Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

Good grief. Is there a class Lefties attend to learn to write like that, like Marxist Magniloquence 101? Anyhow, this goes back to one of the Warmist’s biggest issues: reducing the global population. And, interestingly, this ties into what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted, namely, reducing the number of minorities, which is what happens when birth control is spread around to much of the developing world, particularly places like the African continent. You want racism? That’s racism! Planning based on the doctrine of eugenics.

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

That’s interesting, since Liberals get the vapors when Conservatives talk about liberating women from being 2nd class citizens as they are in much of the Islamic world. But, really, this is all about spreading abortion on demand around the world. Cheaply. Which is where the asterisk in the headline comes in: liberals think contraceptives, sterilization (Sanger loved the thought of sterilizing Blacks and defectives a hoot), and abortions should be free, and, by free, I mean “someone else pays.” Liberals never seem to want to pay for anything themselves. That’s why they loved Obama’s insurance mandate, as Someone Else would pay for their condoms and birth control pills, and screw what the constitution says about religious freedom.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Why climate change will make you love big government

This essay was originally published on TomDispatch and is republished here with Tom’s kind permission.

Look back on 2011 and you’ll notice a destructive trail of extreme weather slashing through the year. In Texas, it was the driest year ever recorded. An epic drought there killed half a billion trees, touched off wildfires that burned 4 million acres, and destroyed or damaged thousands of homes and buildings. The costs to agriculture, particularly the cotton and cattle businesses, are estimated at $5.2 billion — and keep in mind that, in a winter breaking all sorts of records for warmth, the Texas drought is not yet over.

That kind of whining about the weather, which is the fault of Barack Obama cruising the country in 17 car convoys, continues on for a bit longer. Because weather never happened before 1980 (until you cruise Real Science, and see the newspaper headlines from the past)

Such calamities, devastating for those affected, have important implications for how we think about the role of government in our future. During natural disasters, society regularly turns to the state for help, which means such immediate crises are a much-needed reminder of just how important a functional big government turns out to be to our survival.

In the past, people tended to rely on themselves. And there is nothing wrong with government helping out: it’s one of the reasons we have government. There is no need for a massive central government with a giant bureaucracy. Of course, that’s not the progressive narrative: to them, we need giant over-reaching and all powerful government for when the wind blows, it rains, and it snows….hey, remember when the NYC public sector unions slowed the snow cleanup in 2010?

Anyhow, the author goes on and on about how great big central government is, and why the private sector can’t do anything, ending with

In the face of an unraveling climate system, there is no way that private enterprise alone will meet the threat. And though small “d” democracy and “community” may be key parts of a strong, functional, and fair society, volunteerism and “self-organization” alone will prove as incapable as private enterprise in responding to the massive challenges now beginning to unfold.

To adapt to climate change will mean coming together on a large scale and mobilizing society’s full range of resources. In other words, big storms require big government. Who else will save stranded climate refugees, or protect and rebuild infrastructure, or coordinate rescue efforts and plan out the flow and allocation of resources?

It will be government that does these tasks or they will not be done at all.

What would we do without Big Centralized Government taking charge? Just because they’ll need to take more and more money while imposing more and more regulations/restrictions on its citizens and businesses is Bo reason to poo poo the idea. Government is just here to help. Despite being incompetent and taking vastly too long to accomplish the most minor and mundane task is no reason to be concerned about Government. Just because the climate change movement is about fascism (for everyone else) is no reason to worry.

(Yahoo News – AFP) More than a hundred countries now support a French proposal to create a “World Environment Organisation” at the upcoming 20th anniversary conference of the Rio Summit, France’s ecology minister said on Tuesday.

“More than 100 countries have now associated themselves with the proposal,” Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said at a conference in Paris aimed at stimulating ideas for June 20-22 global gathering.

The idea is to beef up the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which critics say lacks muscle for dealing with the world’s worsening environmental crisis.

Let’s head back into a mini-ice age, and see what an “environmental crisis” looks like. But, like I said, this is not about the environment. It’s not about protecting species.

It should be part of a rethink of the world’s economy, in which green issues and social questions should be integrated into the search for profit, she said.

“The new capitalism which emerges from the crisis has to be environmental, or it won’t be new,” she said.

“We are looking for a new kind of environmental governance, something more inclusive, in which all parties have a stake and it’s not just governments which have the right to speak.”

It’s simply another way to push far left progressive (fascist) doctrine, giving governments more and more control over their citizens, using “the environment” and “social issues” as excuses.

From the transcript

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

And the big pull, around the 2:27 mark

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

It’s almost like she doesn’t care for the US Constitution (which, last time I checked, was an “independent judiciary”), but, then, most Liberals don’t, because our Constitution, and I’d conclude she’s speaking more in terms of the Bill of Rights portion, guarantees the People’s rights against the government, limits the governments actions, rather than the government being some all powerful force that can enact it’s will on the People.

If this was supposed to be damage control, Susan G. Komen for the Cure proved Thursday that it has a lot to learn.

On a day when the breast cancer charity’s top official made the rounds with the national media, insisting the organization’s decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood wasn’t political, the firestorm only got worse. Top Democrats piled on; the head of the Komen chapter in Los Angeles quit; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving a $250,000 matching gift to Planned Parenthood.

I’m not seeing what Komen did wrong; do you? I see that 22 Democrat Senators are choosing to whine about what a private corporation does with their money, without mentioning that PP is known mostly for abortions, not “breast exams”, and turning this political. Same with Bloomberg.

Brinker said there was broad consensus from Komen’s board over the new policies. Additionally, she said the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings. Planned Parenthood does not have mammography equipment and refers women to providers for the service.

“We are the stewards of other people’s money, and we need to ensure that money is going to programs for women in the most impactful way,” Brinker said, echoing a statement she made on a YouTube video late Wednesday night.

I can see how that would upset liberals, who seem to expect Other People’s Money to be wasted, rather than being treated respectfully.

We also have a Memorandum pull of a story entitled “HOPE KILLS: Susan G Komen Foundation Would Rather Be Associated With A Handgun Than Planned Parenthood.” The author, Michael Brendan Dougherty, is whining about a Walther P22 that comes in pink, with part of the sales going to the Komen Foundation. Except, the gun is meant to protect the life of a woman. Liberals do not want women to have guns. Liberals want women to be raped, beaten, and die, apparently. The guns are also not performing abortions and killing unborn children, many of whom are female. Why do liberals hate women?

And then we have the whole “breast exam” thing. As Life News points out

During a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson revealed the main reason why the Planned Parenthood abortion business lost its funding. It doesn’t do mammograms.

“It was nothing they were doing wrong,” Brinker explained. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

She added, later in the day on Twitter:, saying the money “will be invested in programs to serve low-income, uninsured and underinsured women.”

PP doesn’t offer mammograms. Let’s be honest, as Life News points out, they do do breast exams. But no mammograms. No PP abortion mills have the necessary medical devices on location. That said, the Left is not upset about Komen pulling funding to PP over breast exams, they are upset about Komen dissing the Left’s favorite abortion provider.

More: SGK supposedly caves, as they say they will amend their criteria to only include criminal investigations, and

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Make sure to read the whole thing at the link. But, consider, all it is saying, as Ed Morrissey points out, is that PP is eligible for future funding, not that that PP will necessarily get the funding, or at least the amounts it had been getting. Perhaps they will take the money and put it to the groups that actually provide mammograms. SGK had no idea the firestorm they would create when they decided to pull funding from PP, but, if any of them ever read the news, they should have. Never get in the way of Liberal causes, especially ones involving abortion and providing contraceptives to minorities: they will bury you personally.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

What’s a Republican Feminist To Do?

Of course, we could ask “how many Republican women call themselves “feminists”?” How many have hairy legs and armpits? How many complain about “reproductive rights” and the government getting in the way the ability to make a “choice” to kill an unborn infant?

In the winter line-up of Republican presidential candidates, a moderate pro-choice Republican woman has no choice. She might feel as if she were so, well, last century.

It is not news that the Republican Party has moved further right on social issues over the past few decades, but the 2012 campaign is a clear marker showing that the party has left legal abortion behind. All the contenders, past and present, adamantly oppose legal abortion, even the libertarian obstetrician-gynecologist, Ron Paul. Overturning legal abortion may in fact be the one thing they all agree on — so it doesn’t come up much in debates, speeches or interviews. But it is on their agenda.

What we see is that Liberals consider support for abortion on demand to be a bedrock of being a feminist. Are there “moderate pro-abortion Republican women”? Probably. Do they seem to obsess over the ability for someone to have an abortion if they so choose? Doubtful. Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not obsess over being able to kill an unborn child simply because they became pregnant after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. Republicans, including women, refuse to be tied to labels and put in boxes.

By contrast, whatever he did in his personal life, President Clinton brought a sound grasp of women’s lives to the stump and to the Oval Office. The first bill he signed into law, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, was a huge gift to working women.

Clinton also had another gift for women: taking advantage of an intern young enough to be his daughter, receiving oral sex under his desk while he smoked a cigar. And we’ll keep this post PG rated by not discussing what he also did with a cigar. How’s that for having a sound grasp of women’s lives? If a Republican did that, he’d be branded a sexist and slapped with a sexual harassment suit. Oh, wait, Clinton was branded a sexist and slapped with multiple suits. If memory serves, Liberals were concerned with….destroying the women who filed those suits. I do love how Mz. Steihm casually dismisses the issue.

President Obama signed the pay equity act named for Lilly Ledbetter. His affordable health care act would make birth control more freely available.

It’s very interesting that Mz. Steihm would bring ObamaCare up in her post: we constantly hear from Liberals that they want government out of our health decisions, especially as it pertains to “women’s health issues”, ie, abortion on demand. They always fail to mention that they love government funding abortions so that people do not have to put out their money for an abortion after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. And that they love government regulations, laws, and court decisions that keep abortion “legal and rare.” But, then we come to ObamaCare: what other legislation passed in the history of the United States has involved the government more in “women’s health issues” than this one? Real health issues. We have the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will make decisions about payments and treatments. We have massive reductions in Medicare and Medicaid funding. Most women think ObamaCare is bad for their families. ObamaCare will drive up the costs for health insurance and care. And we have supporters and proponents of ObamaCare calling for women to have breast exams later in life, because it is a waste of money to have them before 50. Those “death panels” are still there, regarding life decisions. Unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will make decisions on health and cost.

That sure seems like government is getting heavily involved in “women’s health issues”, along with everyone else’s. One would think Liberals would be against government intruding on this issue. Alas, no, their only care is that government not place any restrictions on abortion on demand, even when it comes to later term abortion and requiring parental notification (of course, in the hypocrite world of Liberalism, they’d freak out if they weren’t notified about their own child). Daring to require a 24 hour waiting period or getting an ultrasound makes even the few rational liberals out there talk as if the legislation means women are going to be chained in a cell and forced to have the baby from their casual night of unprotected sex.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(Charlotte Observer) Charlotte-Mecklenburg police returned to the Occupy Charlotte site before daybreak Tuesday, awakening and evicting several protesters who were sleeping on the lawn of the old City Hall overnight.

And over to the Charlotte Observer’s blog (kinda sad they are using Blogspot)

The Fire Department’s hazardous materials team was called out to the Occupy Charlotte site Tuesday, after police discovered that protesters were apparently using a storm drain as a bathroom.

According to sources, the storm drain on the lawn of old City Hall empties into Little Sugar Creek. City officials were trying to figure out the most effective and environmentally friendly way to clean up the mess. It’s unclear if police will be able to charge anyone with a crime.

Wait, I thought these lefties cared about the environment?

Sister Toldjah has much more on the Occupier desecration of her home town.

Washington Post – Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood

Well, they didn’t really “defund” PP, because PP gets lots of money from other sources, including the Central Government.

The Associated Press reports that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, will cut off its funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates, where the foundation has traditionally paid for preventive screening services.

According to the AP, the move will mean “a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.” Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter.

And there we get the talking point about “breast exams”, which is apparently the only thing PP does. Why’d Komen cut support?

Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding.

That’s why. And that’s all the WP article says. Providing funds would be against Komen’s guidelines. Makes sense for them to hold off. And Liberals go crazy!

• and there go my contributions to the Kormen funds.  since they’d rather have poor rural women die of cancer than stand up to the anti abortion fanatics, I hope they go under to (funny, liberals are pro-abortion fanatics)
• When I read this story I was so sad. I ran in one of the first races the Kormen foundation operated in D.C. and have been in awe of its work on behalf of women over the years. Unfortunately, this will make me think twice about giving any of more of my money to it. I would rather give to Planned Parenthood, which, despite the attacks from people and groups who seem to hate women, has managed to continue to provide the health services that women need and want. What a sad day for the Kormen foundation and for Susan Kromen’s memory. (abortions are health services?)
• Komen = scum; So they won’t fund women’s preventative health services at Planned Parenthood anymore because they are being “investigated”. Right. Like the investigation is about criminal activity — political non-sense. Komen should be ashamed.

The comments at the WP keep going strong, over 550, and most are in the vein of the above.

• Feministing Ugh. What bleak news. It seems the right-wing anti-woman agenda is continuing to creep up on us in new and damaging ways. I hope there will be considerable fallout and will post more updates as they come in. (we got the “anti-woman” talking point)
• Feminist Sadly, Planned Parenthood is not unused to falling victim to politics, but it rather smarts when the middle finger has a pink ribbon around it from an organization ostensibly devoted to women’s health. If you had some money set aside for a golf visor or a t-shirt or a cup of yogurt with a pink ribbon on it, Planned Parenthood is establishing a Breast Health Emergency Fund to try and regain some of the lost funds. (so, Komen is mean and partisan, so let’s stop giving to an organization that is all about dealing with women’s health regarding breast cancer because we support women’s health)
• Tbogg puts this under the sexist tag “shut up dumb lady, Pink is the new yellow” and recommends not giving to Komen anymore.
• The always loony Balloon Juice starts out with “Komen for the Cure is abandoning women in need” and then recommends not giving to Komen, an organization which helps women in need.

It continues like that across the left-o-sphere, at the DU, and in the comments at the blogs and Old Media articles. Liberals always say they are against war and strife, want to solve “climate change”, and want the world to have a Coke and sing kumbaya because killing is bad, yet, stand up for abortions at the drop of a hat, wrapping it in all sorts of disingenuous language, even though 91% of pregnant women who visit Planned Parenthood have abortions.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(BBC News) Growing inequality, environmental decline and “teetering” economies mean the world must change the way it does business, a UN report concludes.

Health and education must improve, it says. Subsidies on fossil fuels should end, and governments must look beyond the standard economic indicator of GDP.

The High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability was established in 2010 by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

It was launched because fewer and fewer people where buying into the anthropogenic global warming guano.

It is being launched in Addis Ababa by its two co-chairs, Finnish President Tarja Halonen and her South African counterpart Jacob Zuma.

“With the possibility of the world slipping further into recession, policymakers are hungry for ideas that can help them to navigate these difficult times,” said Mr Zuma.

“Our report makes clear that sustainable development is more important than ever given the multiple crises now enveloping the world.”

See? It’s so simple, we’ll simply do away with GDP, redistribute wealth, and all sit around on farms reminiscent of the 5th century digging in the mud while our lords and masters sit in their castles deciding what is best for us.

Sustainable development is simply another version of the Left’s call for fascism, same as the climate change hoax is. I suppose we can also think about it in terms of Soviet style communism, where there was an all powerful central government full of the elites dictating everything, right down to whether you are allowed to have salt and trans-fats, how you can run your business, and how much bread will be available. People are docile when they are standing in food lines for hours. This is the kind of idiocy that creates worthless products like the Chevy Volt, which limits our ability to move around to a small area. These people are true “watermelons”: green on the outside, red on the inside

The report – Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing – includes 56 recommendations that would, if implemented in full, have profound implications for societies, governments, and businesses.

Governments would build the true environmental costs of products into the prices that people pay to purchase them, leading to an economic system that protects natural resources.

Goods would be labelled with information on their environmental impact, enabling consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.

And even more based on “environmentalism”, natch, climate change controls. They’d do away with all subsidies for fossil fuels, because they are eeeeeevil, and, magically, real world prices would stay low, but, hey, even if they rise exponentially, it’s for our own good. They Know Better.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(Bob Bartelby at Yahoo News) Here’s the problem: According to celebritynetworth.com, Stewart earns $15 million per year as his salary on “The Daily Show.” We can assume, because that is a job, he pays closer to the 30 percent rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent.

However, that’s only part of the picture. Stewart is also estimated to have a net worth of $80 million. Depending on how he is invested, he is also earning a substantial income from his $80 million nest egg. Even if he is invested conservatively, he’s likely earning investment income of $4 million per year, which would be taxed at a rate equal to Romney’s. Indeed, between investment income and book royalties, and his salary, more than likely Stewart earns more money in the fiscal year than Romney despite paying a marginally higher tax rate.

Stewart should release his tax returns, let’s see his rates.

Do you know what Liberals like Stewart are really ticked off about? That people use tax deductions to make donations directly, instead of giving the money to the Central Government to do with as they want.

Read the whole thing.