US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7931

America First Policies, a group started by some of President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers, is set to launch an advertising blitz against Nevada's Republican Sen. Dean Heller, who on Friday came out against the Senate's Obamacare repeal bill without significant changes.

Heller is up for re-election in 2018 and is seen as one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans in that cycle.

The ad blitz is backed by more than a million dollars, according to a source familiar with the planning, and the digital component is set to launch this weekend. The television and radio component will launch next week. Heller, according to the official, has also indicated privately to the White House that he is unlikely to get to “yes” on the current Senate version of the bill.

For America First Policies, the ad blitz is an opportunity to show that groups aligned with Trump’s base are ready to go to bat for the president.

"You do not want to mess with Donald Trump’s base in a primary, particularly in a place like Nevada,” said the source. “This kind of money in Nevada is real. … This is a beginning.”

The ad campaign will paint Heller as a “typical politician,” the source said, and will characterize him as standing with Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi against the White House.

A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion. Blessed be the fruit.


Yesterday, the Missouri House voted to pass SB 5, a bill imposing several highly burdensome and even more unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers; for example, the bill would require abortion providers to send fetal tissue samples to a pathologist within five days. While supporters of targeted restrictions of abortion providers (aka TRAP laws) claim they’re supporting women’s health, regulations like these often serve no medical purpose whatsoever. In reality, anti-choice legislators use them as a pretext to impose costs and red tape on abortion clinics, forcing them to close.

But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.

This extremely common-sense city ordinance, which St. Louis passed this spring, was apparently Too Far for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who took to the press to complain about “radical politicians” making “St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” Ah, yes, the radical idea that an adult woman should be able to plan when, and whether, to have kids without risking her job or home. Greitens called state legislators back to the Capitol this summer specifically to overturn the St. Louis law, and to respond to the fact that Missouri’s last attempt to shut down abortion clinics ended up getting shut down by a federal judge.

The result of that special session is SB 5, which the Missouri Senate passed last Wednesday after 10 hours of negotiations behind closed doors. The House passed an amended, even more anti-choice version late yesterday.

That’s right. Missouri lawmakers are going out of their way to say that if an employer has a problem with you taking the pill, he can fire you – and he’ll have a seal of approval from the state of Missouri.

SB 5 puts women across Missouri at risk of losing their jobs or their homes: according to the CDC, 99% of sexually-active, reproductive-age women have used contraception. And whether or not someone is part of that 99% is none of their boss’ goddamn business. The state is outrageously, invasively giving employers and landlords the power to police highly personal choices women make about their bodies and lives. Missouri is sending the message that a woman’s livelihood, independence, even her ability to provide for her kids is all less important than her boss’ personal need to impose his narrow beliefs on her.

Missouri legislators may not have gotten the memo, but the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act already prohibits employment discrimination against women because they’ve had or considered an abortion. But federal protections for people who use birth control are less clear – and as the Trump Administration rolls back civil rights enforcement across the board, it’s imperative we maintain protections at the state and local levels.

As if all of this wasn’t enough, SB 5 also limits regulation of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (anti-choice “clinics” that feed pregnant people misinformation to trick them out of having abortions), gives Missouri’s virulently anti-choice Attorney General Josh Hawley power to prosecute potential violations of Missouri’s TRAP laws, and allow the state to harass abortion clinics with unannounced inspections. The House’s version of the bill is headed back to the Senate, with amendments making it even harsher – and if it passes there it’ll head straight to Governor Greitens’ desk.

Are you in Missouri? Find your state representatives and call them to say you oppose SB 5, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and discrimination based on reproductive health decisions.

On June 24 2017 06:58 Slydie wrote:


Source

This shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner?

On June 24 2017 07:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
my guess is the law is a more general religious exemptions/freedom bill that could theoretically be used in this way if people so choose. It's unlikely in my opinion however to go that far although technically it could and then it would be up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered.


It's also possible that this is incorrect/false reporting by an obviously partisan site. I'm too lazy to look into it more at the moment.


if what I'm reading is accurate that's just weird. I've never heard of right to discriminate based on that.

On June 24 2017 06:58 Slydie wrote:


Source

This shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner?

A political subdivision is preempted from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure that: (1) prohibits, restricts, limits, controls, directs, interferes with, or otherwise adversely affects an alternatives to abortion agency or its officers', agents', employees', or volunteers' operations or speech; (2) has the purpose or effect of requiring a person to directly or indirectly participate in abortion if such participation is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; (3) requires a real estate broker, real estate salesperson, real estate broker-salesperson, appraisal firm, appraiser, property owner, or any other person to buy, sell, exchange, purchase, rent, lease, advertise for, or otherwise conduct real estate transactions for, to, or with an abortion facility or for, to, or with a person for the purpose of performing or inducing an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother if such requirement is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; and (4) requires an employer, employee, health care provider, health plan provider, health plan sponsor, or any other person to provide coverage for or to participate in a health plan that includes benefits that are not otherwise required by state law. However, nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any political subdivision from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure to assist pregnant women to carry their unborn children to term or to assist women in caring for their dependent children or placing them for adoption.

On June 24 2017 07:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
wouldn't that kind of law immediately be a violation of privacy? Like you can't ask them that on the forms right?

On June 24 2017 07:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:


If it's a specific law targeted against the Saint Louis ordinance designed at a special session by the legislature, it's hard to argue part of the purpose is not giving landlords that right. Having grown up in MO, it's an insantely weird place when it comes to rights-only place left in the country to not have a state-wide controlled prescription drug monitoring system, spent decades fighting seatbelt laws, even some resistance to distracted driving laws.

Fighting for the landlord's right to fire people for reproductive health decisions doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.

But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.

California is restricting publicly funded travel to four more states because of recent laws that leaders here view as discriminatory against gay and transgender people.

All totaled, California now bans most state-funded travel to eight states.

The new additions to California’s restricted travel list are Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota.

They join Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee as states already subjected to the ban.

California Attorney Xavier Becerra announced the new states at a Thursday press conference, where he was joined by representatives from ACLU Northern California and Equality California.

“We will not spend taxpayer dollars in states that discriminate,” Becerra said.

On June 24 2017 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I guess the confusion here is that people think employers/landlords have a right to inspect personal affairs? Which the article itself never said.



So basically interpret as written: An existing anti-discrimination ban is being overturned.

On June 24 2017 07:54 Dromar wrote:


If I understand correctly, all that legalese says is that renters etc. don't have to provide space for abortion services if they don't want to. It says nothing to the effect of "they can kick you out or refuse to rent to you if you've ever had an abortion." It just says they can refuse to allow abortions to occur (except to save the mother) on their property.

edit: and part (4) just says that employers and health care providers don't have to provide services that aren't required by state law (presumably, ...already? I don't get why there would be a law saying they don't have to do anything there isn't a law saying they have to do). Anyway part 4 doesn't mention abortion specifically, but reading between the lines says that it allows health insurance providers the right to deny coverage for abortions (or anything else they aren't legally required to cover).

On June 24 2017 08:07 Danglars wrote:

I mean was this ordinance in response to landlords and employers getting away with firing for pregnancy or birth control? US News and World report called the city measure largely symbolic, prompting me to wonder if the practice was already banned by city and state anti discrimination law. See for example the pregnancy discrimination act, a victory for feminists around forty years ago, that already makes it a violation for employers to discriminate against that reproductive health decision.