Terry McAuliffe Continues to Disappoint Those Who Put Him in Office

Broken Promises

Perhaps it is a good thing that Virginia Governors are only allowed to serve a single four year term.  Why?  Because Governor Terry McAuliffe seems to be hell bent to alienate those who put him in office.  True, a McAuliffe administration is far better than the batshitery that would have surrounded a Ken Cuccinelli regime, but McAullife continues to take actions that throw different elements of the base who elected him under the bus.  First he backed a chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia who opposes marriage equality.  Now he has signed a bill that contains a "conscience clause" drafted by the Christofascists at The Family Foundation ("TFF"). If I were Mark Warner and other Democrats facing elections in the fall I'd be very concerned about McAullife's actions which are demoralizing the base and aiding Republicans. Mother Jones looks at the bill McAullife signed with language hand crafted by the hate merchants at TFF.  Here are excerpts:

In February, when Arizona state lawmakers passed a bill allowing business owners to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers on religious grounds, a ferocious national backlash forced Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the legislation. But while Arizona legislators were catching heat, controversial "conscience clause" legislation quietly glided to passage in Virginia and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Now, certain health care providers in Virginia have the right to turn away gays or lesbians or to withhold test results that could cause a patient to consider terminating her pregnancy.

The law, the product of two highly similar bills signed by McAuliffe on February 20 and March 20, establishes new rules for licensing genetic counselors. These are the health care professionals who help couples assess their odds of parenting a child with a genetic disorder, test individuals for genes indicative of disease, or detect fetal anomalies after a woman becomes pregnant. Genetic counseling is a fairly new field that was not previously regulated in Virginia, as is the case in many states around the country. Critics of the new law say they support oversight of the profession, but they strongly object to the law's "conscience clause" provision, which, in the words of the ACLU of Virginia, gives counselors "a license to discriminate."

"This is Arizona-lite," says Tarina Keene, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. She and other opponents point out that the law not only gives genetic counselors the right to refuse to help gay, lesbian, or unwed couples, but it also frees them to withhold a patient's test results if the counselor suspects the information might lead her to have an abortion—although they cannot lie about the results. "The way the law is written, if a genetic counselor doesn't think a patient will make 'the right choice' with the information you give them, well, then you don't have to tell them," says Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, the executive director of the ACLU of Virginia.

The law does require genetic counselors who refuse their services to provide a list of alternative counselors. But it does not specify in what timeframe they must produce that list. In a March 10 letter to McAuliffe asking him to veto one of the bills that created the law, the ACLU noted that the measure shields counselors from lawsuits in cases where they have discriminated against patients—even when their actions may have caused someone physical harm.

The law now reads, "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any genetic counselor to participate in counseling that conflicts with their deeply-held moral or religious beliefs." For pro-choice activists, the new law is more than just another intrusion on reproductive rights. It represents a betrayal by McAuliffe. In 2013, when McAuliffe ran for governor against ardent abortion foe Ken Cuccinelli, abortion rights groups worked vigorously to help elect him. They believe McAuliffe owes them for generating high turnout among women voters who were disillusioned with the state's abortion-obsessed Republicans.

"We're extremely disappointed. We brought people power to that election. There was a 13-point gender gap" in favor of women, says Keene. "And you know why they were voting that way. We were hoping that this would be a new day, and our pro-choice partners at the legislative level would take this opportunity to do some proactive work."

First a betrayal of LGBT Virginians, now a betrayal of women.  One has to wonder what McAuliffe will do next to alienate minority voters.  The man is a major disappointment so far.  Yes, he's better than Cuccinelli, but he is not delivering what he promised. 

Mourdock Argues Insurance Companies Shouldn’t Cover Birth Control At All

Having already created a fire storm over his statement that pregnancies that result from rape are in accordance of God's will and that abortion in such situations should be barred,  GOP Indiana U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock has thrown more gasoline on the proverbial fire by arguing that insurance companies should not have to provide contraception coverage at all.  As noted previously in a post about Mourdock's statement on rape inducing pregnancies, Mourdock's views ARE THE MAINSTREAM in today's Republican Party and are consistent with the party platform adopted in Tampa back in August. In addition, Mitt Romney confirmed today that he stands behind his previous endorsement of Mourdock.   Personally, I believe that any woman who votes for any Republican candidate is either brain damaged or likes to have angry white men control her body.  Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Indiana Senate nominee Richard Mourdock (R) doesn’t just want to prevent women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion; he also doesn’t think they should be able to access affordable birth control through their health insurance that could prevent such a pregnancy.

Months before Mourdock commented last night that pregnancies resulting from rape are a “gift” that “God intended,” ThinkProgress spoke with him at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference about Rick Santorum’s belief that insurance plans shouldn’t cover birth control at all. When asked whether he agreed with Santorum on the matter, Mourdock replied: “I do, I do.”

KEYES: I know Rick Santorum in his speech was talking a lot about this. He even went so far as to say, “I don’t think insurance plans should be covering birth control in the first place.” Do you think he’s right about that?

MOURDOCK: I do, I do. I don’t think that’s the role of government. We have to start rolling back government. There are many issues out there beyond Obamacare, but really the issue overlying everything is, is this nation going to survive? And that ultimately becomes an issue of economics.

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney starred in an ad for Mourdock, asking voters to “join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate.” Romney has not cut an ad for any other Senate candidates in the general election.

Romney/Ryan: A World of Harm for Women

This blog has noted the dangers posed to women by a Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan victory on November 6th.  As the father of two bright and independent daughters, I can think of few things more frightening than two spoiled, out of touch, devoid of empathy white men and their Christofascist allies making decisions for my daughters - both of who I suspect are far more intelligent than Messrs. Romney and Ryan.  But the danger posed by these men is not a threat to not only women in America but to many women around the world.  The New York Times looks at what a Romney/Ryan victory will mean for women across the globe.  Here are editorial highlights:

If Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, were to win next month’s election, the harm to women’s reproductive rights would extend far beyond the borders of the United States. 

In this country, they would support the recriminalization of abortion with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and they would limit access to contraception and other services. But they have also promised to promote policies abroad that would affect millions of women in the world’s poorest countries, where lack of access to contraception, prenatal care and competent help at childbirth often results in serious illness and thousands of deaths yearly. And the wreckage would begin on Day 1 of a Romney administration. 

Mr. Romney has pledged that, on his first day in the White House, he would reinstate the “global gag rule,” the odious restriction that has been used to deny federal money for family-planning work abroad to any organization that provided information, advice, referrals or services for legal abortion or supported the legalization of abortion, even using its own money. 

The gag rule did nothing to prevent use of government financing for abortions because that was already illegal under federal law. But it badly hampered the work of family-planning groups overseas, forcing clinic closures, reduced services and fee increases. It also violated principles of informed consent by requiring health care providers to withhold medical information from female patients. 

Republican opponents of family planning and women’s reproductive autonomy in Congress have been trying to reinstate the gag rule by legislation. If elected, Mr. Romney has said he would do so with a stroke of the pen. 

Mr. Romney also vows to renew another of George W. Bush’s shameful policies (which was ended by President Obama), which blocked the United States from contributing to the United Nations Population Fund. That fund supports programs in some 150 countries to improve poor women’s reproductive health, reduce infant mortality, end the sexual trafficking of women and prevent the spread of H.I.V.

House Republicans want to cut the nation’s investment in international family planning severely. Mr. Romney’s record of bending to suit the most extreme elements of the Republican Party suggests that he may well go along on this critical issue as well. 

The irony that always strikes me about the Christianists and their political whores like Messrs. Romney and Ryan is that they claim to be "pro-life," seek to stop all abortion and worship unborn fetuses, yet once children are born, they generally do not give a flying f*ck about those very same children as they are left to lives lives in poverty and may die prematurely.  Obviously, if these individuals were truly pro-life their concerns would not cease once a fetus is born.