Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3393

Wisconsin Senate passes ultrasound bill. (P.S. Senate boss will not put up with you)

 

Watch on YouTube

The Wisconsin State Senate today passed a bill that requires women who want an abortion to first get a state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasound. The bill also requires doctors who work in abortion clinics to gain admitting privileges at a hospital -- the same kind of provision that was designed to shutter the last abortion clinic in Mississippi.

The Wisconsin bill now goes from the Republican-controlled Senate to the Republican-controlled House. Republican Governor Scott Walker has said he would sign the bill into law. As Rachel reported on the show last night (video), it's still open season on reproductive rights in the states.

Viewer Dave Eveland of Madison, Wisconsin, forwards video from the Senate vote today, when Senate President Mike Ellis puts the hammer down. At about 1:50:

You're interrupting a roll call. Sit down. Right now! Call the roll....

You're interrupting a roll call and that will not be tolerated. Sit down!

The bill passed along party lines after Republicans cut off debate, 20 minutes in. Senate President Ellis told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel the trouble started when Democrats tried to debate a motion that was not debatable. "They triggered this," he said. "I am a nice guy."

Mississippi's law requiring admitting privileges has so far been blocked by the courts. But on, Wisconsin: the House is expected to take up the bill tomorrow. (Thanks for the clip, Dave. You can send us stuff here or through our Facebook page.)

'We don't need to censor the mail, but...'

Associated Press

There's been quite a bit of debate recently about the federal government, in the name of national security, having access to Americans' electronic communications, including emails. Not surprisingly, the surveillance programs have plenty of political defenders, though one high-profile senator is prepared to go further than most.

Faced with questions about the disclosure that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone and email records of citizens, [Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)] pointed to a World War II-era program in which the federal government censored mail. He said it was appropriate at the time and that he would support reinstating the program if it aided security efforts.

"In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we're all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy," Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don't think it is."

How gracious of him. It would appear Graham doesn't think snail-mail surveillance is "necessary," not because it would constitute government overreach, but because most folks don't send letters anymore.

Indeed, Graham added, "The First Amendment right to speak is sacrosanct, but it has limits. In World War II, our population understood that what we say in letters could be used against [us by] our enemies."

OK, fine. I don't find Graham's perspective persuasive, but he's entitled to his beliefs. I suppose his perspective is to be expected from a politician who supports denying basic constitutional rights to American citizens captured on American soil -- if they're suspected of terrorist acts.

Indeed, Graham is giving us a peek into one end of an ideological spectrum: in the name of national security, the federal government should be able to access your phone calls, texts, social-media communications, email, and snail mail. It may not be ideal, the argument goes, but we have to keep Americans safe from enemies who would do us harm.

I bring this up, however, because Graham is quite comfortable with "limits" on the First and Fourth Amendments, but has very different views on the Second.

Graham, for example, believes those on the Terrorist Watch List should be allowed to buy assault weapons and explosive powder, even if they can't buy a plane ticket.

Graham also believes anyone -- violent criminals, would-be terrorists, et al -- should be able to go to a gun show, purchase an arsenal, and walk away, without any background check at all.

And why does Graham believe this? Because of his interpretation of the Second Amendment. Sure, we have to keep Americans safe from enemies who would do us harm, even if that means giving the federal government access to our private communications. But stopping potentially dangerous people from buying assault weapons without a background check? That's a bridge too far.

If Graham is hostile towards civil liberties, that's unfortunate, but he can dislike the Bill of Rights if he wants to be. What I find curious, however, is the selectivity -- the South Carolina Republican is skeptical of the First and Fourth Amendments if it means keeping people safe, but thinks the Second should be left wholly untouched whether people are harmed or not.

The House GOP's 'number one priority'

Associated Press

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Luke Russert this morning that job creation remains his party's "number one priority." House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told George Stephanopoulos the same thing yesterday

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, we asked our viewers for questions for you. And so many came in on the same exact theme. Where are the jobs? What is this Congress doing for jobs?

BOEHNER: Well, that's interesting, George. Because it really is our number one priority.

It's really not. In fact, a few seconds after making the comment, Boehner changed the subject to "dealing with our looming debt crisis" and complaining about "Obamacare." What's more, the House Republican leadership has been in the majority for nearly three years, and hasn't passed any jobs bills at all in that time, suggesting they've had quite a bit of trouble remembering their "number one priority." Maybe they're too busy feeling distracted by anti-abortion bills they know they can't pass.

But if Boehner and Cantor are serious, they could prove their commitment to the issue fairly easily: they should cancel the sequestration cuts that are holding back economic growth.

Indeed, wouldn't that be the first thing policymakers who look at jobs as their "number one priority" would do? The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects the sequester to cost the nation 750,000 jobs this year -- and if Congress cancels the policy, those jobs are saved.

But we can't turn the sequestration policy off, Boehner and Cantor say, because they're reducing the deficit. Maybe, maybe not. But either way, it's an unsatisfying answer -- either jobs are your number one priority or they're not. If a policymaker cares more about the deficit than jobs, than he or she can explain why, but there's a problem when a party says jobs are its top priority, only to embrace a policy that makes unemployment worse on purpose.

Oklahoma's Bridenstine wants a presidential apology

About three weeks after a deadly tornado slammed Oklahoma, one of the state's Republican congressmen, Jim Bridenstine, wants an apology from President Obama. Is Bridenstine upset about a possible misstep from FEMA? Was a promise not kept? Were locals snubbed in some way?

No, as it turns out, Bridenstine wants a presidential apology for a different reason entirely.

Watch on YouTube

For those who can't watch clips online, the far-right lawmaker spoke from the House floor yesterday, repeating the climate deniers talking points, and pretending all of the recent scientific evidence doesn't exist.

"Even climate change alarmists admit the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years.

"But here is what we absolutely know. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm Gulf air, and we also know that this president spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning. For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the president's apology and I intend to submit legislation to fix this."

So, Bridenstine wants the president to apologize for investing in climate science, and doing so with more resources than are devoted to weather forecasting.

Hmm.

First, Bridenstine doesn't have to like reality, but reality is indifferent to his preferences.

Second, if Bridenstine wants to invest more in weather forecasting, I imagine Democrats would be amenable. He might want to check with his fellow Republicans, who disagree.

Third, Bridenstine is a member of the House Science Committee. Just saying.

And finally, according to Director of the National Climatic Data Center Tom Karl, "What we can say with confidence is that heavy and extreme precipitation events often associated with thunderstorms and convection are increasing and have been linked to human-induced changes in atmospheric composition."

If Bridenstine is waiting for an apology, I have a strong hunch he'll be waiting for a long time.

Trent Franks reflects on abortion and rape

The party just can't help itself.

Another Republican congressman ventured into the realm of rape and pregnancy Wednesday, saying at a committee hearing that incidences of pregnancy from rape are "very low."

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare.

"The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low," Franks said.

Please, Mr. Franks, tell us more. How many rapes do you think lead to pregnancies? Do you think women have ways of shutting that whole thing down? Why do you want to punish the women who fall into this category you consider inconsequentially small?

"I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said at the hearing. "There's no scientific basis for that. And the idea that the Republican men on this committee can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous."

The Republican-led Judiciary Committee, not surprisingly, rejected the rape and incest exceptions -- all of the GOP members on the committee are conservative men -- but not before Franks could share his perspective on the issue.

Remember earlier this year, when a top GOP pollster advised Republicans to consider rape a "four-letter word"? Apparently, it's taking a while for the message to sink in.

Ahead on the 6/11 Maddow show

Tonight's guests:

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who is in a bipartisan group of eight senators that introduced a bill today to declassify FISA Court opinion

And here's executive producer Bill Wolff with a preview of why you should keep company with us tonight:

Tuesday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Istanbul: "Fierce clashes between protestors and Turkish riot police turned this normally quiet and tourist friendly city on its head Tuesday as thousands of demonstrators were forced out of Istanbul's Taksim Square by tear gas and a water cannon."

* Afghanistan: "A car bomb Tuesday killed at least 17 civilians, most of them employees of Afghanistan's Supreme Court, in one of the deadliest attacks in the capital in the past year."

* Syria: "Two suicide bombers on Tuesday attacked a downtown square in Damascus, the Syrian capital, killing at least 14 people and injuring more than two dozen others, according to the Syrian state news agency."

* Good for Kaine: "Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) made history Tuesday, becoming the first senator of the modern era to deliver a Senate floor speech entirely in Spanish as he explained his support for a bipartisan immigration bill up for consideration."

* NSA litigation: "The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its 'dragnet' collection of logs of domestic phone calls, contending that the once-secret program ... is illegal and asking a judge to both stop it and order the records purged."

* Rare bipartisanship: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) both defended the National Security Agency's surveillance program on Tuesday."

* Isn't a leak like this one likely to do real, practical harm to national security? "U.S. intelligence operatives covertly sabotaged a prominent al-Qaeda online magazine last month in an apparent attempt to sow confusion among the group's followers, according to officials."

* No surprise: "Booz Allen Hamilton said Tuesday it has fired Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old contractor who admitted leaking information about secret National Security Administration surveillance programs to the press."

* With Sen. Jeff Chiesa (R-N.J.) formally sworn in, the Senate Democratic caucus' majority now stands at 54 members, to 46 Republicans.

* And this is pretty nutty, even for House Republicans: "Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) on Tuesday said the failure of Muslim leaders to repudiate acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam makes them 'potentially complicit' in these attacks."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Cruz on immigration: 'This bill is going to pass the Senate'

Senate efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform got off to a very strong start this afternoon, with an 85-to-15 vote on the motion to proceed, getting the debate underway in earnest. All 15 opponents were, not surprisingly, Republicans.

This does not mean, of course, that the bipartisan legislation has 82 supporters or will end up with 82 votes, but given last week's skepticism about the fate of the bill, the lopsided vote on the motion to proceed sent a fairly loud signal that the bill is in reasonably good shape.

So good, in fact, that one of the Senate's most right-wing opponents of immigration reform, on the very first day of the floor debate, is already signaling defeat.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, an outspoken opponent of the bill, acknowledged after the vote that the bill likely has sufficient support in the upper chamber but warned that – without changes -- it won't survive to a White House signing ceremony.

"This bill is going to pass the Senate, but as written, this bill will not pass the House," Cruz said.

Got that? We're still weeks before a final vote in the Senate, and according to one of the bill's fiercest foes, it's going to pass the upper chamber.

But don't worry, Cruz tells the right, because the Republican-led House will reject it. Maybe, maybe not. But if a bipartisan, comprehensive reform bill clears the Senate with relative ease, it's hard to overstate the amount of pressure House lawmakers will feel on this. The leaders of both parties, the American mainstream, the business community, and labor unions will all want the same thing, and Republican strategists will be whispering in GOP lawmakers' ears, "If you kill this, the party's in big trouble."

Josh Barro, himself a conservative, makes the case today that the bill will reach President Obama's desk. I try to avoid predictions, but Barro's argument is pretty persuasive.

Franken defends NSA surveillance programs

Getty Images

Credibility is an interesting thing. For many years, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was a very active lawmaker, taking the lead in negotiations on a wide range of issues, representing progressive interests. When a compromise was reached, Kennedy would routinely defend the bills to liberal constituencies, telling them that it was as a good a bill as the left could hope to get.

And the left would believe him because ... he was Ted Kennedy. He had credibility. If he told liberal activists it was the best progressives could do, they trusted Kennedy was right.

This came to mind this afternoon when I saw the report on Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) unexpectedly defending NSA surveillance programs.

"I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people," Franken told Minneapolis-based CBS affiliate WCCO. The junior Minnesota senator, who's only been in the Senate since 2009, said he was "was very well aware of" the surveillance programs and was not surprised by a recent slate of bombshell reports by both The Guardian and The Washington Post.

"I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism," Franken said.

When it comes to privacy issues, Franken generally has credibility. Indeed, in the last Congress, it was Franken's office that literally wrote the bill on protecting Americans' electronic privacy. Earlier in the year, the Minnesota Democrat earned plaudits from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation for working to prevent monitoring of private online communications.

And with this in mind, it comes as something of a surprise to see Franken publicly defend the NSA programs. In fact, among Senate Democrats, I expect public endorsements from members like Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but not Franken.

So I suppose one of two things is likely. One, those who've been skeptical of NSA surveillance will say, "Well, if Franken's comfortable with them, maybe the programs aren't as bad as I'd feared," or two, those same folks will say, "Maybe Franken isn't quite as credible as I'd hoped."

The right struggles badly with Plan B approval

Associated Press

Last night, the Obama administration gave up on its legal fight and approved over-the-counter availability for the best-known emergency contraceptive pill. Going forward, Plan B One-Step will be available, regardless of age, without a prescription, on drugstore shelves.

In theory, the right should be pleased -- this policy will help prevent many unwanted pregnancies, which in turn means fewer abortions.

Alas, it's not working out that way. National Review described easy access to emergency contraception as "truly sickening," adding, "It will be yet another way in which parents could be kept in the dark about what is happening to their own children, perhaps even when they are victims of sexual predation."

On Fox, Laura Ingraham went further, calling the Obama administration's new policy "a good deal for pedophiles."

"It's a good deal for pedophiles, a good deal for people who commit statutory rape against young girls," conservative radio host Laura Ingraham told Fox News on Tuesday. "if mothers and fathers across this country hear this and they think, 'Well, I guess my daughter or her boyfriend or her rapist can go out to a pharmacy and get a bunch of, you know, hormone pills to give a little girl.' We don't really know the effect of a spiking or dropping a little girl's -- in many cases a young woman's or a little girl's hormonal levels. It's outrageous!"

No, actually, what's "outrageous" is this over-the-top hysteria about a basic public-health issue.

I realize some of these issues can get complicated, but this should be pretty straightforward: we're talking about a safe medication that prevents unwanted pregnancies and making that readily available to consumers who want it. That's it; that's the whole story.

Are there "sexual predators," "pedophiles," and "statutory rapists" out there? Tragically, yes. But their existence is unaffected by access to the morning-after pill. It's not like those prepared to commit acts of sexual violence have been stymied for years by Plan B's absence on drugstore shelves.

Culture warriors really need to get a grip on this one. Tara Culp-Ressler added:

This line of reasoning isn’t new. The right-wing Family Research Council has been repeatedly pushing sexual abuse as one of its reasons for opposing giving more young women access to emergency contraception. Last month, in a statement supporting the Obama Administration’s decision to prolong the legal fight to restrict access to Plan B, the group claimed, “Additionally alarming is that Plan B ‘access’ advocates ignore the fact that doctors and parents are often the first line of defense for girls who are being sexually abused. Removing doctors and parents from the equation will make it much easier for predators to conceal sexual abuse and to force the drug’s use on minors.”

In fact, there’s no evidence to suggest that expanding access to contraception increases rates of sexual assaults against women and girls. It doesn’t increase the rates of consensual sexual activity among teens, either. In reality, allowing teens to easily purchase Plan B is an important method of preventing unintended pregnancy that the American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed.