Mediaboss Marketing

Across party lines, politicians had very different reactions to the fall of Roe v. Wadelast Friday. One Utah Republican state representatives reaction of choice was simply rape apologia.

I got a text message today saying I should seek to control mens ejaculations and not womens pregnancies, state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee said at a celebratory news conference last week. I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.

Lisonbees comments rightfully drew a wave of backlashincluding Esquire calling them really ickyas many noted the disrespectful connotations for survivors who are impregnated by rape. The notion that women and people with uteruses can simply opt to not get pregnant by deploying witchcraft to control that intake of semen amounts to a level of victim-blaming we havent seen since Todd Akins 2012 legitimate rape statement. Lest you bleached your brain of the memory of Akins words, the late Republican US Senate candidate claimed victims of legitimate rape have the god-given power to simply not get pregnant, to justify banning abortion without rape exceptions.

In the wake of this backlash, Lisonbee semi-walked back her statement on Saturday, clarifying to the Salt Lake Tribune that women do not have a choice when they are raped and have protections under Utahs trigger law. To access those protections, of course, theyll have to report and prove their rape to state authorities.

But at no point did Lisonbee explicitly apologize for her words. My first statement in the press conference made clear the actions I have taken to pass bills that provide legal protection and recourse to victims of sexual assault, she said. The political and social divide in America seems to be expanding at an ever-faster pace. I am committed to ongoing respectful and civil engagement. I can always do better and will continue to try.

Icky as Lisonbees celebratory post-Roe comments were, Im still thinking about them and how infuriatingly unsurprising they are. Ten years after legitimate rape, Roe is gone, and Republicans are still the party of Todd Akin.

This sort of depravity from anti-abortion politicians seems to be so normalized even Democrats are willing to write it off as simply misspeaking. Angela Romero, a Utah Democrat whos reportedly worked on bills on sexual assault, came to Lisonbees defense, telling the Tribune this week that she didnt think Lisonbee intentionally meant to be harmful, and that we just have to be sensitive to how we phrase things.

Of course, anti-abortion lawmakers arent just insensitively phrasing their disdain for rape survivors. In recent months, Jezebel has reported on a Michigan Republican candidate who said hed told his daughters, If rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it. An Ohio Republican in the state legislature called pregnancy from rape an opportunity. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) last year justified the lack of rape exception in Texas six-week abortion ban by claiming he would simply eliminate rape by ramping up policingand we all know how great police are at handling sexual assaults!!

This utterly depraved language mirrors Republicans policies, too: Of the handfulsof abortion bans state legislatures have passed this year, few have exceptions for rapeand very few of the state trigger laws that took effect with the fall of Roe have rape exceptions, too. Anti-abortion lawmakers have become increasingly shameless on this issue. They once had to pretend to care about victims, to disavow politicians like Akin, and at least theoretically give those pesky, impregnated rape victims a chance to prove their trauma in exchange for health care. But today, with the Supreme Court and a majority of state legislatures in their control, they can say the quiet part out loud.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) admitted earlier this week that the states total abortion ban, which took effect when Roe was overturned and lacks a rape exception, could force rape survivors as young as 13 to carry their rapists babies, and he acknowledged the depravity of this. But he also refused to do anything about it. I would prefer a different outcome than that, but thats not the debate today in Arkansas. It might be in the future, but for now, the law triggered with only one exception ... in the case of the life of the mother.

I cant emphasize enough that rape exceptions to abortion bans are almost worthless in practice, because the majority of victims dont report their rapes. Nonetheless, anti-abortion lawmakers once used this exemption to present their abortion bans as compromises, to further abortion stigma by presenting some abortions as acceptable, and the rest as frivolous and bad. If there were any real concerns about gender-based violence, abortion wouldnt be banned, with or without exceptionsnot when being denied abortion care places someone at greater risk of domestic violence, and the top cause of death for pregnant people is homicide, often from abusive partners. Abortion bans are gender-based violence, with added trauma for sexual assault survivors.

So, when you hear Republicans like Lisonbee claim you can simply control that intake of semen, or any other outlandish, victim-blaming statements against abortion, know these arent just words or isolated incidents. This may as well be the GOP party platform.

Continue reading here:
I'm Still Thinking About That Utah Republican Saying Women Can Control Intake of Semen' - Jezebel

Googles practice of filtering Republican campaign emails into spam filters cost the party $2 billion in donations since 2019, GOP lawmakers and the head of the Republican National Committee said.

Republicans made the calculation based on a North Carolina State University study that found Google, the nations largest email platform, flagged more Republican campaign emails as spam than Democratic emails during the 2020 election season, and ended up sending as few as 32% of GOP emails to inboxes.

Big Tech has been silencing conservative voices and actively working against Republicans for multiple cycles, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Rick Scott and National Republican Campaign Committee Chair Tom Emmer said in a joint statement.

Googles email suppression which affects the GOPs fundraising and GOTV efforts is another egregious example. Silicon Valley oligarchs are suppressing free political speech, they said in the statement.

Google denies filtering spam for political purposes and said email users can set their preferences to prevent the campaign messages from ending up in the spam folder.

The North Carolina State University study, released in March, found Outlook and Yahoo filtered more Democratic emails into spam folders.

House and Senate Republicans earlier this year introduced legislation that would ban Google and other email platforms from filtering campaign emails, part of an overall effort to crack down on Big Tech censorship that they believe targets the GOP.

Republican conservative candidates raised $737 million on Republican fundraising platform WinRed from Gmail users in 2019 and 2020, Republicans reported in a complaint filed earlier this year with the Federal Election Commission.

We estimate Republicans accordingly missed out on $1.5 billion in contributions during the 2020 election cycle and over $2 billion since 2019, the RNC said in the statement.

See the original post:
Republicans say Google spam filter cost them $2 billion from donors - Washington Times

Jerry Springer| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

It's frightening to realize how close our country came to losing our democracy because of former President Donald Trump and his insurrectionist minions.

But here' s what may be even more frightening: We no longer have two major political parties that are committed to ensuring that America stays a democracy.

These arenot the ravings of an incurable partisan, though I do admit that all things being equal, I do mark my ballot for Democrats. But, of course, all things arent equal these days. So my critique about the Republican Party,which was once fondly knownas the "Grand Old Party,"is an honest attempt at offering some objective observations.

And here's one very objective observation: While we still havetwo major political parties that are fiercely battling and contesting each other, only one of them is doing sowhile displaying a deep love for democracy in our country. And it's not the Republican Party.

MyRepublican friends and, yes I do have some always modify their declarations of being Republicans by saying, Yes, Trumps a whacko. And, yes,there are some extremists, racists and Proud Boys in our party. But ourparty's basic principles conservatism, limited government and low taxes for corporations and the wealthy are still worth believing in and supporting."

But is that really what todays Republican Party stands for?

Consider this. A near-majority of Republicans still believe President Joe Biden didn't win the 2020 election. And they still believe that Biden's victory by slightly more than7 million votes should be overturned simply because the loser wants to keep insistinghe was the real winner,even though he has provided absolutely no evidence to back up his endless complainingabout fraudulent voting

Is this how we show our love for our country? Or for America's democracy?

And, no, we're not talking about just about afringe segment of Republicans, In fact, the Texas Republican Party recently approveda platform suggestingthat if there any federal laws that Texas happens to dislike, they should just "be ignored, opposed, refused and nullified. It also declares hatTexas "retains the right to secede from the United States," and urgesthestate Legislature to give Texansa chance to vote on a secession referendum.

Of course, this was tried back in the 19th century and it didn'twork out so well. But apparently the Republicans in Texas think it's worth another try in the 21st century.

Once again, this is not merely a fringe group: thisis the official TexasRepublican Party, which is one ofthe largest state parties in America. And, by the way, in addition to secession the party is also in favor of:

As uncomfortable as it is to admit, todays Republican Party does not stand up for American democracy and it does not unequivocally support that principle, either. It isnow clearly in favor of making America an undemocratic theocracy, and those who long for the Republican Party that once existed had better stop their daydreaming. It islong gone, and it isnot coming back.

Jerry Springer is a longtime nationally syndicated television talk show host who resides in Sarasota. Springerhas a law degree from Northwestern University and served one term asthe mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio.He is the host of "The Jerry Springer Podcast."

Continued here:
Jerry Springer: The Republican Party used to be reasonable. Not anymore - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Rep. Barry Loudermilk led a Capitol rioter on a tour of House offices the day before the January 6 attack.

Now, he could be next in line to lead the committee that oversees security at the Capitol.

The current most senior Republican, Rep. Rodney Davis, lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger on Tuesday.

Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, who led a January 6 rioter on a tour of the Capitol complex the day before the attack, could now be next in line to lead the committee that oversees Capitol security.

That's because Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, currently the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, lost his primary to fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller on Tuesday and Republicans are widely predicted to regain control of the House in 2023. Loudermilk is currently the second-highest ranking Republican on the panel. The committee has jurisdiction over both the Capitol Police and security on the House side of the Capitol complex.

Miller, who recently said that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was a "victory for white life" a remark her campaign later said was an unintended "mishap" had the backing of former President Donald Trump and criticized Davis for voting to establish a bipartisan January 6 commission.

Earlier this month, the January 6 committee released footage of Loudermilk leading a tour group through the House office buildings on January 5, 2021. The following day, at least one member of that tour group returned to the grounds of the Capitol, and could be heard yelling violent threats against Democratic lawmakers.

"When I get done with you, you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head," the rally attendee says in the video, referring to Pelosi.

It remains unclear whether the man entered the Capitol building itself. January 6 committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi also noted that the man and other tour attendees took photos of areas in the House office buildings that wouldn't normally be of interest to tourists, including stairwells and tunnels.

Story continues

Seeking to explain himself the day the footage was released, Loudermilk claimed that the man was simply photographing a golden eagle light fixture on the wall.

"Obviously, I do not support anything he said, but nobody in that group talked or spoke that way," said Loudermilk, referring to the man's violent threats against congressional Democrats.

But Loudermilk's story about the tours has changed a number of times as new information has emerged. He's continually pointed to a letter from Capitol Police to Rep. Davis stating that they didn't consider "any of the activities we observed as suspicious," though they noted that Loudermilk left the tour group unattended at one point.

Though Loudermilk is next in line in terms of seniority, his position atop the committee is not necessarily assured; ultimately, House Republican leadership is in charge of committee assignments for their members.

In a statement to Insider, Loudermilk said he would "have to give serious consideration" to chairing the committee if asked to do so by the next Speaker, but emphasized that his current focus is on "the important work the Republicans are doing on the Committee."

"Rodney Davis has done a tremendous job as the Ranking Republican on the Committee on House Administration. It has been an honor to work under his leadership, and we still have a lot of work to be done this year," said Loudermilk. "Who becomes the chairman of the committee for the 118th Congress will ultimately be the decision of the incoming Speaker."

In 2013, facing criticism for appointing only white men to lead major committees in the House, former Speaker John Boehner appointed then-Rep. Candice Miller to chair the committee, despite the fact that she had not previously served on it.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more:
The House Republican who led a rioter on a tour the day before the January 6 attack could lead the committee overseeing Capitol security - Yahoo News

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Republican-backed appeal that could give state legislatures far more power over federal elections by limiting the ability of state courts to review their actions, taking up a North Carolina case that could have broad implications for the 2024 elections and beyond.

The justices took up the appeal by Republican state lawmakers of a February decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map delineating the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts approved last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the boundaries for the districts were drawn by the legislature in a manner that boosted the electoral chances of Republicans at the expense of Democrats. It rejected Republican arguments seeking to shield legislature-drawn maps from legal attack in state courts.

Register

North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore, a Republican, hailed the high court's decision to hear the appeal.

"This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide," Moore said.

Voting rights advocates disagreed.

"In a radical power grab, self-serving politicians want to defy our state's highest court and impose illegal voting districts upon the people of North Carolina," said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause, a voting rights group that is among the plaintiffs challenging the legislature's map.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican request to put on hold the lower court rulings that adopted the court-drawn map, a decision seen as boosting Democratic hopes of retaining their slim House majority in the November midterm elections. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision.

The Republican lawmakers said the state court impermissibly imposed its own policy determination for how much partisanship can go into crafting congressional lines. They acknowledged that the case would have an impact beyond redistricting, extending to "the whole waterfront of voting issues, from absentee voting deadlines to witness requirements, voter ID to curbside voting."

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision due by June 2023. The ruling is not expected to come before this November's elections but could apply to 2024 elections including the presidential race.

Two groups of plaintiffs, including Democratic voters and an environmental group, sued after North Carolina's legislature passed its version of the congressional map last November. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated the North Carolina state constitution's provisions concerning free elections and freedom of assembly, among others.

The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map on Feb. 4, concluding that the way the districts were crafted was intentionally biased against Democrats, diluting their "fundamental right to equal voting power."

A lower state court on Feb. 23 rejected a redrawn map submitted by the legislature and instead adopted a new map drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. According to some redistricting analysts, the new map includes seven Republican districts likely to be won by Republicans, six likely to be won by Democrats and one competitive seat.

The dispute is one of numerous legal battles in the United States over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes measured in a national census, last taken in 2020. In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain.

The Supreme Court in 2019 barred federal judges from curbing the practice, called partisan gerrymandering. Critics have said that such gerrymandering warps democracy.

The North Carolina Republicans' defense of the legislature's map relies on a contentious legal theory called the "independent state legislature doctrine" that is gaining traction in conservative legal circles and, if accepted, would vastly increase politicians' control over how elections are conducted.

Under that doctrine, the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts or other entities, authority over election rules including the drawing of electoral districts.

The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution stating that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Republican lawmakers decried the "state supreme court's usurpation of that authority."

The state's Department of Justice said in a legal filing that, contrary to the Republican lawmakers' assertions, North Carolina state law specifically authorizes state courts to review redistricting efforts.

Register

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Continued here:
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Republican bid to curb judicial oversight of elections - Reuters.com