Women members of Congress contribute significantly to the DCCC’s coffers. But they don’t appear to be getting much for their money.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday December 17, 2010 9:09 am|
|By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday September 15, 2010 10:02 am|
Mike Bloomberg’s White House aspirations look a bit dimmer today in the wake of the drubbing that Reshma Saujani took in her primary race against Carolyn Maloney yesterday. The conventional wisdom among Democratic “strategists” is that if the economy is good in 2012, Obama wins the presidential election in a walk. And if it’s not, [...]
|By: Jane Hamsher Monday September 6, 2010 2:14 pm|
Seriously? This is the person Zuckerman thinks should be representing New York as a member of Congress?
I’m sure someone at the Daily News must know that fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon and one was from Egypt. That leaves exactly “zero” from Afghanistan who “attacked us.”
|By: Jane Hamsher Thursday July 8, 2010 8:55 am|
Apparently controlling the Federal Reserve, funding their bonuses with billions in taxpayer dollars and quite nearly bringing down the global economy with their degenerate gambling habits isn’t enough. Wall Street now wants to punish any Democrat who lifts a hand against them, and they’re willing to fund primary challenges to do it. Carolyn Maloney worked [...]
|By: Jane Hamsher Saturday March 13, 2010 12:32 pm|
So, does the language in the Senate bill negotiated to make Ben Nelson happy “restrict a woman’s right to choose any further than current law?” The answer is an unqualified “yes.” Let’s review:
- It allows states to opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges, a clear violation of Roe v. Wade
- It prohibits insurance companies by law from taking into account cost savings when estimating the costs of abortion care, which raises premiums, thus limiting access
- It includes “conscience clause” language that protecting both individuals and entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortion.
Choice is already in grave danger with the current radical Supreme Court majority, and every time Congress tinkers with this, it just creates another opportunity for the Supremes to whittle away or reverse Roe v. Wade.
The bottom line: the Senate bill would deal a bigger blow to abortion rights in this country than anything George Bush ever signed into law.