Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

Good grief. Is there a class Lefties attend to learn to write like that, like Marxist Magniloquence 101? Anyhow, this goes back to one of the Warmist’s biggest issues: reducing the global population. And, interestingly, this ties into what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted, namely, reducing the number of minorities, which is what happens when birth control is spread around to much of the developing world, particularly places like the African continent. You want racism? That’s racism! Planning based on the doctrine of eugenics.

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

That’s interesting, since Liberals get the vapors when Conservatives talk about liberating women from being 2nd class citizens as they are in much of the Islamic world. But, really, this is all about spreading abortion on demand around the world. Cheaply. Which is where the asterisk in the headline comes in: liberals think contraceptives, sterilization (Sanger loved the thought of sterilizing Blacks and defectives a hoot), and abortions should be free, and, by free, I mean “someone else pays.” Liberals never seem to want to pay for anything themselves. That’s why they loved Obama’s insurance mandate, as Someone Else would pay for their condoms and birth control pills, and screw what the constitution says about religious freedom.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

But, Obama is not giving up on forcing his views on American’s, reducing their freedom (via Hot Air)

(ABC News) President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”

Yet, they do have access to contraception, regardless of whether their health insurance offers it or not. They can get a prescription from a doctor and pick up birth control pills. No one is stopping them. They can go down to the local pharmacy and buy condoms! Amazing, eh? And easy! They’re even available at grocery stores and small places like 7/11, WaWa, Kangaroo, and so on. By this same argument the Democrats are making, every plan should include, say, laser eye surgery. For free. No co-pays. Yet, most don’t even include a small discount. Government is not mandating. But, 1 in 4 American’s will need some sort of corrective eye implements by age 40.

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

As Allahpundit wrote Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? What about the Central Government’s power to decide? But, neither is deciding whether or not to use contraception, they are deciding whether it is in the health insurance plans. Government is mandating over the specific religious objections of Catholics, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, along with the liberals own talking points about a “separation of Church and State.”

This is not a bug, though, nor a by-product. This is intentional. When you dig into ObamaCare, you see that one of the main points is to make sure private sector employers who offer health insurance drop their coverages. Central government would much rather have the private sector pay the $2,000 fine to the Central Government, rather than pay the $6-12 thousand per year per employee they are paying now, with the employees then joining the government health insurance exchange. With each company that ends up dropping their offers, the Democrats can demonize them and says “look how mean private sector companies are!”

If just one employee obtains insurance through the exchange, their company is responsible for paying the fine for every employee. In retail, there can be, roughly, 25% of the employees being part-time. Some companies offer insurance for them, but, none take it, because it is much more expensive. Some do not even offer to part time. Companies will not take the chance that just one obtains insurance through the exchange. They will drop their plans. And that’s beside the notion that the fine is cheaper than the out-lays.

Let’s not forget this from the other day

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

“Drop health care coverage.” That’s the point. But, why Obama would want to pick this fight in a presidential election year is strange. Perhaps he thinks that no matter how shabbily he treats Catholics, they’ll still vote for him. Democrats treat lots of voter blocks poorly, and, yes, they are dumb enough to vote Democrats. Will this time be different? Perhaps Obama was trying to change the narrative, which is that he is incompetent, has no clue how to deal with the economy, and is against creating private sector jobs. Move the conversation away from Keystone XL, Solyndra and other failed “green” companies, the waste of Stimulus, and Fast and Furious. Or, perhaps, he just doesn’t know better, and made a whopper of a mistake in green lighting this agenda.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

I think I am an inch away from endorsing Rick Santorum if he keeps this up. I am sure my endorsement will put him over the top, but that aside Santorum has really been standing as the only actual conservative left in the race at this point. His latest triumph occurred in Minnesota where he raked Romney over the coals for Romneycare — something that not enough people are doing.

Santorum’s charge is simple. How can a guy that still to this day defends Romneycare be the one to take the fight over Obamacare to the President? I’ve been saying for three years that Romney is simply unable to be the candidate to refute Obamacare and I am thrilled to see Santorum saying the same.

At his appearance in Rochester, Santorum said, “Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”

“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”

Santorum’s exactly right, too. How can we believe a word Romney says on repealing Obamacare when he still to this day is a huge supporter of Romneycare and its individual mandate? Especially since early in his campaigning for the presidency Romney said that Romneycare was a model for the nation. Especially since one of his chief advisors says that they really aren’t going to repeal Obamacare despite what Romney says on the stump.

Romney simply cannot face Obama on the issue because his record is no different than Obama’s on healthcare. Romney is an anti-Constitutionalist, a big government guy, a statist, whatever you want to call him his record is exactly like Obama’s on the issue. Should we believe what Romney says on the stump that he’ll repeal Obamacare if elected? I say we go by his actual record, not what, in a desperate attempt to win, he claims he’ll do if elected. His words have no veracity. Just look at his record.

Romney has taken notice of Santorum, too, and he’s set his smear machine on over drive to destroy Santorum. Romney has chosen to go after Rick on earmarks, but, as Santorum notes, that is a bit cynical since Romney and those that are acting as his surrogate have been big supporters of earmarks in the past.

“Here’s a situation where someone is now doing well, rising in the polls and instead of Gov. Romney going out and talking about his plans and what he’s going to do, he goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear — even though he’s as vulnerable on this issue [earmarks] as anybody,” Santorum said.

He said some of Romney’s surrogates have used earmarks in the past, but did not specifically mention Pawlenty.

“This is the narrative which you’re going to see. Anytime someone challenges Gov. Romney, Gov. Romney goes out and instead of talking about what he’s for … he just simply goes out and attacks and tries to destroy,” Santorum told reporters after his speech. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”

The main takeaway here is that Romney has been allowed to skate without having to confront his statist love of Romneycare. It is good that Santorum is finally taking it to Mitt forcefully. Some one needs to, anyway.

Hat tip: Protein Wisdom: We insiders call this stealth conservatism
AJ Strata:

Romney and the GOP establishment have been attacking the 2010 insurgent voters, who rightfully want to shrink everyone’s power in DC and put it back in the hands of the people. This has made the angry 2010 voter the enemy of the GOP – a strange way to win elections.

I can summarize this as f0llows: Obamacare versus Romneycare – where is a voter to find “none of the above!”?

Rick Santorum could be headed for a big day in today’s contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Missouri looks like a probable win for Santorum. He’s at 45% there to 32% for Mitt Romney and 19% for Paul. Minnesota provides an opportunity for a win as well. Currently he has a small advantage with 33% to 24% for Romney, 22% for Newt Gingrich, and 20% for Ron Paul. And Santorum should get a second place finish in Colorado, where Romney appears to be the likely winner. The standings there are Romney at 37%, Santorum at 27%, Gingrich at 21%, and Paul at 13%.

Santorum’s personal popularity is the main reason for his sudden reemergence as a relevant player in the GOP race. In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He’s far better liked than his main opponents- Romney’s favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich’s is 47-48%. While Romney and Gingrich have hammered each other in recents weeks Santorum’s been largely left alone and he’s benefiting from that now.

There are three groups Santorum’s winning in all three of these states: Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as ‘very conservative.’

He is also coming out of the shadows with more than jabs. He is coming with convincing arguments that can stick:

“Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day and he should not be the nominee of the party,” Santorum said in a hotel ballroom across the street from the hospital, adding the issue of health care is “central to our country, central to this race specifically why Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”…
“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”…
Santorum said the two plans have similar levels, using terms like “gold, silver, and bronze,” and in possibly his most aggressive attack he said they both use “government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” and for the second day in a row brought up the controversial term “death panels.”
The candidate told the crowd the vulnerable could be at risk under the administration’s plan and are at risk under Romney’s plan because the government could “ultimately decide to ration care.”

Several bloggers are now getting behind Santorum and the momentum has arrived for it to be his turn. He should watch out. So far he has been fairly safe from the Romney attack machine the liberal media because they thought he had no chance. That is all about to change soon. I’m not sure he has what it takes or if he is the best choice, but I do think we will see a game changer tonight.

Meanwhile, I think Gingrich is truly and passionately planning to stay in and hopes for a Southern sweep later on. Don’t count him out yet either. Also, Mitt Romney is definitely not a foregone conclusion as the nominee.

Why climate change will make you love big government

This essay was originally published on TomDispatch and is republished here with Tom’s kind permission.

Look back on 2011 and you’ll notice a destructive trail of extreme weather slashing through the year. In Texas, it was the driest year ever recorded. An epic drought there killed half a billion trees,  touched off wildfires that burned 4 million acres, and destroyed or  damaged thousands of homes and buildings. The costs to agriculture,  particularly the cotton and cattle businesses, are estimated at $5.2 billion — and keep in mind that, in a winter breaking all sorts  of records for warmth, the Texas drought is not yet over.

That kind of whining about the weather, which is the fault of Barack Obama cruising the country in 17 car convoys, continues on for a bit longer. Because weather never happened before 1980 (until you cruise Real Science, and see the newspaper headlines from the past)

Such calamities, devastating for those affected, have important  implications for how we think about the role of government in our  future. During natural disasters, society regularly turns to the state  for help, which means such immediate crises are a much-needed reminder  of just how important a functional big government turns out to be to our  survival.

In the past, people tended to rely on themselves. And there is nothing wrong with government helping out: it’s one of the reasons we have government. There is no need for a massive central government with a giant bureaucracy. Of course, that’s not the progressive narrative: to them, we need giant over-reaching and all powerful government for when the wind blows, it rains, and it snows….hey, remember when the NYC public sector unions slowed the snow cleanup in 2010?

Anyhow, the author goes on and on about how great big central government is, and why the private sector can’t do anything, ending with

In the face of an unraveling climate system, there is no way that  private enterprise alone will meet the threat. And though small “d”  democracy and “community” may be key parts of a strong, functional, and  fair society, volunteerism and “self-organization” alone will prove as  incapable as private enterprise in responding to the massive challenges  now beginning to unfold.

To adapt to climate change will mean coming together on a large scale  and mobilizing society’s full range of resources. In other words, big  storms require big government. Who else will save stranded climate  refugees, or protect and rebuild infrastructure, or coordinate rescue  efforts and plan out the flow and allocation of resources?

It will be government that does these tasks or they will not be done at all.

What would we do without Big Centralized Government taking charge? Just because they’ll need to take more and more money while imposing more and more regulations/restrictions on its citizens and businesses is Bo reason to poo poo the idea. Government is just here to help. Despite being incompetent and taking vastly too long to accomplish the most minor and mundane task is no reason to be concerned about Government. Just because the climate change movement is about fascism (for everyone else) is no reason to worry.

(Politico) The issue of race and American politics, never far beneath the surface during Barack Obama’s historic 2008 campaign, is making a loud, overt and surprisingly early appearance in the 2012 presidential race.

And no one knows — least of all Obama himself — what impact the race card, always a wild card, will have on the president’s reelection prospects.

I’ll suggest it backfires, particularly if Team Obama and their sycophants attack Romney’s Mormonism.

In the past several months, Newt Gingrich has drawn sharp criticism for labeling Obama the “food stamp president” and for suggesting poor kids in New York’s majority-minority school system burnish their work ethic by picking up mops. First lady Michelle Obama bridled at the perception that she’s an “angry black woman.” Obama’s Chicago-based campaign has pushed back against stories that he’s more or less given up on the white vote.

Except, Newt wasn’t just talking about Black people: the majority of food stamp recipients are Caucasian. Michelle Obama is the one who brought up the angry black woman thing in order to create racial division. And Team Obama was the one who said they had given up on the white vote.

But nothing has illustrated the potentially explosive political impact of race — an issue that Obama has downplayed throughout his career — like the firestorm around the image of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer wagging her finger at the first black president of the United States.

If there were any illusion that 2012 would be the post-racial election most Americans hoped for, it vanished with that single shake of a finger and 30 seconds of sniping lost to history in the turbine roar of Air Force One.

Got that? The duly elected Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is an evil racist simply because she wagged her finger in the face of a disrespectful half-black President. By that definition, we could call Obama a sexist, since he was disrespectful to Brewer and walked away.

But, what else does Obama have to run on? He certainly can’t run on his record. He doesn’t like to talk about his signature legislation, the Stimulus and Obamacare. He can play with the economic numbers all he wants, but people are hurting, and things are not getting better. The housing industry is still a major mess. Real world prices are rising. Disposable income is very low. Consumer confidence is low. There are historic numbers of people who have given up on the job market. The recession supposedly ended in June, 2009, yet, here in 2012, nothing seems to have changed.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Said story: Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot

Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.

They are showing up at planning meetings to denounce bike lanes on public streets and smart meters on home appliances — efforts they equate to a big-government blueprint against individual rights. (snip)

The protests date to 1992 when the United Nations passed a sweeping, but nonbinding, 100-plus-page resolution called Agenda 21 that was designed to encourage nations to use fewer resources and conserve open land by steering development to already dense areas. They have gained momentum in the past two years because of the emergence of the Tea Party movement, harnessing its suspicion about government power and belief that man-made global warming is a hoax.

Some may in fact see it as a UN plot, but, then, the UN has been pushing junk science and all sorts of initiatives, most recently “biodiversity” and “sustainability”, as a means to put more control into the hands of government, as well as people’s hard earned money. As Tom Nelson points out

Is Revkin really sure that Tea Party activisits don’t just see their hard-earned cash being blown on idiotic left-wing bad-weather-preventing projects?

Let me tell you a little tale. Behind my home is a greenway that follows the Neuse River. The stretch in my area, which extends a few miles from the Highway 264 bridge north, is mostly dirt and gravel. Over the last few months they have been paving it. And cutting down trees. Wait, cutting down trees on a greenway? And by “months” they have literally been slapping down a mile or two of pavement perhaps 5 feet wide. I hear their machines every weekday for months. Not quite sure what they are doing, but, I’m pretty sure it’s expensive. Now, I have no problem with the greenway. In fact, I think it’ll be great to rollerblade on (there are no good places in my area to ‘blade). Of course, not many people used it before: most folks either walked the sidewalks or the golf car paths. I’d go for a walk down it beforehand (it’s been closed for about 5 months now) and see no one else. A $13 million bond was voted in back in 2007. Perhaps, in this economy, it isn’t the time to spend the money on a greenway that will barely be used. Total cost for all the greenways is $30 million. Rather expensive, eh? And wasteful. Should have put convicts out there building it.

Similarely, TEA Party activists are tired of the government wasting enormous amounts of money, usually overspending at high levels, on “green” projects that will rarely be used. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes nature projects for the sake of nature are good. But, be responsible with the money. And don’t cut trees down on greenways, for goodness sakes.

(Fox News) In an effort to cut the unemployment rate among veterans, the Obama administration is calling for a new conservation program that would put veterans to work rebuilding trails, roads and levees on public lands.

Let’s give him some credit for wanting to reduce the unemployment rate among veterans, even if it is surely politically motivated, geared towards peeling off some veteran support from the GOP for Election 2012. But, let’s face it, it is pathetic that Obama thinks the best use of men and women who served in the most professional, educated, modern, and high-tech military ever seen is to get them jobs as menial workers. Granted, they would get paid well, being federal money and all. But, they are certainly more capable then being offered ditch digger jobs. Not to mention simply creating new government jobs, rather than private sector ones.

Of course, much like with his Stimulus, the jobs probably do not exist. Furthermore, the idea, like most of his ideas, isn’t particularly original

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the Civilian Conservation Corps that operated during the 1930s could be viewed as a model for what the administration will try to accomplish through its “Veterans Jobs Corps.” He said that the administration will propose spending $1 billion that would be used to put an estimated 20,000 veterans to work restoring habitat and eradicating invasive species, among other activities.

So now the Obama admin. is looking towards Depression era make-work programs that failed to stimulate the economy, and helped keep the USA mired in depression for a decade.

What’s a Republican Feminist To Do?

Of course, we could ask “how many Republican women call themselves “feminists”?” How many have hairy legs and armpits? How many complain about “reproductive rights” and the government getting in the way of the ability to make a “choice” to kill an unborn infant?

In the winter line-up of Republican presidential candidates, a moderate pro-choice Republican woman has no choice. She might feel as if she were so, well, last century.

It is not news that the Republican Party has moved further right on social issues over the past few decades, but the 2012 campaign is a clear marker showing that the party has left legal abortion behind. All the contenders, past and present, adamantly oppose legal abortion, even the libertarian obstetrician-gynecologist, Ron Paul. Overturning legal abortion may in fact be the one thing they all agree on — so it doesn’t come up much in debates, speeches or interviews. But it is on their agenda.

What we see is that Liberals consider support for abortion on demand to be a bedrock of being a feminist. Are there “moderate pro-abortion Republican women”? Probably. Do they seem to obsess over the ability for someone to have an abortion if they so choose? Doubtful. Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not obsess over being able to kill an unborn child simply because they became pregnant after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. Republicans, including women, refuse to be tied to labels and put in boxes.

By contrast, whatever he did in his personal life, President Clinton brought a sound grasp of women’s lives to the stump and to the Oval Office. The first bill he signed into law, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, was a huge gift to working women.

Clinton also had another gift for women: taking advantage of an intern young enough to be his daughter, receiving oral sex under his desk while he smoked a cigar. And we’ll keep this post PG rated by not discussing what he also did with a cigar. How’s that for having a sound grasp of women’s lives? If a Republican did that, he’d be branded a sexist and slapped with a sexual harassment suit. Oh, wait, Clinton was branded a sexist and slapped with multiple suits. If memory serves, Liberals were concerned with….destroying the women who filed those suits. I do love how Mz. Steihm casually dismisses the issue.

President Obama signed the pay equity act named for Lilly Ledbetter. His affordable health care act would make birth control more freely available.

It’s very interesting that Mz. Steihm would bring ObamaCare up in her post: we constantly hear from Liberals that they want government out of our health decisions, especially as it pertains to “women’s health issues”, ie, abortion on demand. They always fail to mention that they love government funding abortions so that people do not have to put out their money for an abortion after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. And that they love government regulations, laws, and court decisions that keep abortion “legal and rare.” But, then we come to ObamaCare: what other legislation passed in the history of the United States has involved the government more in “women’s health issues” than this one? Real health issues. We have the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will make decisions about payments and treatments. We have massive reductions in Medicare and Medicaid funding. Most women think ObamaCare is bad for their families. ObamaCare will drive up the costs for health insurance and care. And we have supporters and proponents of ObamaCare calling for women to have breast exams later in life, because it is a waste of money to have them before 50. Those “death panels” are still there, regarding life decisions. Unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will make decisions on health and cost.

That sure seems like government is getting heavily involved in “women’s health issues”, along with everyone else’s. One would think Liberals would be against government intruding on this issue. Alas, no, their only care is that government not place any restrictions on abortion on demand, even when it comes to later term abortion and requiring parental notification (of course, in the hypocrite world of Liberalism, they’d freak out if they weren’t notified about their own child). Daring to require a 24 hour waiting period or getting an ultrasound makes even the few rational liberals out there talk as if the legislation means women are going to be chained in a cell and forced to have the baby from their casual night of unprotected sex.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.