Christians Are Exempt From Insurance Mandates

Did you know that if you are a Christian you are exempt from the taxes, penalties and regulations imposed by the recently enacted health insurance law?

All you have to do is to affirm a statement of Christian beliefs and pledge to follow a code that includes no tobacco or illegal drugs, no sex outside of marriage, and no abuse of alcohol or legal medications and pay a monthly fee to join a religious health care sharing ministry plan, a plan that specifically does not guarantee the payment of your medical bills in any fashion and holds members solely responsible for payment of said bills.

And the reason for this exemption? According to the spokeswoman for the Senate committee responsible for writing much of the legislation, lawmakers granted the exemption out of respect for religious freedom.

So, to recap, if you're a religious person the government trusts and respects you enough not to oversee or regulate your health insurance decisions, no matter how misguided they might be or how much taxpayers' money they may end up costing. Meanwhile, if you have the misfortune to be a pregnant woman, there aren't enough hours in the day for politicians to micromanage, regulate, and restrict your health insurance.

Black Uterine Containers Deemed Most Dangerous to Future of Race

NYDailyNews.com

Here's Rev. Stephen Broden, in all his glory:

"We celebrate our history, but our future is in jeopardy as a genocidal plot is carried out through abortion," said the Rev. Stephen Broden, an official with the anti-abortion group Life Always.

...

"Our message is one that's provocative," he said. "It's true and it's accurate and it's real."

Because nothing's more true and accurate than declaring that the melanin content in the cells of certain pregnant women renders them incompetent to make their own decisions, and puts a serious damper on their ability to figure out genocidal plots and walk and chew gum at the same time.

And here I thought just being a uterine container made you the lowest of the low. I stand corrected. Rev. Stephen Broden is here to demonstrate that there are always new and improved ways to degrade you.

UPDATE: The ad has been taken down. No word yet on what happened to Rev. Stephen Broden's belief that black pregnant women are mindless uterine containers.

God to Army Chaplain: "Rape, It's All Me"

Army Maj. Gen. David Quantock, the commanding general at Fort Leonard Wood, calls a press conference and declares the Army to be a culture intolerant of sexual assault and sexual abuse of any kind.

Okay, except as far as I know chaplains are still part of the Army:

Seventeen current and former service members who say they were raped or assaulted by fellow soldiers said they filed the federal class-action lawsuit to force the Pentagon to change how it handles such cases. One of the plaintiffs was a former Army sergeant who claimed that when she approached a chaplain at Fort Leonard Wood to discuss stress related to running into a service member who had allegedly raped her in the past, the chaplain told her that "it must have been God's will for her to be raped" and suggested she attend church more often.

Assuming the sergeant's charges are true, the chaplain's action is anything but intolerant of sexual assault and abuse. Irrespective of personal religious beliefs, a chaplain's job is to offer aid and comfort to the troops not to cause them more harm.

Update on South Dakota's Bill to Legalize Domestic Terrorism

The language of HB 1171 has been changed. The new version (old version here):

1 FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for
2 the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain
3 crimes.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
5 Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1
6 or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used
7 force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
8 (1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she
9 would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself
10 against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be
11 threatening her unborn child; and
12 (2) She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are
13 immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
14 Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:

1 (1) Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
2 (2) Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the
3 possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense.
4 However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly
5 force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the
6 complete safety of her unborn child; or
7 (3) The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body.

The key difference in the updated version is that the affirmative defense only applies to killings committed by the pregnant woman.

Of course, the bill is still a lot of nonsense:

8 (1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she
9 would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself
10 against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be
11 threatening her unborn child;

South Dakota already has justifiable homicide laws for self defense which allow the pregnant woman to use deadly force to protect herself against unlawful force used against *her*.

It's not possible to use unlawful force or unlawful deadly force against a pregnant woman that would only threaten part of her uterine contents and nothing else.

Bottom line: Just because Rep. Phil Jensen and his cohorts were caught in the act of trying to legalize domestic terrorism and, when called on it, made some changes to the bill doesn't mean they are absolved of responsibility.


(via)

Bow Before State Representative Phil Jensen and His Grotesque Lies and Disturbed Fantasies!

A question for the voters of South Dakota: Did you change your state's motto to "Legalizing Domestic Terrorism and Proud of It" while the rest of the country wasn't looking?

And now bask in the glory that is State Representative Phil Jensen and his grotesque lies and disturbed fantasies (really bad form emphasis mine):

I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."

HB 1171:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person , if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

accomplished.

Not only doesn't [t]his code only deal[] with illegal acts, it specifically enumerates attempts to commit illegal acts (any felony) and attempts likely to result in the death of the [fetus] as distinct categories and makes homicide justifiable in both instances.

Furthermore, the vague "resisting" and "any attempt" in  while resisting any attempt...likely to result in the death of the [fetus] are in there for a reason. It doesn't matter that abortion is legal and that the patient consented to the procedure. If the patient involuntarily kicks you during the procedure while sedated, her master, her mistress, and her servant whom she brought along for support, can all three shoot you in the head right there in the operating room in an act of South Dakota justifiable homicide.

Who's to say a patient's involuntary movement isn't "resisting" and a legal procedure isn't "any attempt"? Oh, wait, my mistake! The person about to blow the Ob/Gyn to smithereens, that's who, according to HB 1171.

As long as the person has a reasonable belief that there's a whiff of intent in the air (reasonable ground to apprehend a design) to commit an illegal act OR to do some great personal injury, the person can assassinate the Ob/Gyn in that most righteous of manners, the one that populates Representative Phil Jensen's disturbed fantasies, causes his nether regions to tingle, and makes a rapist assassinating his victim if she becomes pregnant and attempts to terminate the pregnancy justifiable.

As an aside, what is it with South Dakota legislators and disturbed fantasies? Here's Sen. William Napoli in 2006 describing the circumstances he would deem appropriate to qualify a rape for an exemption from the state's abortion ban:

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

In all fairness to Rep. Phil Jensen, his bill doesn't make being brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it (seriously, who thinks like this?) a prerequisite for justifiable homicide. His bill only requires the pregnant woman to chose to have an abortion at which time she can be justifiably killed by any person in the lawful defense of...the unborn child as long as the killer believes that there is reasonable ground to...do some great personal injury to the fetus.

Moving on:

Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

South Dakota already has justifiable homicide laws for self defense:

22-16-34.   Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
22-16-35.   Justifiable homicide--Defense of person--Defense of other persons in household. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

Granted, under the current laws, the pregnant woman in Rep. Phil Jensen's example would be justified in killing her ex-boyfriend just because he was beating on *her* and *her* abdomen (Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt ... to commit any felony upon him or her....)

Unfortunately, in Rep. Phil Jensen's fetid mind an attempt to commit a felony on just the uterine container doesn't pass muster. For the killing of the ex-boyfriend to count as justifiable homicide, the uterine container must be resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.

One last thing, a request I have for you. According to a news report, Concerned Women for America testified in favor of HB 1171:

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the go-to group for MSM articles on reproductive health and policy topics dealing with contraception and abortion. Every quote from a legitimate medical source is accompanied by a quote from one of CWA's representatives in a transparent attempt at a "she-said, she-said" game.

I say fine, let's play the MSM's game. So here's my request to you. Every time you see an article quoting CWA contact the reporter and ask him/her why a group that openly supports domestic terrorism directed at pregnant women and Ob/Gyns was included in the article. Then blog about the reporter's justification. At the very least it should be instructive.

So there you have it. I wish I could come up with an insightful summary but, really, what more is there to say? We have reached a stage where it's acceptable to propose a bill that would make it legal to assassinate pregnant women who terminate a pregnancy and the Ob/Gyns, nurses, etc. who care for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for the voters of South Dakota and their elected representatives, the domestic terrorists' BFFs 4evah!


Update: The language of the bill has been changed.


ETA: I added the bit about MSM and some snark.

The Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP), Still Restricted After All These Years

"Was I really raped if my skull wasn't fractured in the attack?" "Will I be allowed to set foot inside the ED if there's even the slightest chance that my mere pregnant presence could perturb an employee?"

When these are legitimate questions you have to ask yourself if you're a woman of reproductive age in today's America, it's likely you won't have much time and energy left over to ponder the nonsensical restrictions on the sale of ECPs, like Plan B One-Step, and the FDA's ongoing contempt of court.

So here's an update on the latest developments:

Teva, the manufacturer of the emergency contraceptive Plan B, announced that they filed an over-the-counter application for Plan B One-Step with the Food and Drug Administration this week. The application requests that the agency make the emergency contraceptive available without a prescription for women of all ages.


This development comes on the heels of the Center for Reproductive Rights filing a motion for contempt against the FDA for failing to follow a 2009 federal court order regarding Plan B. On March 23, 2009, Judge Edward Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the FDA's prior decision to limit over-the-counter access to Plan B to women over 16 was based on politics rather than science. He ordered the agency to reconsider that decision.


...


The Center originally filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA in 2001 on behalf of over 70 medical and public health organizations, asking the agency to grant emergency contraception over-the-counter status. When the FDA refused to rule on the petition, the Center filed a lawsuit in 2005 in federal court. In 2009, the court ruled that the agency had acted in "bad faith and in response to political pressure," not science, when it repeatedly and unreasonably delayed making a decision on Plan B, and that the agency had departed in significant ways from its normal procedures. Soon after the ruling, the FDA acknowledged its obligation to reconsider making Plan B available over-the-counter to all ages and said that it intended to make a final decision on the drug's availability to women under the age of 17. But this year, the agency admitted that it does not plan to reconsider the Citizen Petition, as the court ordered. As a result, the Center argues that the FDA has continued the same pattern of steady and repeated inaction seen during the previous administration.

And while we await the FDA's decision with trembling anticipation, just a reminder:

Plan B One-Step is available.

i-Pill is available.

Nextime is available.

Next Choice is available.

(More on Plan B One-Step, i-Pill/Nextime, and Next Choice.)

"Ariz. may require hospitals to check citizenship"

Soon Arizona lawmakers will force every last person in the state to become an INS enforcement official, including the people who are in the country illegally.

Religion, What Is It Good For, Part...I Lost Count

Islamic officials in Malaysia, fighting the righteous fight against Valentine's Day:

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – As couples around the world ready for Valentine's Day, Islamic officials in Malaysia have warned Muslims against celebrating something "synonymous with vice activities."

The warning follows plans announced last week by several Malaysian states who are planning a crackdown on "immoral acts" during Valentine's Day as part of a campaign to encourage a sin-free lifestyle.

"In reality, as well as historically, the celebration of Valentine's Day is synonymous with vice activities," Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz, head of the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM), which oversees the country's Islamic policies, told state media.

...

JAKIM officials will carry out a nationwide 'Mind the Valentine's Day Trap' campaign, he said, aimed at preventing Muslims from celebrating the day.

Nasrudin Hasan Tantawi, head of the Islamic party PAS's youth wing said Wednesday that authorities in the opposition-controlled northern states of Kedah, Penang and Kelantan as well as central Selangor state will also carry out "immorality checks" on February 14.

...

"We have identified spots in these states which are used by lovers and we are deploying local religious department officials as well as party members to stop such sinful acts like casual sex, which violates Islam," he told AFP.

Always with the "morality police" at the ready! Why religious leaders don't trust people to worship as they see fit remains a mystery.

How to Save One Billion Dollars, House Republicans Style

Cut Family Planning by $317 and WIC (a program which provides nutritional support for women and children) by $747 million. And just so that foreigners don't feel left out, cut Global Health and Child Survival by $783 million.

Phew, good thing there's no connection between having unprotected intercourse and pregnancy, between pregnancy and having children, and between children and having to, you know, feed them.

Or how about cut Public Housing Capital by $1,072 million and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program - Contingency Fund by $390, Community Health Centers by $1,000 million, the CDC's Immunization and respiratory Diseases by $156 million, Public Health Preparedness and Response by $269, and flu funding by $288.

Because when you spend all your money on rent and can't afford to pay the heat bill or pay for a flu shot or an inhaler and you become sick, you don't need no stinkin' Community Health Center to catch the illness early on and treat it. Best to suffer stoically and infect as many people as possible in the process.




(via)