Mediaboss Marketing

We could do thiswe could reach across the aisles, across the abortion rhetoric and say, ALL life has value as well as Some situations are tragic and need special consideration.

The abortion issue is multi-layered and complex.

Dear Thoughtful Pastor: For a long time, I have been bothered by the seemingly unshakable fidelity of Christian voters to the single issue of abortion. It seems to me that progressives need to find other ways to talk about abortion.

I know many persons who would vote for a more progressive agenda, but for this single issue: persons who love Jesus, and care about war, poverty, education, health care, and human rights, but who feel left out of the discussion.

Some of my friends have said, I can never vote for any candidate who supports abortion!

Specifically, many of these voters did not like Donald Trump or any of the other Republican candidates.

Yet, in the privacy of the voting booth, they voted for the GOP candidate because Republicans seem to be the only ones listening to their concerns.

Many may have voted against their best interests. However, rather than offering an alternative, progressives essentially disregarded these voters written them off, as though they count for nothing.

I have no answers. Just questions. But, questions I feel need to be addressed.

Personally, I think you are right: For many Christians, this became a one-issue election: vote for someone, no matter how morally compromised or otherwise unqualified, who promises to appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice. Do that and righteousness will prevail.

Voters expect that any new Supreme Court Justice appointed will rule favorably on any case that overturns the current legalization of abortion in all states.

For much of the religiously-affiliated population, every other issue, including jeopardizing health care, became far less important than protecting the unborn.

Progressives wrongly ignored this moral mandate.

Clearly, we have difficulties discussing abortion. People quickly turn to epithets (anti-womens rights or baby-killers) rather than seeing the extraordinary complexities of some pregnancies.

Unfortunately, an absolute no abortion rule de-personalizes females. Women become only a vessel, required to carry to term the product of some mans violent need to prove his manhood or some fathers perverse need to impregnate his daughter.

The impregnated womans mental and physical health issues carry no weight.

There is no love of human life in such draconian restrictions.

But a no questions asked abortion policy leads to a cheapening of human intimacy and respect for all human life. It reduces the sexual act, intended to both express love and produce life, to little more than raw biology.

A fetus becomes human upon the first breath. Its a magical moment, this miracle of separation. Because of superb neonatal medicine, the point at which that separation can successfully take place is now far earlier in pregnancies. The moral dilemma is real.

Unfortunately, abortion and infanticide have been part of human tragedy from our earliest days. Such decisions are nearly always driven by desperation.

Unfortunately, abortion and infanticide have been part of human tragedy from our earliest days. Such decisions are nearly always driven by desperation.

Finances, lack of support by the other party to the pregnancy, and our utterly inadequate educational/daycare infrastructure for parents of small children may drive the desperate decision to abort.

Statistics make one thing clear: If we want a radical reduction in the number of actual abortion procedures, we need to provide two things.

First, abundant and affordable access to reliable birth control.

Second, ready availability of safe, confidential and legal abortion providers. The best bet right now is Planned Parenthood. Defund this, and illegal abortions will go through the ceiling, endangering everyone.

The first prevents unwanted pregnancies. The second protects against debilitating fear. They work together.

First, demolish the shame.

Second, acknowledge that women are people deserving of full respect and ownership of their bodies.

Third, start sex education early and make it honest: abstinence only programs have a dismal track record of lowering the teen pregnancy rate.

Fourth, offer the resources for top-class child care for all.

Fifth, give emotional support to pregnant women and make the relinquishing of a child for adoption an honorable and praised position.

Do all these in concert and the need to terminate pregnancies except for the most horrifying of situations will sink like a massive stone heaved overboard in a stormy ocean.

We could do thiswe could reach across the aisles, across the divides and across the rhetoric and say, ALL life has value as well as Some situations are tragic and need special consideration.

Those two statements need to get married in a formal ceremony.

The all-or-nothing factions, Absolutely no abortion ever and Any abortion any time, make the most noise and have the least numerical support. The majority of people in the US understand abortion procedures need to be legal but exceedingly rare.

Abortion as a routine means of birth control or population control demeans us all. To the Progressives shame, they didnt get this. Even worse, maybe too many dont believe it.

If the US is going to insist it has a moral foundation, it needs to do a much better job of caring for its vulnerable. That vulnerable population very much includes women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

They, along with the unborn, are deserving of life.

[Note: A version of this column is slated to run in the March 31, 2017, edition of the Denton Record-Chronicle. The Thoughtful Pastor, AKA Christy Thomas, welcomes all questions for the column. Although the questioner will not be identified, I do need a name and verifiable contact information in case the newspaper editor has need of it. You may use this link to email questions.]

Original post:
Help! Why can't progressives get the obsession with abortion? - Patheos (blog)

Many students across UGAs campus identify as being progressive or liberal. In the 2016 election, 58 percent of UGAs community supported Clinton over other candidates. However, there is a terrifying lack of unity among progressive groups on campus and an equally disappointingly amount of activism taking place.

While we all see the protests at the Arch, the most recent being over the Campus Carry bill, these protests are yet to show any real change in our school or our state.

This lack of large scale student activism is a new problem for UGA. In the 1960s, the University experienced a wave of student activism that shook it to its core.

During the 1960s, there was unequal treatment of female students. The Georgia Belle Handbook outlined strict dress codes and curfew rules for women; they were also barred from living off campus and from drinking.

In April of 1968, the University attempted to punish a female student for returning to her dorm room 30 minutes. In response, 400 student activists organized a three day sit in at the academic building to protest this situation. The case was dropped the next day.

While the protest was criticized by the school and local officials, within two years, men and women on campus were subjected to the same rules, and by 1980 women outnumbered men on campus.

This shows what a difference students can make in their school and state by actively banning together and standing up for what they believe is right. Without progressive students actively expressing their beliefs and channeling it into creating what they perceive as positive change on campus, all our rhetoric about social justice holds no weight.

The progressive students of UGA should rally for their chance in the upcoming special election in Congressional District 6, one of the largest suppliers of UGA students in recent years. It is a chance to fight back after the electoral losses of the 2016 election.

Yet progressive groups on campus have not acted to participate in voter drives or phone banks to garner support for the democratic front runner John Ossoff, who is doing well in a historically red district.

I wont sit here and encourage students to skip class or have sit-ins over any perceived transgression against them by the University. However, its our duty, not just as students but also as citizens to take civil activism seriously and to work toward creating change on our campus, in our state and in our country.

View post:
OPINION: Progressives need to take more action - Red and Black

Single-payer health care appears to be experiencing a surge in popularity among Democrats in Congress.

During the last two years of Barack Obama's presidency, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) could only find 62 other House Democrats willing to co-sponsor his single-payer health care proposal which would expand Medicare to cover every American.

But just two months into the new Congress, Conyers's team has already signed up 78 co-sponsors for the exact same single-payer bill. More are expected to come on board in the next two weeks. At this point in the last Congress, only 48 Democratic House members had signed on to the bill.

"During Obama's term, Democrats were uncomfortable with anything that might look like something other than full-throated support of the Affordable Care Act, and they didn't want to do anything that might undermine the president," said Dan Riffle, Conyers's senior legislative assistant, in an interview. "But many members who weren't on the bill, who have had their phones ringing off the hook, are now expressing interest. It's percolating from the ground up."

Several House Democrats see the same thing happening. "There's more of an appetite for an alternative now," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a sponsor of Conyers's bill, told me. "Democrats have a new confidence to push for a single-payer system. The momentum is building."

Added Rep. Joaqun Castro (D-TX) in an interview: "There is a discussion now that didn't exist a few years ago about how to achieve universal coverage for people."

Of course, Conyerss single-payer Medicare for All bill is dead on arrival with the Republicans who currently control Congress. But left-wing activists and progressives on the Hill say theyve made getting the Democratic Party to support a single-payer health care system one of their key priorities both because they believe it will help the party present a more persuasive alternative to Republicans in the next election, and to lay the legislative groundwork for what they'll enact once they retake the majority.

Since Obamacares passage, congressional Democrats have focused on defending Obamacare from the GOPs ongoing assault. But with Republicans health care overhaul collapsing last week, and with Obama leaving office, Democrats are freer than theyve been in years to pursue a dramatically new direction. The partys progressive wing is trying to seize on single-payer as that solution.

After Speaker Paul Ryans House health care bill imploded, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced over the weekend hed be launching a new Medicare for All initiative. Like Conyerss bill, it will suggest allowing every American to enroll in Medicare a massive new entitlement program likely to be paid for by a new payroll tax, mirroring a similar push Sanders made during the presidential primary. (Read Voxs Sarah Kliff for a policy explainer on how a single-payer system could work.)

An aide to Sanders said that his bill wouldnt be released for weeks, but that the senators staff is receiving surprisingly positive feedback from other Democratic senators. Were seeing much more interest now in the Medicare for All legislation, an aide to Sanderss office said. I think people are looking for bolder approaches now.

But while Sanders and progressive Democrats clamor for a more aggressive approach, nine Senate Democrats in separate interviews expressed skepticism about the need to go that far, that quickly.

Some pointed to the Affordable Care Act as a better model for Democratic health care policy. [The ACA] is a more centrist approach. And it gives us a better chance for a broader coalition in support. Thats why President Obama chose that course, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), a Democratic moderate, told me.

Cardin added that he wasnt persuaded by left-wing criticisms that single-payer was necessary in part because Obamacare hadnt done enough to bring down the number of Americans who were uninsured.

Even if you do single-payer, youre never going to get to 100 percent, Cardin said, speaking of uninsured rate, which is currently at a record low of below 9 percent. Theres gonna be qualifications for undocumented to get covered, people who are in transition and in and out. So youll always run to some degree of uninsured.

The hesitation about single-payer is particularly clear at the partys leadership level. Asked at the Capitol on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wouldnt say one way or another if he thought the Democratic Party should embrace single-payer, only noting that he would review Sanderss legislation once it was ready. In the House, neither Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi nor Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has officially co-sponsored Conyerss bill, though Pelosi did tell the Washington Posts David Weigel that shes supported single-payer since before you were born.

Another prominent Democrat, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), also wouldnt get behind a single-payer health care system, instead calling it one of those options that must be considered in an email to Vox. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) was openly critical, arguing its important that we keep options open for people who rely on health care. (Some single-payer plans would get rid of private insurance in favor of government-run care almost entirely.)

Most preferred to duck the question altogether, and concentrate on defending Americans who are covered under Obamacare, as Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) put it.

Eighty-five percent of the conversation on health care will be about Donald Trumps push to repeal the bill, added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the caucuss most progressive members, in an interview. To the extent that theres not unanimity in the Democratic caucus what to do theoretically five or 10 years down the line is not nearly as important as what Donald Trump is going to do to the health care system right now.

Meanwhile, only a handful of Democratic senators including Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have publicly embraced single-payer. In an interview, progressive Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) also called himself a supporter of single-payer though, he hastened to add, I cant speak for the caucus.

The ambivalence and ambiguity of Democrats attitude toward single-payer is exactly what some left-wing advocates want to bring to an end. Over the past week, a progressive advocacy group called Justice Democrats, formed after the election, has called the offices of all 119 House Democrats who have not signed on to Conyerss bill and demanded they do so.

Single-payer enjoys popular support. Gallup found last year that close to 60 percent of the public wants a federally run health care system, and Kaiser polling this March shows more than 66 percent support single-payer. Among Democrats, that number is closer to 81 percent.

This is Democrats expressing their will in one direction and then party leaders and incumbents going in a different direction. We want to highlight that. The idea is to move these people, says Corbin Trent, communications director for Justice Democrats, in an interview.

On social media, Justice Democrats have been blasting out a list with the names of every House Democrat who hasnt signed on to Conyerss bill. The group is printing 5,000 petitions to deliver to the Washington offices of House Democrats opposing the bill. And they say theyre prepared to back primary candidates against Democratic House and Senate members who do not fall in line behind single-payer.

We are trying to let them know that the people are watching. And that they want them to fight, Trent says.

Other left-wing groups are also leading the charge. The big problem with Obamacare is that it was a Republican idea, said Neil Sroka, communications director for the left-wing advocacy group Democracy for America. Having the Democratic Party talk of Medicare for All means its doing more than just defending Obamacare. And thats important because it allows you to recognize the real deficiencies of Obamacare.

House progressives were also unpersuaded by the argument that the party shouldnt be articulating a proactive agenda, because they also had to defend the current improvements under Obamacare.

If Reagan and Goldwater had thought that way, there'd never be a conservative revolution. If Paul Ryan had thought that way, we would never have the conservatism we have today, Rep. Khanna said.

Insurance companies have been making a racket of profits over the last couple of years, and the only way to help really contain costs and address Americans frustrations is to have Medicare for All.

But not all of Khannas colleagues are willing to go that far. Over the weekend, the Posts Weigel attended a town hall in Rhode Island at which liberal activists demanded that their representatives push for expanded health coverage.

We have to look harder at a single-payer system, Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) told them, according to Weigel.

But back at the Capitol, Langevin hadnt signed on to Conyerss bill. In a statement, his spokesperson would only say he would not be cosponsoring the bill at this time. Single-payer, Langevin said in the statement, was just one of many mechanisms worth considering to improve American health care.

Read more:
With Trumpcare dead and Obama gone, progressives are putting Medicare for All back on the table - Vox

David Duleidens ordeal at the hands of the California attorney general is hardly the only California threat to the First Amendment. Because abortion is paramount to some progressives and religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of association hardly worth mentioning by comparison the California Assembly is currently pondering a bill that would directly infringe on the rights of religious organizations to uphold and advance their principles and beliefs regarding sexuality and marriage. The relevant text of AB-569 follows:

An employer shall not do either of the following:

(1) Take any adverse employment action against an employee based on the use of any drug, device, or medical service related to reproductive health by an employee or employees dependent.

(2) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny any employee the right to make his or her own reproductive health care decisions, including the use of a particular drug, device, or medical service.

(b) An employer that provides an employee handbook to its employees shall include in the handbook notice of the employee rights and remedies under this section.

(c) For purposes of this section, adverse employment action includes, but is not limited to, termination, demotion or refusal to promote or advance, loss of career specialty, reassignment to a different shift, reduction of hours, reduction of wages or benefits, refusal to provide training opportunities or transfer to a different department, adverse administrative action, or any other penalty or disciplinary or retaliatory action.

To put this in plain English, it prevents religious organizations (including colleges and schools)from imposing entirely normal and conventional rules of Christian conduct. If you have any doubt regarding the bills purpose, look no further than the supporting statement from NARALPro-Choice California, which singles out exclusively religious employers as the villains opposing womens health. Here is NARALs list of alleged injustices that it believes the bill willcombat:

Financial aid specialist Teri James was fired from San Diego Christian College in 2012 for becoming pregnant while unmarried.

In 2015, the Archbishop of San Francisco added a morality clause to teacher contracts that condemned same-sex relationships, premarital sex, sperm donation and assisted reproductive technologies. The Diocese of Santa Rosa dropped a similar plan after facing backlash.

Emily Herx was fired from her teaching job at a Catholic school in Indiana for using in vitro fertilization.

In 2014, after an anonymous letter revealed her pregnancy, unmarried middle school teacher Shaela Evenson was fired by a Catholic school district in Montana for having sex outside of marriage. She was fired despite her 10 year career at the school and the fact that the principal called her an excellent teacher.

What do all those examples have in common? They represent Christian organizations applying orthodox Christian theology to employees who voluntarily work at the institution. No one is conscripted into teaching at Catholic schools. Under the text of this bill, a dean of students at a Christian school could violate the terms of her employment agreement, get pregnant out of wedlock, abort the child and not suffer the slightest job consequences even if its her job to live by the values she is supposed to advance.

The bill is flatly unconstitutional in any reasonable jurisdiction, but California is in the Ninth Circuit, so its always better to defeat bills in committee rather than test them in court. The good folks at the California Family Council are mobilizing to oppose the bill.Not all progressives are as dismissive of the First Amendment as the pro-abortion radicals, and conservatives can still win victories by appealing to constitutional tradition, fundamental fairness, and respect for civil liberties. California conservatives ought to know. Theyve done it before.

Read the rest here:
California's Abortion-Obsessed Progressives Contemplate a Grave Assault on Religious Liberty - National Review

Illinois progressives offer their agenda Crain's Chicago Business (blog) There's no agreement on a new state budget or anything close thereto. But there was agreement on one thing today, as progressive members of the Illinois House and Senateall Democratsoffered their vision of what's needed to fix the state. On the ... and more »

Original post:
Illinois progressives offer their agenda - Crain's Chicago Business (blog)