Padaviya

Several prominent newspapers chose not to publish a series of Doonesbury comics because they address forced ultrasound legislation. But in the new media world we live in, their decision not to publish the comic strips ensures they will be much more widely read. 

And you can help!

Let’s make sure these are among the most seen Doonesbury comics ever.

Here’s a short link to use for this comic: http://bit.ly/yGkt65

Here’s a short link to use for this comic: http://bit.ly/AoliCI

Here’s a short link to use for this comic: http://bit.ly/xcBF6G

Here is a list of the media outlets who refused to publish these comics.  Take a couple of moments to post the comic in their comment sections, Facebook pages and Twitter streams.  You’ll have to “like” the media outlet on Facebook to post on their pages… a small price to pay for activism! 

* * * * * * *

The Los Angeles Times refused to publish the Doonesbury comics in their comics section, where people would look for them. They published them, but in their op-ed section. We know, we know - we don’t see an “opinion” either. 

You can post on their Facebook wall here, comment at their website here or you can click this button to tweet at them: 

* * * * * * *

The Houston Chronicle in Texas (!) likewise refused to publish the comics in their comics section. Instead, they moved the strips to their “Outlooks” page, where no one would know or care to look. If any publication should be publishing these comics on their front page, it’s any publication located in Texas!

You can post on their Facebook wall here, comment at their website here or you can click this button to tweet at them: 

* * * * * * *

The Athens Banner-Herald in Georgia refused to publish the comics because the editors “thought there was a real possibility that readers might confuse the topic of this week’s ‘Doonesbury’ with Georgia’s proposed abortion legislation.” Umm, all the more reason to discuss the issue in your paper!

You can post on their Facebook wall here, comment at their website here or you can click this button to tweet at them: 

* * * * * * *

The Oregonian refused to publish the comics because they “went over the line of good taste and humor.” Yeah, maybe, but only because forced ultrasounds and shaming of women goes over the line of good taste and humor. 

You can post to the Oregonian’s Facebook page here, comment at their website here or you can click this button to tweet at them: 

* * * * * * *

The Indianapolis Star declined to publish the strips in print. You can post to their Facebook wall here or tweet at them here:

* * * * * * *

The Arizona Star likewise declined to publish (in print). You can post to their Facebook wall here or tweet at them here: 

* * * * * * *

The SC Herald refused to publish the comics because the editors were “concerned about the graphic content.” How this excuse applies remains unclear.

You can post to the SC Herald’s Facebook page here  or you can click this button to tweet at them:

* * * * * * *

The CA Reporter refused to publish the comics because “[e]ditors believe [cartoonist Gary Trudeau] has expressed that opinion in a manner that skirts, if not crosses, the boundaries of good taste expected in a family newspaper.” Because good taste would obviously be to encourage anti-choice legislation, duh.

You can post to the CA Reporter’s Facebook page here or you can click this button to tweet at them:

* * * * * * *

The Ocala Star Banner is not running the series of strips.  Hit up their Facebook wall here and tweet them:

* * * * * * *

The UT Standard-Examiner refused to publish the comics because the ”language in the original strips was not appropriate for a comic that could be viewed by children.” Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. This is a political comic strip and “slut” is a political word, these days.

Tweet at the Standard-Examiner here:

* * * * * * *

The Press of Atlantic City refused to publish the comics because ”Texas abortion cartoons venture too far for the comics pages.” That’s really not an explanation.

You can post to the Press of Atlantic City’s Facebook page here.

* * * * * * *

The Gainesville Sun in Florida refused to publish the strips. Find them on Facebook here and tweet at them by clicking here:

* * * * * * *

The St. Paul Pioneer Press refused to publish the comics in print because “[t]he editors have decided the commentary in some panels is inappropriate for the comics section in the newspaper.” Not this again - what’s the criteria for “appropriate” comics?!

You can post to the St. Paul Pioneer Press’ Facebook page here, comment at their website here or you can click this button to tweet at them:

* * * * * * *

The Fort Worth Star Telegram refused to publish the comics in print, and today published an article stating that “the reason for not printing the strip has nothing to do with left- or right-wing politics. It has everything to do with civility and consistency.” Come on, really?

You can post to the Fort Worth Star Telegram’s Facebook page here, comment at their website here or you can click this button to tweet at them: 

* * * * * * *

The North Carolina News & Record and the Winston-Salem Journal (both smaller NC newspapers) refused to publish the strips in print. You can post to the Winston-Salem Journal’s Facebook site here. You can tweet at the News & Record here:   or at the Winston-Salem Journal here: 

* * * * * * *

The Utica Observer-Dispatch refused to publish the strips in print. You can post to their Facebook page here, comment on their website here (registration required) or you can click this button to tweet at them:  

* * * * * * *

The Tallahassee Democrat refused to publish the comics in print, and no one will say why. According to one reader, “Thus far, [there has been] no disclosure about its decision either in the paper or online.” After all, TD, you wouldn’t want to say the wrong thing.

You can post to the Tallahassee Democrat’s Facebook page here or you can click this button to tweet at them … 

Editor’s note: This article was amended at 10:33 a.m. on Monday, March 5th to correct an error of omission. An earlier draft with the link back to Style Weekly was lost and has now been re-inserted. The original reporting on this story comes from Style Weekly.

You might think that the right wing in this country was getting the message that women will no longer stand for legal, verbal, and physical abuse and harassment, especially by elected officials.  You would especially think that would be the case in Virginia where former Vice Presidential aspirant Governor Bob McDonnell, who is contemplating signing into law a forced ultrasound bill after doing women a “favor” and taking out the forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds initially required, has been widely pilloried.  You would also think the right-wing would be cautious after a week in which the seemingly untouchable Rush Limbaugh has, as of this writing, lost seven corporate sponsors over his debasing remarks about Sandra Fluke.

But you would be wrong. 

Because, you see, women in this country are so dangerous, their sense of entitlement as citizens so incredibly threatening to the peace of the republic that state police in riot gear were sent to remove peaceful protestors this past weekend. According to a news article in the Richmond independent news source Style Weekly:

Photos by Scott Elmquist, Style Weekly

“About a thousand women’s rights protestors descended on the state Capitol Saturday afternoon to protest anti-abortion legislation in the General Assembly, and then things got ugly,” reports Style Weekly’s Vernal Colman.

“About 20 State Police officers, many in swat gear with face shields and body armor, were called in to assist Capitol Police in controlling the crowd. Some of the State Police officers wore green camouflage and carried rifles and canisters of tear gas (no tear gas was used, however). After being warned to vacate the south steps of the Capitol, police officers arrested 31 people — 14 men and 17 women — on charges ranging from unlawful assembly to trespassing, according to Capitol Police.”

The rally ended a raucous two weeks in the statehouse, with anti-abortion legislation generating national headlines in a Republican-controlled General Assembly. While legislation granting unborn children “personhood” status was shelved until next year and a bill requiring invasive, transvaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions was watered down at the request of Gov. Bob McDonnell, women’s rights protestors descended onto Capitol Square nonetheless.

Photos by Scott Elmquist, Style Weekly

Colman continues: Organizers for the event, Speak Loudly With Silence, say that an estimated 1,000 people participated in the rally, which also involved members of the Occupy Richmond movement.”

Claire Tuite says that the arrests were not planned. When the protestors emerged on the Capitol, some made an “autonomous decision” to “occupy” the steps of the Capitol building.”

“This was a peaceful protest on taxpayer-funded property,” Tuite says. “We have every right to be here.”

Josh Kadrich, one of the organizers, says a small group broke off from the larger crowd of protestors, determined to make it to the steps. They blew by the cops standing on the steps leading towards the capitol. Others joined in. “Eventually, there were around 400 people sitting on the steps of the capitol in silence to protect women’s rights,” Kadrich says.

Then State Police, many officers in riot gear, showed up. The protestors were asked to leave and given a countdown as to when the police would begin making arrests. Some complied peacefully. Others locked arms and resisted.

Photos by Scott Elmquist, Style Weekly

Colman writes: “Molly Vice, press liaison for the group, says the arrests “shames lawmakers for passing regressive legislation that usurps the good judgment of women on their own health care for the state’s.

“It’s an outrage,” she says of the ultrasound bill. “We’re here … to tell truth to power that infringing on women’s health is not okay. Not this year or the next.”

For more photos from the rally, visit Style’s facebook page.

Apparently, Virginia’s state legislators and governor can occupy your body and your uterus, but you can’t occupy your state capitol.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter, @jljacobson

The year 2011will be remembered by reproductive rights supporters as the year that the anti-choice movement really turned up the aggression, destroying the objections of moderate liberals who thought that pro-choice activists were being hysterical little ladies with our constant warnings about anti-choicers.

Up until late 2010, you could still find many a liberal who would argue that conservatives “don’t really” want to ban abortion, but instead dangle the promise of doing so in front of a bunch of religious zealots to get their votes. Now those liberals realize the religious zealots actually exert quite a bit of control, in both their direct control over the Republicans and their ability to make the Democrats jump around nervously.

Up through 2010, you could find many liberals who would laugh condescendingly when you would point out that the anti-choice movement not only wants to ban abortion, but has an eye out for destroying access to contraception, as well. No one is laughing at the supposedly hysterical ladies anymore. Turns out, we were right all along, and everyone knows it, including the White House.

There’s much that can be said about the escalating attacks on abortion access, which seemed especially over-the-top in a nation gripped by economic crisis that needs to be dealt with immediately. Irin Carmon did an excellent round-up of that story at Salon, and is on this week’s podcast talking about the same.  As she explains, many anti-choice efforts in that direction were surprisingly useless at the end of the day, since they’ve been tied up in court or, as in the case of the personhood amendment in Mississippi, simply voted down completely.

What I want to comment on for my last column of the year is the war on contraception, since 2011 was the year where it went from a series of skirmishes over contraception access to all-out war. Let’s be clear; anti-choice activists have always opposed contraception. But they were always wary of being outed to the public at large as anti-contraception, which meant that their attempts to discourage the use of it were somewhat stymied.

Under the Bush administration, they scored some victories by mandating anti-contraception propaganda (misleadingly called “abstinence-only education”) in schools, preventing emergency contraception from being sold over-the-counter without age restrictions, and defunding international spending on family planning that had nothing to do with abortion. Two of those victories have turned to losses. Abstinence-only especially turned out to be a joke; while anti-choicers were able to secure an apparently much-desired uptick in the teen pregnancy rate, it seems like it was mostly a blip in what is a longer trend of teenagers being more responsible about contraceptive use. It also seemed, until very recently, that anti-choicers would also lose on emergency contraception.

The election of Obama and the rollback of anti-contraception propaganda, however, seems to have set the anti-choice movement off. Even though most of them will still deflect if asked directly in mainstream media if they oppose contraception, they basically stopped trying so hard to manage mainstream perceptions of themselves as somehow just great lovers of fetal life, and are coming out with their anti-sex, misogynist agenda. The word “abortion” gets thrown around a lot, but the actions of the anti-choice movement this year made it crystal clear that it’s not about abortion, but about punishing women who have sex, full stop. Here’s a list of examples of how:

1) The Planned Parenthood federal budget stand-off. When House Republicans threatened a government shutdown if Title X funding for contraception and reproductive health services wasn’t stripped from the budget, the word “abortion” was tossed around a lot. Maybe some fools bought that story, but for most of us it was obvious that it couldn’t be about abortion. After all, no Title X funds can go to abortion services. It was clearly an attack on contraception access for those who couldn’t pay out of pocket, fitting with previous anti-choice hostility towards contraception.

2) The defunding of family planning clinics on a state level. House Republicans may have lost the funding battle on a federal level, but there’s been much more success depriving women of access to contraceptives and related services on a state level. For instance, under Rick Perry’s leadership, Texas has been so successful in stripping funding from family planning clinics that the state can expect to see a 22 percent increase in its abortion rate. Other anti-choice-controlled states are making the move to dramatically increase the unintended pregnancy rate, with Wisconsin adding cancer screenings to the list of subsidized services they are stripping from women of the state.  Sure, all these moves will dramatically increase the amount of money the states have to dish out for Medicaid, but women are punished for having sex with unintended pregnancies and cancer, which is all that matters to the anti-choice movement.

3) Personhood amendments. Mississippi very nearly passed an amendment that would define fertilized eggs as persons in their state, which would be an effective ban on abortion, IVF, stem cell research, and providing many forms of emergency medical assistance to pregnant women. Anti-choicers also clearly hoped it could be used to ban the pill, even though the only demonstrable mechanism that the pill uses to prevent pregnancy is to suppress ovulation. The amendment didn’t pass, but anti-choicers managed to get many news anchors, pundits, and even feminists to erroneously claim that the pill works by killing fertilized eggs. (All available evidence shows that it works by suppressing ovulation, and the possibility that it may make it slightly more likely for an egg not to implant than usual is speculation.) Getting that misinformation into the public was a huge rhetorical victory for those who have an eye out for banning female-controlled contraception, and returning control over women’s bodies to men.

4) The open fight over the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine couldn’t have less to do with fetal life, embryonic life, or even the life of fertilized eggs. But since those things don’t really matter to the anti-choice movement—which is primarily motivated by the desire to punish women who have sex—the HPV vaccine was resisted by anti-choice activists from the get-go. This war has been going on mainly out of the  view of the mainstream media, until 2011, when Rick Perry’s competition for the Republican nomination decided to make an issue out of his previous support for the vaccine. Michele Bachmann particularly made a giant fuss over the supposed evils of letting the sexually- active avoid death from cervical cancer. While the vaccine isn’t contraception, the controversy was yet another example of how anti-choicers are dispensing with the bad faith arguments about “life,” and openly fighting any tool women can use to be safe while being sexually active.

5) The fight over insurance coverage of contraception. In 2011, the Obama administration decided to add contraception to the list of preventive services that will eventually be covered fully without a co-pay by insurance companies. Naturally, this caused a fight with anti-choice activists, who are now looking for ways to chip away at the decision by carving out exemptions for Catholic-run universities and hospitals. (Who are required to cover contraception by the federal government anyway.) This fight couldn’t have less to do with “abortion”, but is just about maximizing the number of women who get pregnant against their will by making contraception needlessly expensive.

6) The Plan B debacle. Anti-choice activists lost most of their battles, except for the state-level destruction of access to contraception. However, they learned as the year wound down that persistence pays off: The Obama administration handed them an enormous victory when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA’s decision to allow Plan B to be sold over-the-counter without age restrictions. By keeping Plan B out of the hands of minors, especially those in consensual and age-appropriate relationships, and by making it much harder for women of all ages to get it, the administration helped the anti-choice movement in its goal of keeping this country’s unintended pregnancy rate sky high. Sure, that also means our abortion rate continues to be sky-high, but as this year has definitively shown, the anti-choice movement doesn’t care about preventing a single abortion, if doing so would get in the way of punishing women for having sex.

We at Ms., along with feminists nationwide, were forced to dump our celebratory Korbel down the toilet last week when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threw women under the bus reversed the FDA’s decision to grant over-the-counter status to “morning-after” pill Plan B without an age restriction. As we reported last week, we had good reason to preliminarily pop the cork:

Countless doctors, scientists and health professionals have confirmed that Plan B does not pose a health risk. Multiple studies have shown that girls are capable of understanding the package label and using the product safely. In 2009 a federal judge even ordered the FDA to reconsider the age restrictions on the drug, calling it “political and ideological,” not scientific.

But women–and men who care about women–are not taking this lying down. (As a matter of fact, it’s a wonder the cissexuals among us are lying down for anything these days when, should we accidentally conceive, we are likely to face at least one gesture of contempt from our country–whether we seek emergency contraception, abortion services or even to breastfeed in public. But I digress.) Over at the Women’s Media Center, Adele Stan reports that women and women’s groups are both venting and mobilizing; such formidable feminists as Katha Pollitt and Jodi Jacobson have issued all-out battle cries.

Meanwhile, Feministing writes that 14 senators have expressed their displeasure and skepticism regarding the politicized decision in a letter asking Sebelius to provide the scientific evidence behind her highly-criticized move. The letter reads:

On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women’s health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.

Feminist Majority Foundation President (and Ms. publisher) Eleanor Smeal issued a public statement and didn’t mince words:

Women must not be forced to jump unnecessary hurdles to obtain safe and effective contraception. Men and boys of all ages can obtain condoms easily, without interference from any governmental authority. Women and girls deserve equal treatment and respect, at the minimum.

And finally, according to the FMF, a judge has given a green light to the Center for Reproductive Rights to not only re-file their lawsuit against the FDA for imposing the medically and scientifically unnecessary age restriction, but also to add Sebelius as a defendant.

Here’s hoping that, with the continued outpouring of strength and dedication from fierce, capable women, Ms. can crack open some of that celebratory champagne in the very near future. (And since over-the-counter access to Plan B is predicted to bring the price down from $50 a pop, we may even be able to spring for a pricier bottle.)

Take action to help reverse this decision—click here to tell the Obama administration not to let science and medical standards be trumped by politics.

MANHATTAN — A Washington Heights mother whose miscarried fetus was found dead and wrapped in plastic bags inside a trash can in an alley next to her home has been arrested and charged with self-induced abortion, police said Thursday.

Yaribely Almonte, 20, faces first degree self-abortion, a class A misdemeanor, for the death of her female fetus, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters Thursday. Sources said the pregnancy was about 24 weeks along, which is on the threshold between a first-degree and second-degree misdemeanor, a lesser charge.

The charge, which carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail, applies to a woman who “commits or submits to an abortional act upon herself which causes her miscarriage, unless such abortional act is justifiable.”

Sources said that Almonte, who also has a 3-year-old daughter, told investigators that she had taken an herbal tea before delivering the baby, who was stillborn.

The fetus was discovered by the super of Almonte’s 191st Street building on Nov. 29 inside a box that was buried beneath other trash bags inside a bin, the super’s son told DNAinfo.

stfufauxminists:

From the petition:

“Ms. Kelly, on November 21, you told Bill O’Reilly that pepper spray (as used by Lt. John Pike to assault the UC Davis protestors) is “a food product, essentially.” That was, of course, ridiculous.

While you allowed that the spray was “abrasive and intrusive”, you wondered if it had been diluted (reportedly, it hadn’t).

To back up your claim that pepper spray is a food product, please consume as much of it as was sprayed on each protestor’s face, in one sitting, on camera at Fox News. You may mix the spray with one serving of food or drink, as I am not a sadist. Then, please relate the effects to your audience.”

h/t Being Liberal

sprackraptor:karethdreams:

More details on the image of the officer casually spraying student protestors at UC Davis from earlier. The full story is even worse.

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood. [emphasis added]

And this letter from UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi trying to explain away the violence certainly doesn’t make it any better.

prolongedeyecontact:

An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend to one of Indiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a so-called “crisis pregnancy center” run by an anti-abortion group, one that shared a parking lot with the…

loveyourchaos: abaldwin360:

Activate the Mechanism!: Propaganda Techniques Used by Fox News

Panic Mongering

This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren’t activated, you aren’t alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.

Character Assassination/Ad Hominem

Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

Projection/Flipping

This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It’s often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

Rewriting History

This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin’s mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they’ll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

Scapegoating/Othering

This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It’s technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness

This is more of what I’d call a “meta-frame” (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like “show of strength” are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force – it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence – whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment – are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

Bullying

This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a “win.”

Confusion

As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user’s claims veracity in the viewer’s mind.

Populism

This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of “the people” and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always “elitist” or a “bureaucrat” or a “government insider” or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused “elitists” are almost always liberals – a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

Invoking the Christian God

This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and “real Americans” (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn’t love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It’s a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

Saturation

There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. “Saddam has WMD.” Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it’s true or if it even makes sense, e.g., “Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States.” If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox’s own slogan of “Fair and Balanced.”

Disparaging Education

There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

Guilt by Association

This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here’s how it works: if your cousin’s college roommate’s uncle’s ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev’s niece’s ex-boyfriend’s sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

Diversion

This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they’ll talk about wanting to focus on “moving forward,” as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

Source: Content copied and pasted from foxnewsboycott.com

NEW YORK — On the eve of high-level meetings for the United Nations’ general assembly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended an event on Monday afternoon designed to highlight the importance of women’s participation in public life.

By Joshua Hersch

Together with a selection of major female world leaders, including Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s top diplomat, and Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile and the head of U.N. Women, Clinton put her name to a document calling for developing countries — especially in the changing Middle East — to clear the way for women to hold leadership roles.

The joint statement read:

We call upon all States to ratify and fulfill their obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and to implement fully Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and Peace and Security and other relevant UN resolutions.

There was only one problem: the United States is the only industrialized nation — and one of only seven in the world — that has not yet signed onto the CEDAW treaty.

Although Clinton did not mention America’s conspicuous absence from the list of full CEDAW adherents, both she and President Obama have repeatedly stated they would like to see the treaty ratified in the Senate. But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years — ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 — it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s ambassador at large for global women’s issues, described CEDAW as just one of many issues affecting women that has Clinton’s personal attention, and said that the administration has “made its position very clear on this.”

“I’ve testified that around the world, the number one question I’m asked is why hasn’t the U.S. ratified CEDAW,” Verveer said. “We would be much stronger if we could be in the right place, but it’s up to the Senate.”

Erin Matson, the action vice president at the National Organization for Women, calls it “an embarrassment that the U.S. has dragged its heels for so long on this issue.”

“We are in horrible company,” she added. “Most of the nations around the world have ratified CEDAW, and to think that it’s gone 30 years since President Carter signed it, and asked for its ratification in the Senate, it’s heartbreaking.”

While she praised Clinton for her leadership on global women’s rights issues, Matson said the administration’s effort on the treaty has been lacking.

“Secretary of State Clinton is a champion for women’s human rights around the world and has spoken forcefully in favor of prioritizing CEDAW ratification many times,” Matson said.

“In terms of the president, we would love to see more of a commitment to this coming from the White House, from the president himself. The White House does support CEDAW. The question is, is the White House pushing on CEDAW right now? No.”

Janet Benshoof, the president of the Global Justice Center and an advocate for women’s rights worldwide, said one reason the treaty has struggled to get approval is that some legal analysts fear it may institute protections for controversial reproductive programs, particularly abortion.

As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor — including one as recently as 2002 — have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

“If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don’t need it,” Benshoof said. “It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding.”

In a recent Newsweek list of the best countries in the world for women, the United States ranked eighth overall, but it joined countries near the bottom of the list — Iran (125th), Sudan (156th) — in not being a signatory to CEDAW.

Asked if she thought the treaty might see passage soon, Verveer laughed.

“We’ve got to continue to be hopeful,” she said. “I can’t live without hope.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story implied the treaty had not yet been signed. The treaty was signed by President Carter, but it has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Congress.

Report from the United States of America, July, 2015. Four months after the re-criminalization of abortion.

Woman #451 was 38 years old. She had just finished chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer. #451 believed she was infertile because the chemo had stopped her period. When she discovered she was pregnant, she was very afraid. Doctors had warned her that a child born so soon after treatment would be in danger. #451 herself would be in danger as well: pregnancy releases hormones that can cause the cancer to return.

#451 had nowhere to go. The government had instituted a Panel of Enforcement to decide if a woman may have an abortion. All requests the Panel received were turned down. Survivors of rape and incest, women with life-threatening illnesses, women living in poverty with no social services, women whose birth control had failed–all of them are called to stand before the panel and plead for their right to terminate their pregnancies. But all of them are told they must carry the child to term. Because God Doesn’t Make Mistakes.

Once again back-alley abortion “doctors” are running a thriving business. As in the time before Roe v Wade, women seeking to terminate a pregnancy go to dark, filthy rooms, cash in hand, and put their lives in the hands of people with little medical knowledge. Those women who survive the procedure still risk deadly hemorrhages or infections.

Doctors who once performed the legal procedure have all been arrested. Their offices have closed. Emergency rooms have been instructed to turn women over to the police if they come in with signs that they have ended a pregnancy.

Spies are everywhere. People have been so poor for so long, it is easy to find those hungry and desperate enough to call The Panel’s Secret Phone Line to report someone who had an abortion. It pays very well.

Woman #451 was so frightened she would have a recurrence of cancer that she tried to abort herself. Hours later, she realized she was bleeding and began to feel faint. She called 911, forgetting that it no longer existed. Not since the last round of budget cuts. So #451 lay down on her bed, calling her dog and cat to her side.

She could not call her lover. She did not want him arrested if he got reported for helping her. Shortly before the end, he came to her anyway. His face was grey and stoney. He sat by her side, stroking her face and telling her he loved her as the life drained from her body. When she died, he covered her with a sheet and left, taking the dog and cat with him.