This week, local activists in 12 states delivered petitions in support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

Last September, a majority of the Senate voted in support of the Democracy For All Amendment, a proposal that would overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and let lawmakers put commonsense limits on money in elections.

Building off that progress, this week activists in more than 12 states delivered petitions to their House and Senate members asking them to support the Democracy For All Amendment. As wealthy special interests prepare to pour billions into the 2016 elections, ordinary Americans aren’t just shaking their heads. They are signing petitions, organizing events, lobbying their elected officials, and pushing for change.

In California, local leaders delivered 311,950 petitions – all signed by Californians who support an amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United – to Rep. Tony Cardenas. Their raised fingers represent the fight to protect the promise of “one person, one vote.”

In New York, activists did the same at the office of Rep. Yvette Clark.

One Maryland activist even hand-delivered his petitions directly to Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.

A number of local leaders in New Hampshire came out to deliver thousands of petitions to Sen. Kelly Ayotte...

…which caught the attention of local media.

All in all, more than five million Americans have signed petitions in support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics. Grassroots leaders across the country are going to keep up the pressure on their elected officials until support for the amendment in Congress reflects the overwhelming support among constituents.
 

PFAW

Arkansas Kicks Off 2016 Ballot Initiative to #GetMoneyOut

This week PFAW staff joined members of the Arkansas Democracy Coalition to kick off a 2016 ballot initiative campaign to increase disclosure in election spending and support a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court cases like Citizens United. The series of events, including a performance showcasing the story of legendary campaign finance activist Doris “Granny D” Haddock and a march for democracy through downtown Little Rock, culminated with a press conference on the steps of the state capitol building.



Speakers included Paul Spencer of Regnat Populus, a convening organization of the Arkansas Democracy coalition; Rep. Clarke Tucker, a member of the Arkansas state legislature; Rhana Bazzini, an 83-year-old woman who has marched hundreds of miles in the tradition of Granny D to promote campaign finance reform; and Rio Tazewell, the Government By the People campaign coordinator at People For the American Way. 

The Arkansas Democracy Coalition, in partnership with PFAW and other national allies, has submitted ballot language awaiting approval by the Arkansas Attorney General. Upon approval, a signature gathering campaign will launch to collect the 70,000 names needed to get the resolution on the ballot. If passed, the resolution would make Arkansas the 17th state on record in support of an amendment to get big money out of politics.

PFAW

Cornyn and Cruz Haven't Helped Their Own Judicial Nominee

The Senate is heading toward a weeklong Memorial Day recess with no sign that Majority Leader McConnell will schedule a vote to confirm a long-waiting judicial nominee from Texas. If Jose Rolando Olvera is not confirmed to the Southern District this week, it will be only the latest failure for Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz in looking after their state's federal courts.

The state has ten judicial vacancies, eight of which are judicial emergencies, and only one of which even has a nominee, despite extensive White House efforts to reach out to the senators.

But the focus this week is on Olvera. He was among four district court nominees – three Texans and one Utahan – approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee way back in February. Three months later, McConnell has allowed the Senate to vote on only two of them, the only judges confirmed so far in the 114th Congress. It is hard to imagine a legitimate reason to delay a vote for so long and deliberately keep a judicial vacancy open longer than necessary.

President Obama nominated Olvera after he was recommended by Cornyn and Cruz, and they praised Olvera and his fellow Texas nominees at their confirmation hearing in January. Yet on February 12, when committee chairman Chuck Grassley delayed a previously scheduled vote by two weeks without offering a reason, not a squeak of protest could be heard from either Cornyn or Cruz, both of whom are members of the Committee.

After they finally cleared the committee, they faced more obstruction, this time from McConnell, who didn't schedule votes on any of these unopposed consensus district court nominees until mid-April. The Utah nominee is finally get a vote later today. But with the Senate planning to leave town until June, Olvera's nomination is still languishing.

In the meantime, people and businesses in Texas suffer from the lack of enough judges. The vacancy Olvera would fill has been formally designated a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, meaning there aren't enough judges to handle the caseload.

In fact, the situation in the Southern District is so bad that the Judicial Conference of the United States (headed by Chief Justice John Roberts) has asked Congress to create two additional judgeships there. In other words, even with every vacancy filled and senior (semi-retired) judges carrying a significant caseload, Texans seeking to protect their legal rights would still be denied their right to a timely day in court.

Surely if the senators had wanted this vacancy filled in a timely manner, it would have been filled already. After all, John Cornyn isn't just some back-bencher. As the Senate Majority Whip, he occupies a powerful leadership position.

The Senate should have confirmed Olvera months ago. There is certainly no excuse for the Senate to leave town for Memorial Day recess without confirming Olvera to the bench and allowing him to take up his judicial responsibilities as soon as possible.

Cornyn and Cruz cannot get a timely confirmation vote in a Senate controlled by their own party for an uncontested district court nominee who they themselves recommended to the White House. Or perhaps they can but choose not to. Either way, that's pitiful.

PFAW

Rebuffed by Republican Legislators, Bobby Jindal Issues Executive Order on 'Religious Liberty'

In a Republican presidential field crowded with far-right candidates, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is trying to distinguish himself as the far-rightest candidate, especially on issues relating to marriage equality and its supposed threat to the religious freedom of conservative Christians.

Jindal’s latest came at the end of the day on Tuesday. Unwilling to accept the legislature’s failure to pass a so-called “religious liberty” bill (it was voted down 10-2 in a House committee), Jindal issued an executive order designed to protect any person who “acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.” The order explicitly defines “person” to include for-profit corporations and well as nonprofit organizations.

Jindal has adopted the rhetorical strategy promoted by the National Organization for Marriage and other opponents of LGTB equality: try to turn conversation about anti-gay discrimination “on its head” by declaring that laws protecting gay people are actually a form of discrimination against Christians. His statement about the executive order said it was designed to “prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Jindal’s order invokes the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, making it the latest sign that the decision – which granted corporations a right to claim legal exemptions based on the religious beliefs of company owners -- poses a threat to nondiscrimination measures and potentially a wide range of laws protecting the interests of workers. Jindal declared that his order is “not about discrimination,” even though its clear intent is to give legal cover to companies, government officials, and others who discriminate against same-sex couples.

Louisiana does not currently give legal recognition to same-sex couples, but Jindal is concerned that the state’s ban on marriage equality may soon be struck down by the Supreme Court, a potential ruling which his order seems to be a legally questionable effort to pre-empt. Jindal should be asked to clarify exactly what actions his legislation is designed to “protect”: a courthouse clerk who refuses to process marriage license paperwork? Religious schools getting tax dollars under Jindal’s education policy refusing to accept children of gay parents? Catholic hospitals refusing to recognize the spousal or parental rights of gay couples during medical emergencies?   

Jindal’s “religious liberty” bill had been opposed by business and tourism leaders as well as civil rights groups. The New Orleans Times Picayune reports that the New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau CEO Stephen Perry had called the bill “a radioactive, poisonous message.”

But Jindal’s primary audience is no longer his Louisiana constituents; it's right-wing activists nationwide. Jindal boasted about the executive order by stopping by the radio program hosted by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, an anti-gay activist who once suggested that LGBT non-discrimination measures would lead to the Holocaust perpetrated against Christians.

Right-wing pundit and Iowa GOP activist Steve Deace reacted rapturously, proclaiming Jindal his “winner of the week” for standing up to “Republicrats.”

Jindal immediately stepped in and ordered that while he’s governor the state government is not going to be a tool of the Cultural Marxists’ Rainbow Jihad against religion — particularly Christianity….

This action by Jindal is an example of what will be required of the next president if he’s going to truly honor his oath of office to defend our Constitution against all enemies — “both foreign and domestic.”

Let’s face it, the vast majority of alleged conservatives won’t stand up to the Democrats. And almost none of them will stand up to the Republicrats. On perhaps the most important issue of them all — the First Amendment that allows us the freedom to peacefully and publicly stand on principle for everything else — Jindal has done both.

But he didn’t just stand up to them rhetorically, he actually did something about it. There are several potentially exciting presidential candidates this cycle. There’s even a couple that like Jindal have shown they will tell the Republicrats bleeding us dry to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

PFAW

GOP: President Obama's Out to Destroy Our Nation Through His Executive Actions on Immigration

This piece was written by PFAW Political Director Randy Borntrager and originally appeared in the Huffington Post. 

On May 19, part of President Obama’s executive actions to keep DREAMers and families from being deported was supposed to go into effect, but they’ve been temporarily blocked because of a lawsuit brought on by anti-immigrant Republicans. This week, immigration groups and progressive organizations across the country are rallying in support of the President’s executive actions.

After reading so many anti-Obama, anti-immigrant screeds, I began to wonder, what if all the Right’s most extreme rhetoric came together in one place? Behold! The ultimate anti-immigrant op-ed, brought to you by the Republican Party and their extremist base! Included are actual statements from GOP leaders and activists like Former Governor Jeb Bush, Representative Steve King (IA), and anti-immigrant leader William Gheen.

President Obama’s Out to Destroy Our Nation Through His Executive Actions on Immigration

President Obama’s lawless executive actions on immigration that protect DREAMers and families from deportation are an insult to the American people. Obama is acting like a Latin American dictator, King George, a tyrant, and Putin, abusing his power to promote his nefarious agenda.

This literally could be the death of the Republic. The executive actions could cause our country to descend abruptly into an abyss that we have never seen in the history of this country. Or at the least, the executive actions will turn us into a lawless third-world nation. Our Constitution will certainly be torn asunder.

If we stop families from being deported, we open the doors for our country to be invaded by immigrants, one person at a time. Our pockets are being picked and innocent people are being killed by illegal aliens and hurt and robbed and beaten and raped by criminal foreign nationals that are in our country. Most undocumented immigrants are 130-pound drug runners with calves the size of cantaloupes.

They're going to be dependent on welfare and handouts and hence will be dependent on the Democratic Party for their livelihoods. These immigrants just come here for easy acquisition of public support through welfare programs. They’re rushing over here because they’ve heard there’s a bowl of food just across the border. And once they’re here, they’ll raid the Social Security system and lie about their work history.

The impending new Latino majority in the U.S. (which will happen soon because of course immigrants are more fertile than native-born Americans) is dangerous – they could conduct an ethnic cleansing.

We can’t stand idly by as the President does this – he’s not above the law and above the Constitution. The Senate should not confirm a single nominee—executive or judicial—outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists. We could also shut down the government again!

But that’s not enough. We have a constitutional duty to stop this runaway, imperial presidency – should we impeach Obama? And at some point, we have to evaluate whether the president's conduct aids or abets, encourages, or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States. That has a five-year in-jail penalty associated with it. We must also start talking about treason. Obama’s action certainly is an act of treason because it’s aiding and abetting the enemies of America and giving them comfort and aid.

So let’s arrest the president of the United States! If not, there could be civil war.

To see even more anti-immigrant, anti-Obama rhetoric from the GOP – and who’s saying what – check out People For the American Way’s recent memos on this issue.

PFAW

PFAW Criticizes Jeb Bush for Taxpayer Funding of Anti-Gay Group

In an International Business Times article from earlier this month, Andrew Perez and David Sirota reported that Jeb Bush, as governor of Florida, used taxpayer funds to subsidize a company owned by the far-right, anti-gay American Family Association (AFA).

Specifically, the “lucrative tax break” that Bush delivered helped the company’s production of “Web filter technology to prevent Internet users from seeing pornography or information about homosexual relationships or transgender identities.”

In the article, People For the American Way President Michael Keegan pointed out that Bush’s actions highlight his extremism as an elected official:

"That Jeb Bush gave taxpayer money to a subsidiary of a hate group whose founder has compared homosexuality to theft and murder and has claimed that gay people target children speaks volumes about who Bush is as an elected official,” said Michael Keegan of the liberal activist group People for the American Way. “If there was any question about his extremism before, this eliminates any shred of doubt.”

People For the American Way has long monitored the far-right, homophobic actions and rhetoric of the American Family Association. When Bush first provided the tax break to AFA’s company, PFAW was one of the leading groups to call him out on it. In 2001, PFAW President Ralph G. Neas and PFAW Florida Director Lisa Versaci urged Bush to rescind his support for an organization whose president had declared: “For the sake of our children and society, we must oppose the spread of homosexual activity! Just as we oppose murder, stealing, and adultery.”
 

PFAW

PFAW Foundation Board Member Kathleen Turner Discusses Abortion Access, the “Personhood” Movement on “All In with Chris Hayes”

People For the American Way Foundation board member Kathleen Turner appeared on “All In with Chris Hayes” on Friday to discuss the “personhood” movement and how it’s working in concert with its rivals in the anti-choice movement to end abortion access, especially for low-income women.

Turner said that she sees “personhood,” which would give fertilized eggs and fetuses the same rights as people, as “a Trojan horse.”

She explained:

The fact is because [personhood] has been soundly defeated in several states – Mississippi, North Dakota – that one thinks that it’s a non-issue. But in fact at the same time, there’ve been hundreds, hundreds of bills in every state that have made it more and more difficult to access any kind of healthcare, not just abortion.

Watch the full clip here:

To learn more about the personhood movement, be sure to check out PFAW Foundation’s new report, “The Personhood Movement: Where It Comes from and What It Means for the Future of Choice,” and read Kathleen Turner’s piece in RH Reality Check, “Think the “Personhood” Issue Is Over? Think Again.”

 

PFAW Foundation

House GOP Schedules Vote On 20-Week Abortion Ban That Still Erects Hurdles For Rape Survivors

Back in January, House Republican leaders cancelled a vote on a 20-week abortion ban, the top legislative priority of anti-choice groups, shortly before it was scheduled to take place on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. A group of more moderate anti-choice Republicans, led by Rep. Renee Ellmers, had objected to language that exempted rape survivors from the ban only if they had reported the assault to law enforcement first, which Ellmers said “further victimized the victims of rape.”

Anti-choice groups were furious and have been holding protests outside the offices of House Republican leaders demanding a new vote on the bill. It seems that they have now gotten their wish.

A number of outlets are reporting that the House leadership has scheduled a vote next week on the 20-week ban after months of negotiations about the rape exception. According to news reports, while the requirement that rape survivors file a police report is no longer in the bill, they are now required to present evidence that they “have received either medical treatment or licensed counseling at least 48 hours prior to the late-term procedure.”

According to LifeNews, the bill also includes an “informed consent” requirement that notifies women “of the age of her baby and the requirements under the law” and includes language making it easier to sue abortion providers.

The Weekly Standard reports that National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List are both behind the new version of the bill:

In 2013, the House passed the bill, called the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which included exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and when a physical health issue endangers the life of the mother. But an effort to pass identical legislation in the new Congress was scrapped in January on the eve of the annual March for Life because some GOP members, led publicly by Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, objected to the bill's reporting requirement for late-term abortions in the case of rape. The bill required the crime to be reported to law enforcement officials at any point prior to performing a late-term abortion.

According to House Republicans, that requirement has been removed from the bill. Instead, the legislation requires abortion doctors to ensure that victims have received either medical treatment or licensed counseling at least 48 hours prior to the late-term procedure. With that change, the bill has assuaged the concerns of those Republican members while still garnering strong support of national pro-life groups, including the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List.

“I’m proud we’ve gotten to a point where we found a consensus between our members and the pro-life groups out there,” said Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee.

The fact that there was a rape exception in the bill at all was the result of last-minute negotiations on a previous version of the bill after its sponsor, Trent Franks, made a Todd Akin-like remark about pregnancy from rape being rare. As we explore in our recent report on the “personhood” movement, rape exceptions are extraordinarily divisive within the anti-choice community. The National Right to Life Committee’s decision to support the Franks bill even with the narrow rape exception caused a number of state anti-choice groups to form a rival organization that pushes for “no exceptions” anti-choice policies.

Blogger Jill Stanek reports that one person involved in the negotiations on the current version 20-week ban told her, “This is the most complicated bill I’ve ever worked on.”

PFAW

Pamela Geller Is Not a Hero, But...

This piece was originally published in The Huffington Post.

I am grateful to live in a country where even someone as hateful as Pamela Geller can speak her mind. She can smear President Obama as the "jihadist in the White House" and speculate that he "choked up" with tears when he ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. She can say that Pope Francis' call for "affection and respect" towards Muslims means he has "become an imam." She can compare Jewish Americans who support President Obama to Nazi appeasers and call comedian Jon Stewart "the most disgusting Jew on the planet." She can suggest banning Muslims from becoming airline pilots. She can then claim that anyone who doesn't want to hear her speak is "enforcing the Sharia."

I am also grateful to live in a country where the law protects Geller's right to say these things.

Sunday's incident, in which two gunmen tried to attack an anti-Islam event that Geller and virulently anti-Muslim Dutch politician Geert Wilders hosted in Texas, was deeply troubling. Our freedom of speech means nothing if people are too afraid to speak. We saw this in a different context earlier this year when Sony pulled a raunchy geopolitical buddy comedy from theaters under threat of terror attacks. Say what you will about Pamela Geller, she has not backed down from any of her vile positions under fear of violence.

But it's important to remember that the fact that she was attacked for her speech doesn't make Geller a hero, or her speech any less hateful. As Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall put it yesterday, "a hate group is a hate group the day after someone takes a shot at them just like it was the day before."

Local Muslim groups had the right idea when they stayed away from Geller's event,declining to protest so that they wouldn't give Geller the attention she so desperately wanted. Those who expose her hateful rhetoric -- like my PFAW colleagues -- also do important work, making sure the public knows that just because she is targeted by violent idiots doesn't make her a serious thinker or a hero.

I know that Geller won't back down from her hateful rhetoric after this event-- in fact, the attempted attack will probably embolden her and cause some to take her more seriously. And we shouldn't stop criticizing Geller -- or, as she puts it, "enforcing the Sharia" -- when she's wrong.

As People For the American Way wrote in 2009 in response to a renewed spate of inflammatory right-wing rhetoric, Americans must "be willing to use their First Amendment freedoms to challenge those who exploit their political positions or media megaphones to promote lies that are intended to inflame rather than inform, that encourage paranoia rather than participation, and whose consequences are at best divisive and at worst, violently destructive."

PFAW