So what's more newsworthy: A white, privileged, female lawyer wearing pink shoes whose filibuster failed to stop abortion restrictions from taking effect in Texas, or a an African-American female state representative who sponsored and helped successfully shepherd a similar law through Louisiana's legislature — with overwhelming support from Democratic legislators? If you think it should be the latter, you obviously don't understand the priorities of the nation's establishment press.
The events in Texas have led to the gubernatorial candidacy of Democrat filibuster leader and media darling Wendy Davis. In June of this year, the legislature in next-door Louisiana passed a similar measure. Katrina Jackson's outspoken sponsorship and Democrats' majority support of the law has gotten nowhere near the attention Wendy Davis's shenanigans have received.
Old New York Times reporters don't fade away -- they just get liberal column perches at nytimes.com, where they can rant, unfiltered, on their own deeply dubious pet causes, such as treating abortion as a constitutional right (Linda Greenhouse), or how forest fires are a sign of global warming (Timothy Egan). On Wednesday, former Supreme Court reporter Greenhouse continued her pro-abortion crusade with "A Right Like Any Other," on abortion as an undeniable and inalienable right embedded in the Constitution:
Listening to politicians talk about abortion, watching state legislatures put up ever more daunting obstacles, reading the opinions of judges who give the states a free pass, it’s abundantly clear to me that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. Or to put it another way, there are constitutional rights and then there is abortion -- a right, increasingly, in name only, treated as something separate and apart, vulnerable in its isolation from the mainstream of those rights the Constitution actually protects.
The left constantly and falsely characterizes the right, particularly those sympathetic to Tea Party-related causes, for their alleged incivility, racism, bigotry, nativism, blah-blah-blah.
This stereotype apparently drives Kevin Drum's contention, expressed at at Mother Jones, that Americans who say the believe that abortion is murder really don't feel that abortion is murder. After all, even the most passionate of abortion opponents generally engage in orderly protests, counsel guilt-ridden women who have had abortions, and work calmly and persistently to change abortion law and promote a culture of life. To Drum, the fact that they don't go ballistic upon learning of each and every abortion must somehow mean they don't really care that much, and — get this — that their opposition to abortion is really the product of sexual prudishness (bolds are mine):
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.
MSNBC's chief abortion rights absolutist Irin Carmon is giddy over a move today by a "conservative" federal circuit court panel to scotch an abortion-clinic regulation in Mississippi which requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Last weekend, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards appeared with Bill Moyers on the PBS program Moyers & Company. The longtime PBS omnipresence pestered Richards with the fact that the abortion opponents are winning, placing limits on abortion in many states.
But Richards really grew silly when Moyers asked about the Supreme Court “junking” the Massachusetts law putting a 35-foot buffer zone outside abortion clinics. She somehow compared women getting abortions to men seeking colonoscopies. Why on Earth would anyone protest men getting an intestinal polyp removed? How does that compare to a baby?
“ABC Family” is a network that isn’t for the safe, “family-friendly” shows. On the contrary, they love edgy shows like any other network. They created “The Fosters” to show a positive image of a lesbian couple – one black, one white – and now the lesbians have had an abortion – but only to save the life of the mother.
Margaret Lyons of New York magazine’s Vulture blog was impressed in a post headlined "How 'The Fosters' Tackled TV's Biggest Taboo":
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:
Politico reporters are badly burning themselves on Twitter these days.
Last night (as yours truly noted this afternoon), the web site's Roger Simon, apparently upset that Rick Perry is doing his job, tweeted that the Texas governor is "sending 1,000 National Guard troops to border to shoot small children." Yet 12 hours later, Glenn Thrush, another longtime Politico veteran, tweeted a plea for civility, begging people not to use a popular opponents' nickname for Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (HT RedState):
How extreme is MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry? Extreme enough that she recognizes no right to speak to a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. That “choice” to abort only has merit if no one disturbs it by counseling against it.
In a column for The Nation, Harris-Perry sulked about the Supreme Court ruling striking down “buffer zones” in Massachusetts. “This decision has, in the end, unleashed something far more insidious than the danger of a few extremists having greater access to kill or maim. The Supreme Court has decided—unanimously—that the First Amendment protects the right of every single American to approach and intimately 'counsel' any pregnant woman,” she complained.
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.
The press loves billionaire Warren Buffett, who can be relied to support President Barack Obama even in implausible circumstances — such as the current economy, where the "recovery" following the 2008-2009 traditionally defined recession has been worse than any since World War II, and barely better than what was seen during the awful post-Depression 1930s.
Thus far, the press has managed to ignore one of the implications of the first quarter's serious contraction. One more quarter of economic contraction could mean that the end of the recession, as Buffett himself has defined it, failed to permanently arrive.
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.”
On Independence Day, Planned Parenthood Action ignited its own fireworks by sharing a picture of Lady Liberty -- but replaced her traditional tablet with birth control pills. With a shout-out “to liberty and justice for all,” Planned Parenthood tweeted:
Liptak, the paper's Supreme Court reporter, covered the emergency injunction issued by the Supreme Court on behalf of a Christian college in Illinois related to religious freedom and Obama-care. Briefly, the majority gave Wheaton College a reprieve from being forced to fill out forms to submit to insurers as an alternative way to deliver "free" contraception to employees/students under Obama-care. But Liptak managed to find a blunt violation of "women's rights" in that complicated tangle.
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:
Much of the left only kinda-sorta distinguishes between mainstream pro-lifers and the violent fringe responsible for acts such as the killing of George Tiller. Take Daily Kos writer Dante Atkins, who on Sunday acknowledged that a mere “aspect” of the pro-life movement resorts to terrorism, but a few lines later asserted that the “movement…publicly celebrated” Tiller’s murder. Atkins also claimed that “anti-abortion activists will continue to…skirt the fringes of legality in their efforts to make women feel unsafe in exercising their constitutional rights.”
These riffs on abortion were just the intro to Atkins’s climactic point: that conservatives should have to deal with a form of sidewalk counseling from (possibly armed) lefties, and not just outside abortion clinics, either. From Atkins’s post (emphasis added):
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]
The Supreme Court on Monday delivered its verdict in the closely watched Hobby Lobby case, ruling 5-4 that the Christian-run craft store doesn't have to obey the Obamacare mandate that requires health care plans to pay for birth-control drugs that may induce abortion. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion stated that requiring such closely-held corporations to provide such coverage violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Yet New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak's lead story Tuesday, under the banner headline "Court Limits Birth Control Rule," managed to quote liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in the second sentence.
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):