The Trotskyist-turned-conservative writer James Burnham said that where there’s no solution, there’s no problem. In a Thursday post, American Prospect blogger Paul Waldman analyzed what he considers one such situation: the Republican party’s ongoing shortfall with female voters.
Waldman doesn’t see how the GOP can overcome both its ideas and its tone on women’s issues. He asserted that when Republicans discuss their opposition to abortion and the contraceptive mandate, many of them “can't keep themselves from doing so in the most hostile, contemptuous ways imaginable.”
Appearing on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on Thursday afternoon, Jeanne Cummings, Deputy Managing Editor for Bloomberg News, decided to attack the GOP over their supposed problem with female voters.
The Bloomberg reporter argued that the GOP has “moved the abortion debate into birth control. This is a huge step where women -- that's a threshold issue for women. That’s about birth control, controlling your life. This is being in control of your life. And they want to talk about taking that away? That's a whole different conversation than abortion.” [See video below.]
In an interview with Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown on Thursday, host and incoming Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd proposed a cause for the GOP's difficulty in attracting women voters: "...do the arguments about contraception end up...putting the party on mute with those same women voters who may like your economic proposals but say, 'You know what? There's just too many crazy white guys who have crazy theories about my reproductive system and I'm not listening.'" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Priebus rejected the notion: "No, I don't think that's the case at all." Todd continued, this time imagining the thoughts of Hispanic voters: "And Hispanics, same thing. Hispanics who maybe on some social issues would be with you, but the immigration talk says, 'You know what? I can't trust because they've got a whole bunch of crazy guys that talk crazy on immigration.' Isn't that an issue?"
Mark Litke hyped the "population explosion – what some are calling a crisis" in the Philippines on Sunday's PBS NewsHour Weekend, and played up how poor "families in Asia's most Catholic country...have had little or no access to contraception or family planning advice." Litke confronted a retired Catholic archbishop on his Church's teaching against birth control: "If the people of the Philippines are in support of...contraception...why would the Church oppose any of that?"
The former ABC correspondent later lamented how the Supreme Court of the Philippines protected the religious liberties of Catholic institutions in the country as it upheld a "new reproductive health care law" that subsidizes birth control: [video below the jump]
The Supreme Court is still not moving fast enough to the left on social issues to please some liberals, and New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak is on it. His latest front-page report, "Justices’ Rulings Advance Gays; Women Less So," used a speech by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as his launch point. Not once did he question Ginsburg's liberal reasoning in his front-page article.
Liptak has previously described the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision as a defeat for women's rights, without specifying what right was being taken from women. He has also suggested the U.S. Constitution as old and outdated for failing to guarantee entitlements and health care for its citizenry.
Former anchor Katie Couric has a long history of not just floating between networks and sinking ratings but also adding left-wing rhetoric wherever she can. Granted an exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Yahoo! News July 30, Couric couldn’t help but ask the liberal justice if there was sexism behind the Hobby Lobby decision.
Couric prodded Ginsburg into conceding that the male justices on the Court were essentially incapable of making a fair judgement because…. they were men. Couric dramaticized, “Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?”
On his MSNBC show The Daily Rundown, Chuck Todd interviewed Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List, a narrowly tailored PAC for female pro-abortion Democrats. Todd began with a typical tutorial on how Democrats are substantially ahead of Republicans in the polls among women in some midterm elections.
But after asking if the Hobby Lobby decision was energizing her supporters and opening a "gender gap," Todd took an interesting turn away from the usual MSNBC pattern on abortion advocates (see Andrea Mitchell helping advertise with Cecile Richards for the norm.) He asked Schriock if she was encouraging the candidates they endorsed in the South to de-emphasize abortion:
Liberal Washington Post humorist Alexandra Petri did one of those modernist superiority dances on Saturday’s op-ed page. She started from the news that the Pew Research Center found we’re now choosing to live near people who share our beliefs, “enclaves of shared ideology.”
So when time travel comes online, conservatives will surely take the hint and move severely back into the B.C. time frame:
Gay playwright and screenwriter Paul Rudnick was assigned by The New Yorker to mock the Hobby Lobby decision and those religious freaks who support it. This came naturally, since Rudnick wrote the satire “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told,” in which God makes Adam and Steve, along with the first lesbians, Jane and Mabel. In the script’s introduction, he writes “I believe in what human beings can do when you give them fifty bucks to guy some cheap red polyester velvet. Some people need more, something with vengeance and commandments and jihads.”
In a perfectly arrogant example of the self-congratulating secular superiority of The New Yorker and its readership, Rudnick apparently found it hilarious to merge tacky crafting with tacky religious metaphors:
The Obama administration is probably wondering why so many people of all political stripes don't believe that they take foreign policy seriously, up to and including charges that the president and his minions are doing the equivalent of fiddling as some parts of the world burn, and others threaten to.
I don't see why would anyone think that (in case it's not obvious, that's sarcasm). After all, wasn't Bush 43 press secretary Ari Fleischer linking to a friend's column on men's suits after the Bali bombings in 2002? And didn't the London bombings in 2005 lead the otherwise hapless Scott McClellan to wax eloquent on the importance of tie-shirt coordination? The answer to both of those questions is, "Of course not." But yesterday, on a day when Israel invaded Gaza, pro-Russian forces shot down a passenger airliner with almost 300 aboard, and diseases this country hasn't seen in decades continued to be carried over the U.S. Mexican border by "Unaccompanied Alien Children" (that DHS's term), State Department spokesman Jen Psaki tweeted on the dreadfully important topic of how you can be "informed" and fashionable (HT The Blaze):
Michelle Andrews spotlighted the silver lining for social liberals in a Tuesday item for NPR.org about the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling. Andrews underlined that "women in most health plans will still be able to get their birth control covered with no out-of-pocket expenses," even after the five to four decision.
The writer turned to a policy expert at the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which she merely labeled a "research and policy organization that focuses on reproductive health," but failed to cite any pro-lifers for their take on the issue:
It doesn’t take much to make “news” in The Washington Post these days.
Upset at the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, last Thursday 29-year-old feminist New Yorker Jasmine Shea decided it would be a great idea to leave condoms randomly around a Latham, New York, Hobby Lobby store and spell out the phrase “Pro-Choice” with block letters in various places. Of course she took lots of selfies posing next to her artwork to post to Instagram and Twitter. For that she made a national story in The Washington Post July 9.
It’s a mystery how Shea, who has a mere 286 followers on Instagram, and about 800 on Twitter, which is small beans compared to the typical popular user, somehow managed to get her “activism” noticed by a leading national newspaper. Shea herself even tweeted, “I’m still in disbelief I’m newsworthy.” (Hint for Shea: your ideological conferes at The Post really, really want to see a popular feminist backlash to Hobby Lobby, and they’re not above manufacturing one.)
Editor’s Note: this story contains offensive language.
A violent encounter between a young pro-life protestor and an adult abortion activist in downtown Columbus, OH was caught on camera and published late July 9 on Youtube. Students from the pro-life group “Created Equal” were standing on the street corner holding anti-abortion signs and talking with passers by when an infuriated pro-abortion woman approached one young man.
“That’s absolute f***ing lying there, you f***ing dipshit!,” she screamed. “That is not what a fetus looks like, okay? It’s a clump of cells at twelve weeks.” In the rest of the two-minute encounter, she shoved her finger in the man’s face and screamed 20 more f**ks in her incoherent “argument.” Her hysterical rant was peppered with typical liberal condescension about “white male privilege” and claims of “racism” numerous times. The infuriated woman, apparently didn’t think of how her behavior would look like for the company she works for, as she was still wearing her Burger King uniform.
On his July 9 Hardball program, MSNBC's Chris Matthews actually pressed abortion-rights absolutist Stephanie Schriock about the implications of her support for Democratic legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. But Matthews put the EMILY's List president on the spot by asking if her position amounted to telling religious employers that they simply have to swallow their religious scruples in order to not run afoul of the law. Bullying religious Americans over their sincere beliefs is hardly a picture one wants painted of one's self, so Schriock sought to avoid the questions and double down on talking points. Here's the relevant transcript (MP3 audio here; video embedded below page break; emphases mine):
On Tuesday, Harry Reid told the press that "the one thing we're going to do, during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we're going to do something about it."
Obviously, Reid's statement assailing the Supreme Court majority in the Hobby Lobby decision is incorrect, as black African-American Clarence Thomas was among the five justices who defended the religious freedom of the Green family which owns and runs Hobby Lobby. Ordinarily, in an obvious gaffe involving a Democratic Party politican, coverage would be sparse. But in this case, there are at least two instances where an establishment press outlet actually reported Reid's statement without pointing out that it was wrong. One occurred at the New York Times.
Wednesday morning’s episode of The View got a bit heated when the panel decided to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s controversial Hobby Lobby ruling. Liberal guest host and former CNN legal analyst, Sunny Hostin sought to inform the audience of the “scary” and “dangerous” decision made by the Supreme Court.
Curiously enough, Sherri Shepherd offered “another opinion” and stood by Hobby Lobby by attempting to explain the strongly-held religious beliefs of the company's owners. That's when Hostin, a former ABC World News Now anchor, erupted, “No. Sherri, you are so wrong on this!”
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who is known for softball interviews with pro-abortion activists, appeared distraught during her Andrea Mitchell Reports program on Wednesday, July 9 at the chances of a Democratic bill meant to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby passing Congress.
Speaking with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, Mitchell fretted that the bill “can get through the Senate, but it’s not going to get through Congress.” [See video below.]
Liberals have been spewing absolute nonsense since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, and several other businesses that filed a suit against the HHS contraception mandate. Salon’s Paul Rosenberg is no different, except the fevered, high-pitched whine of his hysteria makes one suspect that, whatever he pays his drycleaner, it ain’t enough.
In a July 8 piece at Salon, Rosenberg actually tried to make the case that “right-wing propaganda about “‘religious liberty’” is a smokescreen to hide the fact that conservatives are pushing for “the advancement of theocracy,” or as Rosenberg put it “ religious dictatorship.” Yes, because SCOTUS didn’t find an absolute right to free birth control in the Constitution, we’re headed for inquisition, forced conversions and heretic burnings, and all the other theocratic nightmares of the dark days of … 2008.
Hillary Clinton sat down with Phoebe Greenwood of the left-wing British newspaper The Guardian last Friday to discuss a range of current event issues, responding to videotaped questions, including some from celebrities and politicians. Comedian Sarah Silverman was among them. Silverman wanted to know what Clinton’s plans will be “with women’s rights stuff” when she’s president. Silverman, referencing the Hobby Lobby decision, wanted to know “what men would ever put up with a woman making laws about what they can and can’t do with their bodies.”
Greenwood, not hiding her view of the topic, thought it necessary to explain Silverman’s question and framed it as an issue that “follows a raft of quite radical personhood bills that would seek to criminalize abortion and some forms of contraception.” The British journalist touted Clinton as a vocal advocate of women’s rights “for more than 20 years.” Greenwood then asked Clinton what she plans on doing “about these threats” and the “rollback on the right of American women to choose.”
Andrea Mitchell devoted three minutes of the July 7 edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports to assist Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in promoting the abortion-clinic chain’s latest publicity gimmick.
What’s more, instead of inviting a conservative pundit on to rebut the guest or perhaps attempting an unbiased, tough-but-fair interview in the first place, Mitchell tag-teamed with Richards in denouncing the conservative wing of the Court – and logic would dictate, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer as well. [See video below. Click here for MP3 audio]
In a front page story about a new Supreme Court decision involving birth control and Wheaton College, a conservative Christian school, the Post story by Robert Barnes began this way: “The three female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the court was retreating from assurances offered only days ago.”
The Federalist's David Harsanyi pointed out the New York Times's clear double standard when it comes to advertising in a Thursday post on Twitter. The writer recounted that the liberal paper "rejected an ad aimed at one religion" in 2012, but printed a full-page ad in Thursday's edition from the far-left Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), which blasted the "all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority" on the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.
Harsanyi linked to a March 15, 2012 item on the ultra-liberal Think Progress blog that spotlighted how the Times "rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement submitted by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer." What Think Progress left out was the fact that Geller and Spencer's ad was a response to a previous anti-Catholic ad from FFRF, as libertarian blogger David Volokh documented at the time:
If you’re choosing one person who best represents America’s journalistic establishment, it’d be hard to top Steve Coll, a former Washington Post reporter and managing editor who’s now dean of Columbia University’s journalism school; a member of the Pulitzer Prize board; and a staff writer for the New Yorker.
On Wednesday, Coll posted a piece on the New Yorker’s website in which he argued that if the Supreme Court were to consistently apply the religious-freedom principle it endorsed in the Hobby Lobby case, it would have to allow an essentially Taliban-owned U.S. corporation to deny insurance coverage for polio vaccines for the children of its employees, since the Taliban believe that such vaccines, in Coll’s words, “violate God’s law.”
The July 1 edition of Hannity featured a rare occurrence for television: A liberal, pro-abortion activist had to listen to the conservative cause being articulated. Guest Dana Loesch of The Blaze slammed former NOW President Patricia Ireland's "horrible misunderstanding" of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.
Ireland attempted to make the argument that the Hobby Lobby ruling could open up Pandora’s box to denying people health care entirely. Responding to Sean Hannity’s suggestion that Hobby Lobby is a family owned business that can have its own religious views, Ireland argued: “Okay, and what if that family were Christian Scientists, could they deny all health care?” [MP3 audio here; video below]
The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling isn’t anti-woman like the media are reporting, according to two influential conservative women. In fact, these women said that they were actually thrilled with the decision.
On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that for-profit company owners with objections to providing coverage of abortion-inducing drugs for employees could be excluded from the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate. Concerned Women for America Communications Director Alison Howard compared the decision to a “Super Bowl” for pro-lifers and supporters of religious freedom, while Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins called the event a “huge day” for both sides.
NBC and ABC omitted covering the Supreme Court's final two rulings from their Tuesday morning newscasts, despite the fact that the decisions came down after their Monday episodes aired. Only CBS This Morning set aside air time for the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, which upheld the religious liberty rights of closely held corporations.
Viewers of ABC's Good Morning America might have guessed that the Supreme Court handed down some decisions, as the morning show devoted a full segment to the "running of the interns," where the summer interns of media outlets run copies of Court's "big rulings" to the journalists outside. GMA even held their own intern race, where the competitors run cups of iced coffee to the anchors inside the studio: [video below the jump]
On June 18, Catholic broadcaster Eternal Word Television Network suffered a serious religious freedom setback when "A federal judge in Alabama ... dismissed a Catholic broadcaster's legal claim that requiring employers to include contraception in their health care coverage is unconstitutional." The Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, felt that story was important enough to merit coverage at its national site — and in fact, two weeks later, the story is still present there (also saved here for future reference and fair use and discussion purposes).
After that June ruling, EWTN promised that it would appeal. A July 1 compliance deadline and daily fines which would have almost certainly put the network out of business loomed. Yesterday, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, EWTN scored what Life News's Steven Ertelt called "a resounding victory," when it "was granted last minute relief from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals," thus enabling it to "freely practice what it preaches while it pursues its claims in court." A search on "EWTN" at the AP's national site indicates that it has no story there on this development. The wire service does have a Monday afternoon local/regional story on the news:
In an MSNBC interview today, Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio's longtime Supreme Court watcher, attempted to portray the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision as possibly wide-ranging, and even advised viewers that Anthony Kennedy's presence on the court may be the only thing preventing it from bringing in an era of sex and "foreign origin" discrimination by "hundreds and hundreds and thousands and thousands of companies."
Video follows the jump (HT Hot Air). Be sure to hang in there until the end, where Totenberg stammers as she appears to be grasping for more fuel to throw onto the fire, and ends up ridiculously claiming that a person's "foreign origin" may become a basis upon which employers can discriminate (bolds are mine throughout this post):