What a nice surprise! Everyday, I feel like 8pm will never arrive!

Oh, yippie, skippy!!! :)

Yes, we are revisiting things we thought were settled decades ago. A woman's right to control her own body. Child labor. The forty hour work week. Right to vote. In Wisconsin, the fifty year old ability of public workers to bargain collectively. All these things we called social progress.

We can take nothing for granted. Nothing.

Santorum accused Charie Rose of attack journalism.

Charlie Rose?

That man is almost as agressive as his last name. LOL

As a licensed mental health private practitioner who works with victims of rape and sexual abuse, I would like to know how the Virginia legislation mandating an intra-vaginal sonogram for women seeking an abortion is not legalized sexual assault? If anyone has any illusion that this is not a violation of a woman's Constitutional right to privacy, I would be happy to hear the argument.

And, by the way, where is the Justice Department's intervention on this and the Republicans' coordinated efforts to eviscerate women's and voters' rights on a state-to-state basis? Given Eric Holder's inertia, I'm beginning to wonder if he doesn't simply phone in his job and pick up his paycheck at a post office box.

As a licensed mental health private practitioner who works with victims of rape and sexual abuse, I would like to know how anyone can doubt that the Virginia legislation mandating any woman seeking an abortion submit to an intra-vaginal sonogram is not legalized sexual assault? If there is anyone delusional enough to believe that this creepy law is not a violation of a woman's right to privacy, I would love to hear the argument.

And, by the way, where is the Justice Department as Republican-controlled states are eviscerating not only women's reproductive rights, but voters' rights as well. I'm beginning to wonder if Eric Holder doesn't simply phone in his job and pick up his paycheck at a drop box.

Sorry for the duplicate comments. I thought that the first one got lost.

Birth Control and DNA

The Republican obsession with birth control, abortion and personhood brings to mind an excellent book by Paul Rubin titled, “Darwinian Politics” in which he discusses the evolutionary origins of many of our political preferences. The book describes how behaviors that lead to success in terms of survival and reproduction were programmed into our DNA and became our preferences. Although this occurred during the Paleolithic and earlier periods, these preferences remain within us today, like outdated software. This may explain current attitudes toward birth control. The males of many species try to control the reproduction and offspring of the females and we are simply seeing that expressed in Republican politics today.

The advantage of viewing modern political events through an evolutionary lens is that you no longer see the pendulum swinging from right to left but rather backward and forward. The swing backward represents the right wing Paleolithic thinking, or non-thinking, because it is simply our ancient DNA reacting to our modern environment. Whereas the swing left is actually a swing forward toward the future, toward the aspiration of democracy.

John Avlon writes that our public dialogue is dominated by extreme right and left Wingnuts. Those in the middle can easily be confused by all the nonsense. The Occupy movement created great clarity with their 99% idea. I think looking at
political events through an evolutionary lens is also clarifying, especially the idea that the pendulum is either swinging back to the past or forward to the future.

I have a deep reverence for democracy. To me it is one of mankind’s greatest ideas,
a step outside the limitations of our DNA. To me it represents our attempt to create
a better world. I hope that we can keep the forward momentum.

Thanks for posting this. A nice afternoon interlude.

For years now we've been concerned and fearful for women's plights in ultra conservative muslim circles, and we may have been looking away from home too long. We may have identified the wrong "enemy". Santorum and his ilk are throwing virtual burkas over our heads. The conservative Christian right is misogyny at its best, racism beyond the pale, homphobia at its worst.As the old Pogo cartoon eloquently said:"we havemet the enemy and he is us" Let's wake up, as we did over the Kommen fiasco recently, and be heard. Let Santorum et al wear burkas, be stoned, be held responsible for this - not women.

If sex is only for procreation, per Santorum, not for pleasure, maybe viagra and cialis should be removed from the market and from insurance coverage, except for young churched married men intending to have more children? It would be logical enough.

I think we should make men's reproductive health a national issue. First, we should require a man seeking a vasectomy to undergo counseling, view an educational video that graphically depicts the surgical procedure, and undergo a testicular ultrasound at least 48 hours prior to scheduling the vasectomy. Second, we should prohibit physicians and practitioners from prescribing ED medications to single men even if the ED medication is needed to treat a non-sexual related health problem, such as heart disease and hypertension. Third, we should exempt vasectomies, prostate exams, and ED medications from the medical procedures and medications that company health plans and insurance companies are required to cover. After all, vasectomies encourage men to do things in the sexual realm that are morally wrong, and because women don't have prostates, prostate exams are not our (women's) concern. Finally, women should be the decision-makers of national policies affecting men's reproductive health. So... who's with me on this?

Sometimes sarcasm is the best therapy.

Rachel, You keep wondering why we are going back in time to when women did not have access to contraceptives. I know the answer. White men fear becoming the minority. Latinos are rapidly becoming the majority in this country.

Rick Santorum cannot be held personally responsible for the goofy comments of his supporters. Which doesn't mean he doesn't agree with them, just that he wouldn't have phrased it that... ummm.... honestly.

A smart bunch of women must come together and file suit.

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

That is the current definition of rape by the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/ pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape

Rape.

Just say it.

In 2011, more than 900 measures related to reproducti­ve health and rights were passed in Republican­-dominated state legislatur­es across the country. Last year the Mississipp­i legislatur­e proposed the Personhood Amendment, an unpreceden­ted initiative that would have declared a fertilized egg a legal person. We have seen state and federal proposals from Republican­s who seek to restrict access to abortion by redefining “rape” and “fetus” to criminaliz­e women and restrict medical providers. All across the country we have seen attempts by republican dominated legislatur­es and governors to pass legislatio­n that would take away the basic rights and control that women have of their bodies, and we have seen their attempts to dismantle basic health care services and family planning that millions rely upon.

And yet, many in the media act as if the GOP's latest battle over birth control is some new position that they have taken. The notion that the GOP suddenly and only recently decided to pivot towards the culture wars of birth control and "religious freedom" shortly after economic indicators picked up is a popular media narrative, but it's simply not true. The culture wars have been on the GOP agenda all along. If you can't recognize that, you haven't been paying attention.

Bill Wolff & Rachel Maddow

You really want to look at this (your next BIG series of discussions):

by Eric Byler

Could it be that the Montana Supreme Court has given the United States Supreme Court the opportunity to reconsider the "Citizens United" decision? The Montana ruling on Dec. 30, 2011 defied the highest court in the land by upholding Montana's ban on corporate spending in state elections, prompting a very interesting response from Washington DC.

John C. Bonifaz, Director of Free Speech For People explains:

In an unusual statement, US Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have called for a reconsideration of the Court’s January 2010 Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court this evening issued a stay of the Montana Supreme Court's December 30, 2011 ruling which had upheld the state's century-old law banning corporate money in elections. The US Supreme Court's stay order means that, for the first time in 100 years, corporations may make unlimited expenditures in the state's elections.

But, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, issued a concurring statement making clear that this case is “an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

The Court is likely to accept review of the Montana case. The main question now is whether it will issue a reversal of the state supreme court ruling without a full argument on the merits or whether it will allow that full argument. Either way, this will push even further to the forefront the impact of the Citizens United ruling on our democracy.

Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, writes:

The Montana Supreme Court had cited the state’s demonstration of corruption caused by corporate spending in elections, and the effect of Montana law in preventing that corruption, as a reason to distinguish the state’s law from the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act struck down in Citizens United.

And:

In taking the action based on its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court did not examine the substantial factual record in the Montana case or give the State a hearing. Nevertheless, the Court will decide whether to allow a petition for certiorari and may consider the case further.

Ginsburg and Breyer's statement references a claim made by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion for the "Citizens United" case, speculating that the impact of unlimited and undisclosed election spending by corporations and other special interests would not create the appearance of corruption. Ginsburg writes:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. _— (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at _— (slip op., at 42. A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

According to the customary "Rule of Four," it would require two more Justices on the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear oral arguments on the Constitutionality of Montana's law.

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization that fights against environmental regulation and laws that oversee corporate spending to influence elections. To that end, ATP filed suit to challenge a Montana law passed in 1912 called Corrupt Practices Act, after the "Citizens United" decree.

Montana's Attorney General, Steve Bullock, defended the state of Montana's century-old law before the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that political corruption made the Corrupt Practices Act necessary in 1912, that the law had been successful in protecting Montana's democratic process from corruption for 100 years, and that the possibility of corruption requires its continuation despite of the Supreme Court's decree. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in the state's favor on Dec. 30, 2011.

ATP then asked the US Supreme Court for three things: (1) a stay on the Corrupt Practices Act, (2) a review of the Montana Court's decision, and (3) a summary reversal. The Supreme Court's reply on Feb. 17, 2012 granted the stay, which means that the Corrupt Practices Act is no longer being enforced as Montana approaches its June 16 primary election. ATP would have preferred that the Supreme Court quietly grant the summary reversal without hearing oral arguments which could attract the attention of the public. But the Court's response implies that this request may not be granted.

Due to Ginsburg and Breyer's striking statement, the public scrutiny ATP had hoped to avoid may be inevitable. The issue plays into a dominant narrative of the 2012 GOP primary race, which has been flooded by Super-PAC money, drawing complaints from across the political spectrum. Less than 24 hours after the statement, there is already talk of a rally at the US Supreme Court to allow the People to weigh in on whether or not anonymous and unlimited campaign donations creates the appearance of corruption (sign up for details). The Court may decide to hear the Montana case as a way of revisiting "Citizens United" with new information to consider.

Update: ​Bonifaz explains:

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), the corporation challenging the Montana law, has until March 29 to file its petition for review before the Supreme Court. It may decide to file it much earlier than that. Under the normal rules, the State of Montana will then have 30 days to file its response, and ATP will then have 10 days to file its reply. However, the Court could possibly order the response and reply briefs on an expedited
schedule.

It is very likely the Court will accept review of this case, given the claim that the Montana Supreme Court ruling defies the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The main question is whether the Court will reverse the Montana ruling without allowing full argument on the merits. If it does that, we could see a decision very soon after the briefing on the petition for review has been submitted. If it allows for full argument, there will be merits briefing and then oral argument. That oral argument could happen this spring or it could be scheduled for the fall (the start of the next term for the Court).

Last fall, Bullock announced his candidacy to succeed Brian Schweitzer as Montana's governor.

Read the Supreme Court's Feb. 17, 2012 order

A response to Citizens United:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YFZAmTUbPEo

President Barack Obama during his campaign said he was going to deal with the Birthrate issue, he is keeping to his promise to come up with the contraception bill. This will have an effect on the abortion clinics, that in due time will have to close their doors.