You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1337)

PLAYS: (1531)

Judy Thomas in the Kansas City Star has an amazing piece (picked up by MSNBC) about the online fund-raiser being planned for Scott Roeder, the right-wing extremist who shot Dr. George Tiller in the head in his church:

An Army of God manual. A prison cookbook compiled by a woman doing time for abortion clinic bombings and arsons. An autographed bullhorn.

These are among the items that abortion foes plan to auction on eBay and other Web sites in a fundraiser for Scott Roeder, the Kansas City man charged with killing Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller.

“This is unique,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who will sign the bullhorn. “Nobody’s ever done this before. The goal is that everybody makes money for Scott Roeder’s defense.”

One abortion-rights leader called the auction deplorable and said it could lead to more violence.

“The network of extremists promoting and defending the murder of doctors is contributing to escalating threats against clinics and doctors across the country,” said Kathy Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Roeder, charged with first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting of Tiller, is scheduled to go to trial in January.

Perhaps even more appalling is the line of defense they hope to pursue in the courts with this money:

Leach and others would like to help Roeder hire a lawyer to present what is known as a necessity defense. That strategy would argue that Tiller was killed to prevent a greater harm — killing babies. Other anti-abortion activists charged with violent crimes have tried to use such a defense but with little success.

Yeah, let's legalize killing abortion doctors. Sounds like a job for Antonin Scalia. One can only hope this defense has zero success, as it has in the past.

Rachel Maddow also featured a segment on this story last night on her MSNBC show, including an interview with the attorney for Tiller's family, who says he'll move to have the court attach any funds they raise on Roeder's behalf:

Continue reading »

These are Democrats, mind you. And the thing is, I don't even believe most of these amoral jerks give a damn about abortion. They're just playing to their audience, and it provides protective cover for their real agenda: Stop the public option at any cost.

And of course this means that women on Medicaid who already have abortion coverage would lose it. Our women's-rights president's bold stand?

"‘Look, try to get this thing worked out among the Democrats. We want you to work it out within the party,’ ” Mr. Stupak said, adding that Mr. Obama did not say whether he supported the segregated-money provision or a more sweeping restriction. “We got his attention, which we never had before.”

Isn't that nice. In a country founded on religious freedom, apparently some religions are much more equal than others:

WASHINGTON — As if it were not complicated enough, the debate over health care in Congress is becoming a battlefield in the fight over abortion.

Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. Opponents of abortion cite as precedent a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions.

Yes, God forbid that an unemployed couple who are struggling to get on their financial feet have abortion as an option. It makes a lot more sense to send them (and their offspring) further down the financial hole, don't you think?

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The question looms as a test of President Obama’s campaign pledge to support abortion rights but seek middle ground with those who do not. Mr. Obama has promised for months that the health care overhaul would not provide federal money to pay for elective abortions, but White House officials have declined to spell out what he means.

Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.

But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.

You know what I see as the real issue? When we give high-quality, subsidized insurance to allegedly "pro-life" politicians, why, that means they have that much more cash to spend on their girlfriends' abortions (not to mention hookers of either gender), and that can't be allowed to stand.

The solution is obvious. Just to make sure we're not subsidizing immoral behavior, we need to stop paying for their health insurance. In fact, maybe we should cut their salaries so they're not led into temptation.

I wasn't planning to write about this today, but reading this really got to me. Despite the fact that this country was founded on the idea of freedom of religion, there's a substantial bloc of citizens who seem to believe their religious beliefs trump everyone else's, even to the inclusion of institutionalized terror tactics.

I wonder when our constitutional-law president is going to use the extensive anti-terror powers at his command to protect women's legal rights?

For a nation that claims to cherish its freedoms, America is pretty damned complacent about the harassment that goes on outside abortion clinics. Imagine this circus outside of dentist's offices instead. Imagine what it would feel like, having to endure being called a whore and a killer on your way in to have a bad tooth pulled. Maybe they'd throw little plastic teeth at you; maybe they'd even take your photograph on the way in. People wouldn't stand for it: I have the right to choose my own dental care, they'd say. Who do these people think they are? And even if I were the smallest bit unsure about the choice I'd made, even if some part of me wanted to be talked into a filling and not an extraction--why in god's name would some hostile, red-faced, screaming stranger get a vote?

Maybe there's an element of trolling to that analogy. I could write the outraged top-text for an email forward of this blog myself. "Can you believe it! A LIVING, ALMOST-BREATHING CHILD who will PROBABLY CURE CANCER SOMDAY is nothing more than a ROTTED MOLAR to this BARREN GODLESS WHORE!!!"

Feel free to copy/paste--but if you do, you're missing the point. Bullying never won any hearts or minds, and harassment or intimidation of private citizens going about their private lives is never, never, never a tool for good. There is no place for such tactics of fear in civil discourse, and no one who employs them can be truly called a warrior for good, no matter what they tell themselves while they're packing their bullhorn and their gore posters into the car every morning.

I can't make the protesters who camp out in front of my clinic in the mornings go away. I can't even make them behave like rational, responsible citizens. But I can make sure that the women (and men, and children) who walk into my clinic don't have to run that obstacle course alone, and I believe I can assuage some of their fear. I can shield them physically from shouts and eyes and cameras. I can assure by my presence as a witness that the protesters don't "forget" where the property line is. And I can be one voice of supportive reason, quiet but strong, in opposition to the shouting about the blastocyst deep conditioning cabal:

"I'm a volunteer with the clinic. We have some protesters out front who will try to shout at you. They don't know why you're here, but they're going to shout at you anyway. You don't have to listen to them. I can just walk alongside and keep myself between them and you. I'm sorry you have to deal with this today."

Their fear is why I escort. Their gratitude is why I keep coming back.

Well, I suppose we should have known. Apparently the big holdup with Max Baucus's Finance Committee bill is... abortion. (Yeah, I wondered what the hell that has to do with finance, too.)

But wait, it gets better! The Senate Republicans not only demand that abortions not be paid for with public funds (something already forbidden by the Hyde Amendment), they want to prevent private insurance plans from paying for them, too.

Wow. If the Dems knuckle under to this extortion, it'll be war.

TAPPED has more:

Many supporters of health reform believe that systemic questions, such as whether or not reform will include a public insurance option, should inform the congressional and public debates. But the truth is that Americans, unsurprisingly, seem to be most concerned about coverage specifics. After reform, what procedures will and won’t be covered? Will my array of choices expand or contract?

Those fears have been artfully exploited by the increasingly enthusiastic and radical conservative anti-health reform movement. In response, today the White House launched “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check“, a website modeled after “Fight the Smears,” a campaign season effort to dispel rumors about Barack Obama’s background and positions.

The new site is built around a simplified, eight-point explanation of how consumers will benefit from health reform. Using this messaging, the administration plans a public relations push during the congressional recess, with a focus on drumming up grassroots support via the Obama’s team’s email list and outreach to the liberal blogosphere. But given the intensity of anti-reform protests over the last week, there is little doubt that the president seems to be on the defensive. The continued lack of one, concrete, completed health reform bill means that opponents of reform can grandstand on a number of hypothetical issues. For example, both the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP committee bill create an independent council of medical experts to advise HHS on what services will be covered in the new health exchanges. Conservatives have suggested that the council — which, of course, does not yet exist — will prevent terminally ill patients from receiving life support or continuing care, or will mandate abortion coverage.

Both of those outcomes are completely improbable. Neither are on the White House’s agenda. But by kicking some tough choices on coverage down the line, to after reform passes, Democrats have opened the door to this kind of scare-mongering. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and opponents of reform — along with skeptical moderates — are exploiting that simple truth.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the abortion debate. None of the health reform proposals in Congress threaten the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents the federal government from funding abortions. But anti-choice legislators are not satisfied. Many women will receive government subsidies to buy health insurance after reform, and Republicans — including some senators in the all-powerful “Gang of Six” — would like those women to be banned from accessing abortion with those funds, whether they are covered through private insurance plans or a potential public option. This would be a significant curtailing of reproductive rights, since most private insurance plans currently do offer some abortion coverage.

In this case, the current reform proposals actually do maintain the oft-heralded “status quo:” Medicaid won’t cover abortion, but private insurance plans will. It is reform opponents who are pushing to change the way health care is delivered, by curtailing women’s ability to access abortion coverage in the private insurance market. This morning, a senior administration official, speaking on background, told me that some moderate Republicans are choosing to understand health insurance subsidies as tax credits, and thus, from a libertarian point of view, might support a woman’s right to access any health procedure she wishes with that “tax credit,” including abortion. And yet, this official affirmed that abortion is among the issues holding up the Senate Finance Committee — right alongside long term cost containment and debates over whether the federal or state governments will pay to expand Medicaid.

In other words, almost everything about health reform remains up in the air. Stay tuned.

You know why bloggers don't get invited onto more news shows? Because we would absolutely clean the politicians' clocks over hypocrisy like this. Billions of dollars to spend on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed more than a million innocent civilians, but they go all brave and weepy-eyed over theoretical babies. Funny, how little attention they give to them once they're out of the womb:

In the wake of Dr. George Tiller's murder, the U.S. Senate is debating a resolution that condemns violence against abortion providers. The words "reproductive health care" are in the bill, causing Republicans and anti-abortion senators to oppose it, according to a Minnesota Independent article.

Senators Amy Klobuchar, who is the lead sponsor, Jeanne Shaheen and Barbara Boxer worded the bill to say "acts of violence should never be used to prevent women from receiving reproductive health care." The bill's opponents say it glorifies abortion. The article also said that an anonymous Republican senator moved to use the "secret hold," which prevents a vote on the bill.

Klobuchar told the Minnesota Independent, "As a former prosecutor I have seen how acts of violence can tear apart communities...No matter how heated the debate or how great our differences, violence is never the answer."

A similar bill passed the House June 9, but it was a watered-down version of the one currently in the Senate. It did not mention Dr. Tiller or his profession, and did not use the words "reproductive rights" or "abortion."