Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Abortion Politics, Money and the Reshaping of the G.O.P. – The New York Times

DOLLARS FOR LIFEThe Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican EstablishmentBy Mary Ziegler318 pages. Yale University Press. $35.

The upheavals of the last few years have been so relentless that it can be hard to recall just how weird the partnership was: Donald J. Trump and social conservatives, an odd couple for the ages. As the legal historian Mary Ziegler writes in Dollars for Life, the start of the 2016 election cycle had evangelicals extremely worried. Hillary Clinton whose possible presidency they deemed catastrophic was running on what Ziegler calls arguably the most pro-choice platform in history. Could a foul-mouthed real estate mogul really turn out to be the savior they were looking for?

Sort of, says Ziegler, the author of several books about the history of abortion in the United States, though her argument in Dollars for Life mostly runs the other way that, over the course of decades, the anti-abortion movement laid the groundwork for an insurgent candidate like Trump.

Much of this was accomplished through the loosening of campaign finance restrictions, or changing how money worked in American political campaigns. While progressives have long argued that allowing more money to flow into politics empowers plutocrats to ignore the will of the people, Ziegler shows that its effects have been more ambiguous than that. Yes, she says, billionaires like Charles and David Koch worked assiduously to deregulate campaign finance, but big industry wasnt the only beneficiary; some members of the anti-abortion movement recognized early on that deregulation could help populist outsiders like them shatter the traditional G.O.P. hierarchy. Money moves in mysterious ways.

That traditional G.O.P. hierarchy wasnt always committed to the anti-abortion cause. Republicans of the late 1960s, Ziegler points out, were in fact more likely to favor repealing criminal abortion laws than Democrats were. Abortion itself was merely one issue and to the establishment, far from the most important in a broad right-wing agenda.

Even when Republican politicians tried to placate the restive anti-abortion wing of their party, they could count on campaign finance restrictions that favored the party machines, which in turn could crush any upstart competition. A Georgia delegate at the 1988 Republican National Convention described his socially conservative colleagues as the people who brought you the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trial.

Dollars for Life begins in the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, which the power brokers of the Republican Party tried as much as they could to use to their advantage. On the one hand, the 1973 decision could bring a divided party together. Control of the Supreme Court motivated conservative voters who agreed on little else, Ziegler writes. But mainstream Republicans were also scared that Roe would be overturned. Roe, Ziegler says, was their shield. Without it, anti-abortion activists would demand that Republican politicians, inevitably preoccupied with the electoral odds, pursue a more radical agenda than American voters actually wanted. After George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton, who put abortion rights at the forefront of his platform, Republican leaders seemed to want the issue to go away.

But people like James Bopp Jr. werent about to let that happen. A central figure in Zieglers book, Bopp was 24 when Roe was decided, and has been a determined anti-abortion Republican ever since. He drew a direct connection between money and speech, noticing that even Republican control of the White House didnt translate into the kind of anti-abortion regime that he wanted to see.

He believed that limits on spending privileged big government at the expense of liberty, protected incumbents from grassroots movements and made it hard for advocacy organizations to function, Ziegler writes. More money, more influence. If establishment Republicans were getting skittish about abortion as an issue, thinking it was electorally safer to tack toward the center, Bopp decided that an influx of money raised by the anti-abortion movement would convince them otherwise.

You get the sense that Ziegler could recite this history backward and forward, comfortably parsing the arcane differences between 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations. She takes bits of levity where she can find them a hapless Republican populist done in by a pancake-flipping contest; an anti-abortion activist who thinks that she could help end abortion in America by making an autobiographical rom-com but Dollars for Life is an inevitably sober book.

Even if social conservatives like Bopp were initially turned off by Trumps antics, they soon realized that his weakness in the Republican Party might work in their favor. Isolated and unpopular, Trump was dependent on the anti-abortion movements support and ever attuned to his own self-preservation, he comported himself accordingly. He went beyond what would ordinarily be expected of a pro-life president, Ziegler writes.

Ziegler acknowledges a number of forces that contributed to Trumps ascent negative partisanship, for instance, and the proliferation of conservative media. But money, she points out, has played a key role in this new politics, with outside groups amassing formidable war chests to fund candidates who could be counted on to promote such groups interests rather than capitulate to the moderating pressures of the Republican machine. The rise of Trump and candidates like him, she asserts, is the story of the Republican establishments demise.

What looks like the imminent overturning of Roe has been decades in the making. And if the anti-abortion movement does get its way, a post-Roe world wont mean that the issue is simply turned back to the states. Ziegler shows that the movement turned to incrementalism strategically settling for pragmatic stopgaps only in pursuit of a much broader goal. Anything short of a nationwide abortion ban will not satisfy them, she writes. Dollars for Life recounts how the religious right learned a useful, if profane, lesson: You get what you pay for.

Read the original post:
Abortion Politics, Money and the Reshaping of the G.O.P. - The New York Times

What Is the Value of Human Life? – Heritage.org

In his 1983 essay Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, President Ronald Reagan wrote that the real question today is not when human life begins, but, what is the value of human life? That will always be the real question, and it is the one question that abortion advocates will do anything to avoid answering. The so-called Womens Health Protection Act (WHPA) and a new set of abortion messaging dos and dont from the House of Representatives Pro Choice Caucus are their latest attempt to avoid the inconvenient truth that abortion kills babies.

On May 11, for the second time in less than three months, the Senate voted against allowing consideration of the WHPA. Its sponsors want you to believe that the bill would simply codify Roe v. Wade in case, as appears likely, the Supreme Court overrules that decision, which created the right to abortion. In fact, the WHPA would gar far beyond Roe, attempting to prohibit any government anywhere from doing anything that might, potentially or indirectly, reduce the likelihood that abortions will actually take place.

Not only that, the WHPA would require every state and local government to repeal any existing laws, regulations, rules, anything that also could have that effect. Members of Congress, who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, should know that Congress has no authority to dictate how state and local governments exercise powers that the Constitution gives them.

Even in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court acknowledged that abortion affects two human beings, referring multiple times to unborn children, pregnant women, and even mother. In fact, the Court said that the presence of the unborn child made abortion inherently different than other rights. As radical as the WHPA is, as recently as 2017, it referred a dozen times to woman and multiple times to child. The bill stated its purpose as protecting a womans right and ability to determine whether and when to bear a child.

>>> EVENT:Life After Roe Symposium

That, however, was too close to reality for current abortion extremists. The WHPA introduced last year expands its focus from pregnant women to people with the capacity for pregnancy. These include cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, [and] those who identify with a different gender. The bill entertains these hypothetical categories while completely deleting any suggestion, hint, or whisper of the actual human beingthe unborn childwho actually exists. The bill even scrapped its prior definition of abortion because it referred to a live birth (of what?) and a dead fetus (that must once have been alive).

Leading feminists once embraced, rather than repudiated, the truth about women and babies. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for example, published The Revolution magazine from 1868 to 1872, regularly arguing that the law should treat abortion for what it is, child murder. The first women to enter the medical profession separated killing babies from health care for women; Dr. Charlotte Lozier, for example, campaigned both against abortion and for womens rights. Women, er, potentially pregnant people have come a long way, but not necessarily in the right direction.

Then there are the abortion spinmeisters. Organizations promoting abortion have long produced various manuals, guides, and recommendations for abortion messaging. The latest instructions on this is a list of dos and donts from the House Pro-Choice Caucus with examples of harmful and helpful language. The confusion, however, starts right at the top. The Pro-Choice Caucuss first example of harmful language is the word choice. Wait, what? Hasnt choice been lynchpin of the abortion movements messaging for the last 50 years? Last September, in defending the WHPA, members of the Pro-Choice Caucus routinely described abortion as a deeply personal choice and pro-life legislators as anti-choice. According to the Pro-Choice Caucuss latest guidelines, however, Caucus members were actually using harmful language that, no doubt unbeknownst to them at the time, was undermining their own cause.

The Pro-Choice Caucus now rejects another of the movements longstanding clarion calls. In 1992, then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. The Democratic Platform that year endorsed reproductive choice (theres that word again) including the right to safe, legal abortion. Four years later, with Clinton running for re-election, the platform said: Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare. The Democratic platform made the same point in the next two cycles, with the 2004 document stating directly: Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Hillary Clinton even used the same phrase during her 2008 presidential campaign.

>>>We Have a Duty To Protect the Unborn

Not anymore. The 2008 and 2012 Democratic platforms dropped rare, while still endorsing efforts to reduce abortions. But since 2012, abortion advocates have embraced killing babies as fully legitimate all by itself. Signs at their rallies and protests often say Abortion On Demand and without Apology. The Pro-Choice Caucus also rejects any suggestion that abortion should be rare; its website even include a photograph of caucus members on the Capitol steps holding signs that read Abortion Is Essential and Liberate Abortion.

We cannot avoid answering the question Reagan asked almost four decades ago about the value of human life by pretending that human beings never existed before they were born or that men can somehow become pregnant, or by using some new words suggested by the latest focus group. Abortion kills babies, and its advocates are loudly telling us the value they place on human life.

Read this article:
What Is the Value of Human Life? - Heritage.org

Redken Partners With It Gets Better to Support LGBTQ+ & Hairdresser Community – PR Newswire

"At Redken, hairdressing is our passion and we believe in the power of the salon and the sense of community it can create for both hair stylists and clients," says Shane Wolf, Global President, Professional Products Division at L'Oral. "We knew we had to share this message of hope, not only with our community, but with anyone out there experiencing bullying who might also find a home in this industry. Partnering with the It Gets Better Project to spread that message will help support millions of young people worldwide."

Together, Redken and It Gets Better will embark on a mission to spread the message that everyone can feel safe, authentic and empowered in the hairdressing community, while evolving the hairdressing industry's LGBTQ+ inclusion practices and inspiring consumer allyship. Redken will utilize the It Gets Better unique education modules to upskill salon professionals with a training certification allowing salons to become a Redken Certified Safe Space Salon, welcoming both clients and stylists to a space that positively influences their journey with empathy and understanding.

As part of the Hairdressers United program, Redken is also inviting stylists to share their personal stories on social media and inspire others to share theirs tagging #ItGetsBetter and #RedkenHairdressersUnited.

As Redken kicks off this new partnership with It Gets Better, the brand is excited to continue to grow its efforts with the organization, educating and inspiring both stylists and consumers to join their global mission of inclusivity and community. Consumers can learn more about this exciting initiative and what they can do to support the cause at redken.com/hairdressersunited.

*Based on 2021 edition of Kline's Salon Hair Care Global Series, among brands selling shampoos, conditioners, hair color, hair styling and hair texturizing products

ABOUT REDKEN 5th AVENUE NYC

For over 60 years, Redken has been a leader in the professional salon industry, empowering professionals and consumers to achieve healthy hair transformations with confidence. Founded by Paula Kent, a woman who believed in the power of science, Redken was the first company to take a scientific approach to hair, defined as the right balance of protein, moisture and supported by an acidic pH, which remains the alpha and omega of haircare to this very day. All Redken products are made with the highest quality ingredients, and tested by salon professionals to ensure maximum efficacy, for every hair type and texture and every hair need. Based in New York City, Redken supports the expertise of salon professionals with principle-based education, cutting edge technologies rooted in protein-science, and a portfolio of products including Shades EQ the #1 demi-permanent hair color on the market for maximum versatility and flexibility for clients of all hair types and hair textures.

To learn more, visit Redken.com or Instagram.com/Redken.

ABOUT IT GETS BETTER PROJECT

It Gets Better Project is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that strives to uplift, empower and connect LGBTQ+ youth around the globe. Created in 2010 as the result of one of the most successful viral campaigns in YouTube's history, the It Gets Better Project provides critical support and hope to LGBTQ+ youth around the world by leveraging the power of media to reach millions of people each year. The project has expanded its origins in storytelling and media to include educational resources through It Gets Better EDU and reaches 18 countries outside of the U.S. through It Gets Better Global.

The project has garnered support from President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with numerous celebrities, including Kelly Clarkson, Gabrielle Union, Zachary Quinto, Mj Rodriguez, Josie Totah, and Gigi Gorgeous. More than 750,000 people have taken the It Gets Better pledge to share messages of hope and speak up against intolerance. Please visit http://www.itgetsbetter.org for more information, and join the conversation on TikTok, Instagram and Twitter at @ItGetsBetter; Facebook.com/ItGetsBetterProject; and YouTube.com/ItGetsBetterProject.

SOURCE Redken

See the article here:
Redken Partners With It Gets Better to Support LGBTQ+ & Hairdresser Community - PR Newswire

The ‘voter fraud’ narrative haunting the GOP The Nevada Independent – The Nevada Independent

Telling Republicans their votes havent counted for diddly-squat due to rampant fraud, then asking them to go cast a ballot, seems a bit counterintuitive for a get out the vote campaign.

And yet, among at least some Republicans, that has been the message during much of the 2022 primaries. In February, Republican candidate for secretary of state, Jim Marchant, told a crowd in Reno that their vote hasn't counted for decades.

You haven't elected anybody. The people that are in office have been selected. You haven't had a choice, Marchant said.

For someone whose political ambitions depend on supporters actually casting ballots, the comments represent a pretty strong cognitive dissonance. Your vote doesnt matter, now go vote for me is, after all, a helluva campaign slogan. And while Marchant is among the most extreme peddlers of such election conspiracy theories, the underlying assertion that 2020 was rigged is nonetheless a mainstreamed idea within Nevadas Republican Party.

Its therefore unsurprising to see that recent polls show confidence in the upcoming election isnt exactly soaring among Republicans.

However, judging by the relatively robust turnout during early voting in the primary, many of those voters are nonetheless still casting ballots. Apparently, even among true believers, there remains some sort of faith in the electoral process the chorus of candidates telling them otherwise notwithstanding.

Which makes one wonder if more moderate Republican voices giving lip service to such fraud conspiracies are doing so out of actual concern for election integrity. Its quite possible that the GOPs obligatory propagation of the fraud narrative is intentionally or not merely a mechanism to avoid reckoning with the actual reasons for their last loss at the ballot box.

After all, critical introspection isnt a trait thats particularly incentivized by supporters of political parties or ideological movements. Telling Trump supporters that electronic voting machines are part of some global communist scheme to take over the world simply carries fewer political risks than telling them their guy is as disliked as he is.

And its not just Trump supporters. Just as Republicans have reached for any explanation of 2020 that doesnt indict their partys recent standard bearer as unbearable, the most progressive wing of Californias Democratic Party is doing likewise in the wake of Chesa Boudins recall in San Francisco.

As Johnathan Chait recently argued, many of the affluent white activists who populate the progressive movement in California are seemingly incapable of grappling with the notion they might be out of touch with minority voters in heavily Democratic jurisdictions such as San Fran. And as a result, theyre rushing to cast blame wherever they can instead of reflecting on what might have gone wrong with their own politicking.

Obviously, theres a monumental difference between the finger pointing going on among progressives in ultra-liberal San Francisco and the Republican claims that our nations entire election process has been overtaken by a global communist cabal. However, both instances underscore the blinding self-assured resistance to internal criticism that exists in political echo chambers.

Deflecting blame is hardly a new thing in politics. Even before Trump poured fuel onto the fire with election conspiracy theories in 2020, political losers such as Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams had made headlines for their refusal to concede after being rejected by voters peddling their own versions of events that attempted to shield them from much of the blame.

And while such deflections have ranged from Clintons contrived petty grievances to Trumps injurious assaults against the integrity of our electoral system, the refusal to learn from let alone admit uncomfortable or inconvenient truths is regrettably commonplace among politicians.

The GOPs continued obsession over fraud allegations allegations that have even been debunked by members of their own party is certainly more damaging to our political environment than Hillary Clintons propensity to blame everything except her own dismal personality for a political loss. However, both instances are part of a worrisome trend where electoral post-mortems have been replaced with manufactured narratives designed to ostensibly exonerate those who are actually responsible.

Unfortunately, the political incentives of our modern era often encourage partisans to indulge such behavior. Emerging from the primary election next week, the GOP would do itself a favor to resist that temptation and transition its focus toward the things that actually matter to most Nevadans such as inflation, high gas prices or our states educational woes.

Most Nevadans are likely ready for the Republican Party to stop scapegoating the 2020 loss of a deeply unpopular and divisive presidential incumbent and they might even be willing to reward GOP politicians who, as Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested, stop rehashing the past.

At the very least, it would provide the party with a better get-out-the-vote message than telling would-be supporters their ballots arent going to matter.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding consultant based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He is the former communications director for Nevada Policy Research Institute and has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary as a columnist, political humorist, and radio talk show host. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.

Link:
The 'voter fraud' narrative haunting the GOP The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

OPINION | BRADLEY GITZ: You will be proud – Arkansas Online

The lead story on the CBS Sports website last Monday reported that five players on the Tampa Bay Rays chose to not wear a LGBT+ logo on their uniforms.

The first thought was why anyone thought five baseball players not wearing a political symbol could possibly be national news.

Apparently, the perceived significance came in a decision to not celebrate something (LGBT pride month) which some now expect everyone to celebrate; that having LGBT "pride," or at least publicly signaling that you do, is now something of a requirement, even for the vast majority of the population that isn't LGBT.

Lock-step conformity is now apparently expected when it comes to LGBT issues, in this case a perfunctory symbolism intended to announce to the world the holding of a certain enlightened attitude.

By choosing to not celebrate in the approved fashion, the five ball players therefore ran the risk of being perceived as hostile to the LGBT movement, even if they aren't.

Thus we are reminded that the purpose of virtue signaling in a woke age is not so much to convey what you really think but to acquire immunity from attack by removing suspicion that you might think the wrong (unapproved) things.

Expressing sentiments you don't really share becomes imperative, suppressing the ones you do often equally so. It's no longer enough to be accepting of members of the LGBT community in your daily life, you must also now apparently wear a symbol to prove it, or else.

In a remarkably short period of time we have moved from demands for tolerance and respect to demands for approval and now, finally, something resembling coerced celebration.

Within this context, it isn't just dissent that makes you a potential target but failure to give assent with sufficient gusto.

If "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school libraries was not too long ago considered objectionable, now it is those who object to it who are.

In the late and thoroughly unlamented Soviet Union, people protected themselves by hanging portraits of Marx and Lenin in their apartments, even if they despised everything about the communism that had made their lives so miserable. In America we pen essays expressing our commitment to "diversity, equity, and inclusion" when applying for college jobs and put LGBT symbols on our baseball jerseys in a similar effort to acquire acceptance and deflect suspicion, even if we roll our eyes when doing so.

Finally, the additional thought occurs that the LGBT movement has become increasingly strained and susceptible to failure as more initials get added; that the "T" might at some not too distant point come into conflict with the "L," "G," and "B."

The gay rights movement succeeded, and made America a better place in the process, because it borrowed the template of the earlier civil and women's rights movements, which were built on appeals to justice and equality and fairness and taught that discrimination on the basis of ascription (skin color and sex) was morally wrong.

Even if there were substantive differences between pigmentation on the one hand and sexual preference (and thus behavior based on preference) on the other, it was still persuasive enough to convince a majority of Americans that gay Americans should enjoy the same rights as other Americans, including the right to marry.

It is far from obvious, however, that everyone who supports gay marriage also supports the right of biological men pretending to be women to hang out in women's locker rooms and compete in sporting contests with biological women. Or that anyone who raises concerns on that latter count is a bigot merely for having done so.

Polls tell us that the same majorities that now support gay marriage also oppose the more extreme demands of the transgender movement, to the point where conflating it all under the same LGBT+ moniker could lead to a loss of support outside LGBT ranks and dissension within them.

Indeed, the hunch is that a large chunk of the American population finds the idea of celebrating guys who wear dresses to be even more bizarre than guys wearing dresses.

Americans, contrary to woke narratives, are generally tolerant people who believe in live and let live.

But we also believe in minding our own business first and foremost and are tired of being told that we are morally deficient if we don't enthusiastically celebrate the sexual preferences of other people.

One of the more amusing criticisms of the decision of Tampa Bay ballplayers to not wear the LGBT logos was that it was divisive and undermined team unity, as if the prior decision of a baseball team to express political sentiments that have nothing to do with baseball isn't going to cause division and that the problem lies not with those who made that decision but the few players who refused to fall into line.

It isn't hard to understand that if you don't want politics to divide your team, don't inject politics into it.

Some of us were writing columns supporting gay marriage long before Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden expeditiously came around to the idea and neither we, nor anyone else, need wear a logo to prove we're not bigots.

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Read this article:
OPINION | BRADLEY GITZ: You will be proud - Arkansas Online