The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[maudmac]

Oh, fuck that. If the Dems just lay down and let the shrub roll over them with these two crucial nominations, they are going to further alienate Democrats all over the country.

What the hell are Democrats afraid of? They are afraid Republicans won't vote for them? Newsflash: Republicans aren't voting for them now. They are afraid their own party won't support them? Newsflash: their own party is disgusted and alienated by their weakness in dealing with the shrub and his administration and its policies.

I really think there's a disconnect between politicians who are Democrats and average citizens who are Democrats. D.C. is full of Dems who keep trying to distance themselves from Howard Dean, while a lot of the rest of us out here in the real world are thinking Dean is awesome and needs to keep doing what he's doing - speaking the truth about the GOP. There is something in the water in D.C. that turns Democrats into weenies.

[Willowlicious]

The Democrats had BETTER fight. If they don't, why are they even there? The role of the minority party is to oppose, thus the term "opposition party." Democrats and liberals are itching for the Dem party to actually grow a spine and stop trying to be "Republican Light." And the country as a whole is finally showing unease with the Bush administration. GW's numbers are tanking with independents, leaving millions of voters up for graps for the mid-terms. Why can't the Democrats take the candy from this baby? Strap it on and let's go. Geez.

That being said, good lord, this is going to be nasty. This moment is the culmination of all the Religious Right's insane efforts. It's really sad when the safest choice of names bandied about seems to be Alberto "Torture 'Em!" Gonzalez as he is supposedly more centrist than any others mentioned. The RR has already "warned" Bush not to nominate him, though. The question is whether Bush's desire to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court will filter out the entitled, payback-hungry shreaks from the religious extremists he long ago sold his soul to?

If a real nut-bag is confirmed to the court, my only hope is that Anthony K ennedy will feel compelled to move into O'Connor's vacated role as the centrist peacekeeper. He has played this role before and he could end up literally being the only hope for sanity and reason if a hardliner is put on the court.

Now I'm praying for all the old, crusty liberals on the court to keep their health until 2008. I may be asking too much. Isn't Stevens something like 86? Sigh.

Amy

[TemperedCynic]

While we work together to shape the SCOTUS, looks like the Repugs have a whole other problem to consider. Of course, the mainstream media has continured to ignore the Downing Street Memo about BushCo planning out the reasons to invade Iraq almost a year before we went. It will be tough to ignore this, however - Rove leaked undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press, and Newsweek's breaking the story.:

Holy Shit - it IS Rove!
by John in DC - 7/02/2005 01:22:00 PM



Ok, everybody take a deep breath. O'Donnell could not be more definitive, but let's make sure this is REAL before we get too excited. Still, I'm psyched!

And now that this allegation is out there, of Karl Rove being a TRAITOR who divulged national security information putting our lives and the lives of CIA agents and their contacts at risk around the world, is this suspected threat to national security still AT the White House at this moment? Is he in the proximity of the president of the United States? What does the Secret Service have to say about that? Simply because of this allegation, a very serious public allegation by a credible on-the-record source, this man's security clearances should be revoked immediately, albeit temporarily, until this matter can be resolved.

Is the Secret Service REALLY going to let a man facing these accusations have access to the president of the United States in a time of war?

Come on MSM, ask the White House NOW if Karl Rove is still in the building, or if his clearances have been temporarily revoked.

From the Huffington Post:
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

[Gatito Grande]

EVERY TIME I thought "This is it: the coffin nail in the putridity which is the Bush Administration," the American People yawned, stretched, and said "Hey: he has prevented another 9/11---what's the problem?" (and then they re-elected him. Even some Democrats lapsed into a "Maybe Bush was right" catatonia after the temporary lull in the carnage in Iraq---of many former, and future, temporary lulls in Iraqi carnage---after the elections there. )

I would love to think that "ROVE IS A TRAITOR" will finally do the trick (Even as I have been looking forward to seeing "Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in hand-cuffs" since Amb. Joe Wilson first said it almost 2 years ago)

. . . but I'm not naive.

The Real Deal is framing: gathering up ALL the ceaseless shennanigans, bullsh*t, lies, and outright CRIMES of this vilest of *all* American Presidencies, and clearly showing it as such---repetitiously!---to the shite-fer-brains American electorate.

GG And then praying for a miracle: which is what it will take to keep the Court from tipping disastrously for a generation Out

[maudmac]

Rove? Well, well, would you look at that. The plot thickens. It sucks that reading the news is as exciting and intriguing as one of those spy thriller novels.

Perhaps this, assuming it really breaks (nothing on the major news outlets yet, as far as I can tell), will call further attention to the Downing Street memo.

What a mess. It reminds me of Iran-Contra. And it also underscores how absurd the meltdown over Bill Clinton's blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky truly was. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

I guess the question in all this, the yellowcake stuff and Wilson and Plame and Halliburton and Cheney and Downing Street and everything, is...why did the shrub have such a hard on for Iraq? Was it only about oil? The whole Bush family has long had far too much power. It's disgusting.

A question about this Rove business. Why wasn't Novak in any trouble back when he outed Plame in the first place?

I really hope this Rove story doesn't stay stuck in the blogosphere like the DS memo has been. This needs to be front and center in the national mainstream news media. If the White House backs Rove, I hope the people of this country will see through the crap finally. I still don't understand why they haven't yet, but maybe some of them are a little...slow. Even the slowest of them should be able to put this together now. (For your frog march fantasy, GG: clicky. Someone linked to that from News Hounds, so I don't know any background on it. It's fun to look at, though.)

[sam7777]

Democrats and liberals are itching for the Dem party to actually grow a spine and stop trying to be "Republican Light."

Willowicious: A big AMEN to that. If the Dems wonder why they can't win majorities in the House and Senate or the presidency, that's the main reason. They MUST present an actual alternative and show that they believe in SOMETHING.

It will be tough to ignore this , however - Rove leaked undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press, and Newsweek's breaking the story

TemperedCynic: No it won't. Scott McClellan, the shrubs head liar, is already passing it off as "old history". Let's see if the Dems demand that Rove be bought to justice. As for Newsweek, they have probably already written a retraction for when the White House complains. The corporate media has shown no spine to stand by their stories.

EVERY TIME I thought "This is it: the coffin nail in the putridity which is the Bush Administration," the American People yawned, stretched, and said "Hey: he has prevented another 9/11---what's the problem?" (and then they re-elected him.

GG: Agreed. Remember that the same number of GLBTs voted for the shrub in 2004 as in 2000 despite the FMA and genreal homophobia of the repugs. I don't know what it will take to get the scales to fall off the eyes of half this country.

[FineyMcFine]

Looks like this week might be the week for the nomination, according to the Washington Post's Peter Baker:

Link to Washington Post story

Sounds like Gonzalez is off the table, at least for now.

This sentence in the article cracks me up:

As he has since O'Connor made her announcement July 1, Bush continued to receive unsolicited advice yesterday about whom he should pick. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who will preside over...

I'm not sure if I would classify a recommendation from a Senator, especially one on the Judiciary Committee (especially the chair, fercrissakes) as 'unsolicited advice' since the Constitution directs the Senate to give the President advice.

[Ben Varkentine]

Sometimes the bad guys lose. From a New York Times story:

Link

Eric Rudolph, who has confessed to the Atlanta Olympics bombing and three other explosions that killed two and injured 150, received two life sentences today for a fatal abortion clinic blast.

Emily Lyons, the nurse wounded by Eric Rudolph's bomb, told him in court today, "Do I look afraid? You damaged my body, but you did not create the fear you sought."

Judge C. Lynwood Smith of Federal District Court in Birmingham said Mr. Rudolph postured himself "as a superior human being" and compared him to the Nazis, who "sought to eradicate a segment of the population."

Judge Smith is not exaggerating. Mr. Rudolph is a real piece of work.

Under a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid the death penalty for the four bombings, Mr. Rudolph also confessed in April to the bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics that killed one woman and injured 111 people, and the bombing of a gay and lesbian nightclub and an abortion clinic in Atlanta in 1997.

[Gatito Grande]

As a passionate opponent of the death penalty, I'm glad Rudolph got life (IN PRISON!!!).

However, I can't help but believe that this Justice Dept (under the Bush Administration) would NEVER have "cut a deal" (escaping the death penalty) w/ a Muslim terrorist, or a Leftist terrorist, the way they have w/ a Wingnut Christian one (even to "secure 250 pounds of TNT", as they did w/ Rudolph).

GG I pray Rudolph has a long life, to finally get a conscience, and repent of his crimes (what a "penitentiary" is supposed to be for) Out

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Bush Nominates Roberts for Supreme Court

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - President Bush named federal appeals judge John G. Roberts Jr. to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy in a decade on Tuesday, delighting Republicans and unsettling Democrats by picking a young jurist of impeccably conservative credentials.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the 50-year-old Roberts would succeed retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, long a swing vote on a court divided over abortion, affirmative action, states' rights and more.

Bush offered Roberts the job in a lunchtime telephone call, then invited him to the White House for a nationally televised, prime-time announcement. The president said his choice will "strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench."

In brief remarks, Roberts said he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court in a career as a private attorney and government lawyer. "I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves," he said.

"I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate," he added.

That was a reference to confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, expected to begin in late August or early September. That would allow plenty of time for the Senate to meet Bush's timetable of a vote before the high court begins its new term on Oct. 3.

Bush administration officials arranged for Roberts to pay his first courtesy calls on leading senators on Wednesday after breakfast with Bush in the White House residence. Republican reaction to the appointment was strongly supportive, while Democrats responded in measured terms.

"I'm just a little surprised that he's already subject to criticism. But this is America," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Edward M. JFK (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., reflecting an emerging Democratic strategy, said he would use the hearings to probe whether Roberts can "separate his personal ideology from the rule of law."

Advocacy groups on the left and the right have made plans for multimillion-dollar confirmation campaigns featuring television advertising and grass-roots organizing designed to sway swing vote senators. The ferocity of the battle is undetermined, however.

Abortion — arguably the most politically charged issue to confront Congress and the courts — swiftly emerged as a point of contention.

The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America announced its opposition to Roberts when word of his appointment leaked before Bush's formal announcement.

In a written statement, the organization cited a brief Roberts had filed with the Supreme Court while serving as deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration. In the brief, Roberts said "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," referring to
Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman's right to abortion.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during 2003 confirmation hearings to his current post that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

The National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, countered with a statement of its own. "Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said the group's legislative director, Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

While he lacks national name recognition, the Harvard-educated Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice.

His professional resume also includes a turn as clerk to William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 and battling thyroid cancer but recently affirmed his intention to remain as chief justice as long as his health allows. It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia.

It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and was confirmed by voice vote.

At the time, his nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

This time, the hearings will be nationally televised, the vote widely watched.

Reaction from Republican senators was strongly supportive. "He is a brilliant constitutional lawyer with unquestioned integrity," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.

Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee issued a statement calling for confirmation proceedings that "treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect." Echoing a refrain from this spring's bitter struggle over Bush's conservative appeals court nominees, he called for a yes-or-no vote before the court's term begins Oct 3.

Democratic response was measured, but initially at least, offered no hint of a filibuster.

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, "I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Democrats would want to probe Roberts' views to see whether he holds "mainstream values."

"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

Roberts was one of five prospective nominees Bush met with between Thursday and Saturday, according to a senior administration official who provided details of the selection before the announcement.

This official said Bush's meeting with Roberts was in the sitting area of the residence so that they could get to know each other in a comfortable setting. The president's dogs, Barney and Miss Beazley, were under foot.

To meet with Bush and his advisers, Roberts shuttled back and forth across the Atlantic from London, where he was teaching a class.

Bush did not ask Roberts any questions about abortion, gay marriage or other specific issues that might come before the Supreme Court, the official said.

[Ben Varkentine]

I can't help but believe that this Justice Dept (under the Bush Administration) would NEVER have "cut a deal" (escaping the death penalty) w/ a Muslim terrorist, or a Leftist terrorist, the way they have w/ a Wingnut Christian one (even to "secure 250 pounds of TNT", as they did w/ Rudolph).

Amanda at Pandagon aggres with you, Gat.

http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/0 ... rists.html

Christian terrorists are cleanly cut off from the religion they espouse and no one even feels the need to point out that Christianity isn't a violent religion, because it goes without saying. But even some supposedly clear-thinking liberal types lose their heads and demand that the entireity of the world's Muslim population be held accountable for the Eric Rudolphs in their midst.

[aceivan]

It's looking like Tony Blair will be leaving the House of Commons altogether at the next election, not only Downing Street.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4737927.stm

Tony Blair will step down as an MP at the next general election, according to his Labour Party agent.

John Burton, one of Mr Blair's closest friends and political allies, said: "He has spoken to me about it, and as far as I know he is not going to stand."

Mr Blair, MP for Sedgefield, has already said he will quit Number 10 after serving a full third term.

But Downing Street played down reports the premier had told friends he wanted a "clean break" with politics.

I just hope he wasn't telling the complete truth when he said he would be serving a full third term as Prime Minister. It would give the new guy, probably Gordon Brown, time to settle in before the election.

You never know, Blair may be packing his bags at the same time as his homophobic friend in the White House.

Len

[Gatito Grande]

Oh, f*ck: like things weren't Bad Enough? Now, Chief Justice Rehnquist has DIED.

GG I'm bracing myself, for Dubya to appoint mo'fo' Antonin Scalia to replace him. Out

[cattwoman]

Sigh. What can possible happen next.
I take that back, I really don't want an answer to that.

[skittles]

Well, Kittens... the worst possible scenario may come true:

Bush has nominated ROBERTS (??!!???) for Supreme Court Justice...

Bush Nominates Roberts to Replace Chief Justice Rehnquist
By Richard W. Stevenson and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (NYTimes)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 - President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. today to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose death late Saturday opened a second vacancy on the Supreme Court and a new front in the ideological battle over the judiciary.

you can find the rest of the news anywhere you prefer to look... this quote is from the NYTimes.

(where is the barf emoticon when I need it??... yeah, I could search, but I'm too sick.... )

[sam7777]

Schwarzenegger is a f^cking PIG. I wish the November election was a recall election so we could get rid of the SOB:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13533615p-14374262c.html

Big gay rights bill set for veto
Governor will reject same-sex marriage measure, aide says.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto legislation that would have made California the first state in the country to enact legislation allowing gay marriages, his press secretary announced Wednesday.

Schwarzenegger, who has said in the past that he would accept same-sex marriage if voters and the courts embrace it, is leaving it to others to settle the issue.

His veto of the bill that passed the Assembly only the night before was widely expected. But there were some on both sides of the volatile issue who felt Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican with a libertarian approach to most social issues, might have pulled a surprise and signed the measure into law.

Apparently, he'd rather have the issue settled in the courts by "activist" judges but only if they are Bush appointed and hate gays, I'll bet.

Personally I don't give a shit how "moderate" repugs pretend to be. They all seem to hate gay people in the final analysis. The Republican party is the anti-GLBT party. Their motto is vote for us, we hate the same people you do: minorities, gays, poor people, immigrants, non-evangelical christians etc etc. The Dems may be worthless but at least they are not evil. We live in very bad times.

[dragkinggoddess]

Heard this on Air America Radio this morning. I almost didn't believe it even though I heard the actual clip from her mouth.

Barbara Bush, upon her visit to the Houston COnvention Center housing evacuees from New Orleans:

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

WTF!!!!?????!!!!!

as quoted from a transcript from the audio clip broadcast on Morning Sedition.

W was certainly home schooled in tact and deep thought wasn't he?

[sam7777]

When I call the shrub a f^cking SOB, we know who put the Bitch in the "B". The whole bush clan apparently suffers from the same I don't give a f^ck about the "little people" and let them eat cake as despots everywhere. The shrub is only the president of those who think like him and the rest of us can go to hell. I hope they get there first if there is a God.

[cattwoman]

What also got me about it was her calling the hurricane by the wrong name. At first I thought she just misspoke, but she did it again! Add that to the other comments...Grrrrr.

[sam7777]

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16545174%255E954,00.html

Bush will not abide criticism: analysts
Steven Thomma in Washington
10sep05

AS US President George W. Bush flew last week to the Gulf Coast for his second post-Katrina visit, an aide said the trip reflected Mr Bush's usual routine of "seeing as much as possible and getting information from different places".

Not quite.

He did not visit any angry evacuees in New Orleans.

As Katrina approached, Mr Bush and his top aides spent days apparently unaware that New Orleans might be flooded – despite many warnings, some from inside his own administration. Afterwards, he heaped praise on officials responsible for the slow and initially disorganised disaster-relief efforts. His aides dismiss demands that he hold someone accountable for failure, saying that is merely a distracting "blame game".

None of this should be a surprise. Mr Bush has a long record of avoiding critics, rewarding loyalty even in the face of failure and shunning – even punishing – those who disagree with him. This shapes how he governs – disdaining compromise with Democrats in Congress, for example – and brushes off whole sectors of the American electorate.

That could return to haunt him, as evident in the two problems – Iraq and Katrina – that have sent his approval ratings to the lowest levels of his presidency and threaten his second-term agenda.

His style of isolating himself from unwelcome voices pleases his core supporters, who don't want him to compromise; but sacrifices the broader public appeal that helped Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton weather second-term setbacks. One new poll, from the independent Pew Research Centre, suggests he is losing support even from Republicans and conservatives.

To Connecticut congressman Christopher Shays, the government response to Katrina suggested "a real sense of arrogance. Loyalty and never admitting a mistake matters more than the truth. It has a Nixon feel to me."

Analyst Andrew Sullivan, who writes an often-conservative weblog, thinks Katrina unmasked Mr Bush's weakness as an executive.

"I must say that the Katrina response does help me better understand the situation in Iraq," Sullivan said.

[FineyMcFine]

Michael Brown was let go from FEMA

NYtimes.com article

Announcement Follows Barrage of Criticism; New Chief Is Named
By DAVID STOUT
Published: September 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 - Michael D. Brown, the embattled head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, today was relieved of his duties overseeing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region.

The secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, described Mr. Brown's reassignment to FEMA headquarters here as a logical step in keeping with Mr. Brown's overall duties as FEMA director. Mr. Chertoff, speaking in Baton Rouge, La., said in a televised news briefing that the hurricane-recovery mission would now be led by Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, the third-ranking officer in the Coast Guard.

"Michael Brown has done everything he possibly could to coordinate the federal response to this unprecedented challenge," Mr. Chertoff said, accompanied by Admiral Allen and Mr. Brown. "I appreciate his work, as does everybody here."

Those words did not reflect the fierce criticism that Mr. Brown has come under for the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous flooding that followed, particularly in New Orleans. Some Congressional Democrats have demanded that President Bush fire him outright, and they criticized Mr. Brown anew this afternoon, after the announcement that he was being reassigned.

"At last President Bush has recognized what I have been saying for more than a week," the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said shortly after Mr. Chertoff's announcement. "The federal response to this disaster must be managed by a capable leader."

But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader, and three of his party colleagues demanded that Mr. Brown be sacked altogether.

"It is not enough to remove Mr. Brown from the disaster scene," they said in a letter to President Bush. "The individual in charge of FEMA must inspire confidence and be able to coordinate hundreds of federal, state and local resources. Mr. Brown simply doesn't have the ability or the experience to oversee a coordinated federal response of this magnitude."

In addition to Mr. Reid, the letter was signed by Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois, the minority whip, and Debbie Stabenow and Charles E. Schumer of New York.

Admiral Allen is the Coast Guard chief of staff. On Monday, he was dispatched to the gulf region as Mr. Brown's deputy in the recovery efforts. The admiral's official biography describes him as "a specialist in operations both in coastal and offshore environments."

Before becoming chief of staff in May 2002, he headed the Coast Guard's Atlantic operations and was in charge of 26,000 military and civilian employees in an area covering 14 million square miles.

A week ago today, Mr. Brown was at President Bush's side as the president made his first visit to see the devastation caused by the storm. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," Mr. Bush said then.

But today, the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined repeated opportunities to say that Mr. Brown still enjoyed the president's full confidence. "We appreciate all those who are working around the clock, and that's the way I would answer it," Mr. McClellan said.

With each passing day since the storm pounded the Gulf Coast, the criticism of Mr. Brown, a lawyer whose credentials indicated no emergency-response experience when he became head of FEMA two years ago, has only increased.

Several days into the crisis, Mr. Brown acknowledged in an interview with Paula Zahn of CNN that he was not aware that thousands of New Orleans residents were huddled in the city's convention center under increasingly dire circumstances.

As recently as Thursday there was obvious disarray within FEMA, as agency spokesmen in Baton Rouge and Washington gave conflicting answers on whether the agency would proceed with plans to use debit cards to distribute financial aid to people dislocated by the storm.

Mr. Brown's standing was further clouded when Time magazine reported on its Web site Thursday that he had embellished some of his credentials. When he was asked today whether he had done so, and whether he would resign from FEMA, Mr. Brown was silent.

Instead, Mr. Chertoff spoke up. "You heard the ground rules," he said. "I'm going to answer the questions." Earlier, Mr. Chertoff had advised reporters to choose their questions carefully, because his time was limited.

Mr. Brown, when asked by The A.P. whether he thought he was being made a scapegoat, replied: "By the press, yes. By the president, no." Mr. Brown said in a telephone interview that he was "anxious to get back to D.C. to correct all the inaccuracies and lies that are being said."

Nor was Mr. Brown without his defenders today. One of them was Carl Reherman, a former councilman and later mayor of Edmond, Okla., who said Mr. Brown was involved in setting up an emergency operations center there in the 1970's. "He not only worked very hard on everything he did, he had very high standards," Mr. Reherman said in an interview with The A.P.

[xita]

Looks like the feds gave up trying to keep the media from New Orleans after CNN sued. From CNN:


U.S. drops banning media from body hunt
CNN filed suit for access to search for New Orleans' dead

Saturday, September 10, 2005; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- Rather than fight a lawsuit by CNN, the federal government abandoned its effort Saturday to prevent the media from reporting on the recovery of the dead in New Orleans.

Joint Task Force Katrina "has no plans to bar, impede or prevent news media from their news gathering and reporting activities in connection with the deceased Hurricane Katrina victim recovery efforts," said Col. Christian E. deGraff, representing the task force.

U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order Friday against a "zero access" policy announced earlier in the day by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security director.

In explaining the ban, Ebbert said, "we don't think that's proper" to let members of the media view the bodies.

The judge was to consider granting a permanent injunction Saturday when the government announced its decision not to fight CNN's lawsuit.

In an e-mail to CNN staff, CNN News Group President Jim Walton said the network filed the the lawsuit to "prohibit any agency from restricting its ability to fully and fairly cover" the hurricane victim recovery process.

"As seen most recently from war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, from tsunami-ravaged South Asia and from Hurricane Katrina's landfall along the Gulf," Walton wrote, "CNN has shown that it is capable of balancing vigorous reporting with respect for private concerns."

[aceivan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm

Labour Heckler Invited To Return

An 82-year-old Labour activist thrown out of the party's annual conference by stewards for heckling Jack Straw has been invited to return to the event.

Walter Wolfgang, of London, was ejected after shouting "nonsense" as the foreign secretary defended Iraq policy.

Party chairman Ian McCartney later apologised to Mr Wolfgang, calling the manner of his removal "inappropriate".

The party now says he can return for the conference's final day provided he does not make further disturbances.

BBC political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti said the incident had raised questions about over-zealous security and about stifling debate.

"The sight of an old man being bundled out of the conference hall by a group of muscular officials .....couldn't be more damaging," the correspondent said.

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt criticised the way conference officials had reacted.

"It was clearly an overreaction, a dreadful overreaction by stewards, who were understandably concerned about security," Ms Hewitt said.

"Obviously I hope the apology will be accepted, and just as important, lessons learnt from it."

Police stopped Mr Wolfgang under the Terrorism Act when he tried to re-enter on Wednesday, seizing his pass.

Despite issuing an apology, Mr McCartney said Mr Wolfgang had nevertheless misbehaved.

"He was asked to calm down and be quiet, he could have taken that opportunity and watched and listened to the debate but he chose to continually disturb the event and so we removed him," Mr McCartney said.

"Unfortunately in removing him he was removed inappropriately.

"I once again apologise to him, I will in writing apologise to him, and if he wishes I will meet and apologise to him."

Mr Wolfgang, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, is a member of the Stop the War Coalition.

His heckle came as Mr Straw told delegates: "We are in Iraq for one reason only - to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation."

Mr Wolfgang, a Labour member of 57 years' standing, afterwards told BBC Two's Daily Conference Live programme: "These two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out.

"I said: 'Do you want me to leave? I will leave, you don't need to manhandle me.' Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them.

"Most of the Labour Party stewards are very nice people. One or two people lend themselves to this nonsense."

Erith and Thamesmead constituency party chairman Steve Forrest, who was sitting next to Mr Wolfgang, was also thrown out after complaining about the stewards' response.

Sussex Police said: "The police officer attended and asked the man to wait for a member of the Labour Party.

"We wish to stress that the delegate was not arrested or searched at any point during his brief interaction with the police officer and that it is a matter for the Labour Party to decide who they allow into their conference."

A Labour party spokesman said there would be "a full review of what happened".

Len

[FineyMcFine]

Well, the new Supreme Court nominee is Harriet Miers, and this should be interesting. Operation Rescue, the extreme anti-abortion group that carries signs with pictures of fetuses on them, already issued a statement opposing her. Apparently in the past she also gave $1,000 each to Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen's campaigns for President. She doesn't seem to have much of a record and has never been a judge.

From CNN

Bush picks White House counsel for Supreme Court
If confirmed, Harriet Miers would succeed O'Connor

Monday, October 3, 2005; Posted: 1:27 p.m. EDT (17:27 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers, 60, was the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has never been a judge.

An outspoken supporter of the Bush administration, she was a leader of its search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that at the same time, Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.

In a televised announcement from the White House, Bush called Miers "exceptionally well-suited" for the high court. Miers has "devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," he said.

He called on the Senate to "review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly."

Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. (Watch: Miers has no judicial experience -- 2:30)

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she said.

"If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution." (Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)

If the Senate confirms Miers, she would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first female justice in 1981.

Dinner offer
Bush offered her the job Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence, White House sources said.

During the summer, a vetting process for Miers took place once the president began considering her.

Bush took seriously suggestions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, that the president consider candidates from outside the appellate courts, the sources said.

Miers, 60, was the first woman to serve as president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas Bar Association. She also was a member of the Dallas City Council. (Profile)

Reacting with caution
Initial reaction to Miers' nomination was cautious. (Watch senators react to Miers' nomination -- 3:49)

"Harriet Miers is an intelligent lawyer who shares the president's judicial philosophy," said Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society.

"She has demonstrated that in her capacity as White House counsel and a senior administration official as well as an active member of the organized bar."

Quietly, some conservatives involved in the White House's nominee selection consultation process said they are concerned with Bush's pick.

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer," said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965.

"The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

The Concerned Women for America, another conservative group, also took a wait-and-see approach on Miers.

"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the group. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process."

One Republican official said that many had expectations that Bush's pick would be a "known conservative," adding that he was surprised by the president's choice.

"Republicans were hoping for a clear conservative," the official said. "It's going to be heavy lifting for us and the White House."

Another conservative source who was involved in the selection consultation process said Miers was "not a big surprise" and that she had always been someone under serious consideration.

"She's a good conservative," the source said. "She does share the president's views about law and public policy. But she is not well-known, which is going to be part of the challenge."

Democrats also cautious
Democrats on the the Senate Judiciary Committee reacted cautiously to Miers' nomination, but they did not immediately oppose it.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) issued a statement saying, "There are a lot of obvious concerns; her lack of experience, cronyism, and of course her views on our basic freedoms." But the group also called the nomination a sign that Bush was "unable to pick a nominee that would appeal to his extreme right-wing base."

In a written statement Leahy said, "It is too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important nomination," noting Miers long ties to President Bush. "It is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers isues of interest to this Administration."

"My first reaction is a simple one: It could have been a lot worst," Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, one of the Demcrats on the committee, said. "... The president has not sent us a nominee that we've rejected already."

Schumer continued, "There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee. ... Given the fact that the extreme wing of the president's party was demanding someone of fealty to their views, this is a good first day in the process that begins to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, another Democratic committee member and its only woman, said she was happy that a woman was nominated to replace the outgoing O'Connor but wanted to know more about Miers' views on privacy and other issues.

"This new justice will be critical in the balance with respect to rulings on congressional authority, as well as a woman's right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of constitutional law in the United States," Feinstein said.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was complimentary of Miers.

"I like Harriet Miers," Reid said in a statement. "As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association."

Pivotal replacement
The choice to replace O'Connor, a key swing vote, could be pivotal. (Full story)

The announcement came shortly before justices were to begin a new term with new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is the youngest member of the high court.

The court's new term includes a docket with cases involving abortion, assisted suicide, the death penalty, and other controversial topics. (Case list)

"This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they're going to be very divided," said Supreme Court analyst Edward Lazarus, who wrote "Closed Chambers," a book on the justices. "It's going to be a lot of friction inside the building."

In 2004, when she was deputy White House chief of staff for policy, Miers hosted several "Ask the White House" session on the White House's Web site. In that role she expressed her own opinions on certain issues, praising the president's policies on the economy, education, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Miers "has a very blank slate as far as a record," and "by the standards that we usually apply to Supreme Court justice nominees she does not appear very distinguished."

There have been Supreme Court appointees with no judicial experience, but "they tend to be senators, governors, people who have had jobs that required confirmation by the Senate," he said. Miers "has had none of those."

It is unclear how soon the Senate may hold hearings on Miers.

O'Connor announced her retirement in July. Bush initially chose Roberts for her seat, but the September 3 death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist changed the White House's strategy.

O'Connor has said she will stay on until she is replaced, making her role in the upcoming term unclear. Under court rules, a justice's vote does not count until a ruling is issued, a process that can take weeks or months.

Many legal scholars question whether O'Connor would want to continue hearing cases if her replacement takes over before rulings are issued, thereby negating her vote.

CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.

[cattwoman]

As stated in this artical, I too have a large question mark over my head.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/ ... topstories

Quiz hints at Miers' views on gay rights
Nominee answered questions during 1989 political campaign
(CNN) -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave mixed answers on same-sex rights in a questionnaire she filled out from a Texas gay rights group during her successful 1989 run for the Dallas City Council.
She told the group she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans, but that she opposed repeal of the state's sodomy law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct.
The Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in 2003 with a 6-3 vote in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Miers has been nominated to replace, voted with the majority in the ruling, which effectively erased sodomy laws in 13 other states.
The Texas revelations came the same day President Bush fielded questions from reporters at the White House about his nomination of Miers, including whether he had discussed abortion with her. (Watch: Bush defends nominee -- 5:40)
"Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her [to discuss abortion]," Bush said Tuesday at his first solo press conference since May. "What I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be."
The president said he has never discussed abortion with any of his judicial nominees. "There is no litmus test," he said.
Bush also defended the 60-year-old Miers, who came to Washington with him from Texas in 2001 and has been White House counsel since February, against Democratic charges of cronyism and questions about her conservative record, saying she shares his legal philosophy.
"I picked the best person I could find," said Bush, who nominated Miers on Monday. "People are going to be amazed at her strength of character and her intellect." (Full story)
Texas questionnaire
During her campaign for a seat on the Dallas City Council, Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas and interviewed with the group, according to Louise Young, a founding member who kept a copy in the now-defunct organization's archives.
"I remember her screening quite well. I remembered before I found the questionnaire that some of her answers were, so to speak, 'good' -- it was a good answer to believe in civil rights," Young said.
Even so, Miers declined to seek the group's endorsement, which Young said she found "very odd."
In the questionnaire, Miers was asked: "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?" Her response was "Yes," without any elaboration.
Asked about the sodomy law, Miers said she did not support its repeal and did not support including repeal as part of the city's agenda before the state Legislature.
Miers did tell the coalition she believed Dallas had a responsibility to fund AIDS education and patient support services, adding she would support increased funding for such services.
"I do consider the AIDS illness as a serious total community problem," Miers said, underlining the word "total."
Asked if she would support a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on HIV/AIDS status, Miers said she would prefer the state Legislature address the issue.
She gave the same answer when asked if she supported an ordinance prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, national origin, AIDS/HIV status or disability.
"I do not have all the facts on the significance of these ordinances; however, I am willing to discuss the need and make an appropriate decision when fully advised," Miers wrote.
Miers did not answer directly when asked whether she believed qualified gay men and lesbians should be denied city employment because of their sexual orientation, including jobs as police officers and firefighters.
"I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors," Miers wrote, not saying whether she believed sexual orientation would be relevant.
Although Young said Miers, a Dallas native, "never did anything anti-gay" during her two years on the City Council from 1989 to 1991, she also "never did anything friendly to the community."
Asked how she thinks Miers might deal with gay and lesbian issues on the Supreme Court, Young said, "If you can just imagine me with a large question mark over my head -- that's really my impression."
Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian rights group, said he was "cautiously optimistic" the questionnaire shows Miers would have an "open mind" on gay rights issues.
"It's a small window, but it's a window into the heart of this woman who in 1989 was not thinking about serving on the Supreme Court," he said.
The court and gay rights
Conservative critics of the Supreme Court -- many of whom have expressed unease about Miers' nomination -- often highlight Lawrence v. Texas as evidence of what they see as the high court's propensity to legislate from the bench.
In her concurring opinion in Lawrence, O'Connor said "a law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review."
Even stalwart conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, while voting to uphold the Texas law, said he would vote to repeal it if he were sitting in Austin, the state capital, as a legislator.
"Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through non-commercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources," Thomas said.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a vigorous dissent to the ruling, said "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders in their home."
"They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive," Scalia said.
In addition to Thomas and Scalia, the other vote to uphold Texas' sodomy law came from the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose seat is now filled by John Roberts.

[maudmac]

Big ol' question mark, yeah. That's the problem with Miers. A few people can dig through obscure old archives and come up with a few scraps of her opinions on issues, but that's about it. We're mostly in the dark about her stance on everything. Most of what we have to go on is that the shrub seems to like her, but liking someone appears to be his main criteria for most nominations and appointments. We know he insists that Miers is smart, qualified, knows the law, and is a "pit bull in size 6 shoes" (is that even a good thing?)...but this is also the man who said Brownie was doing a heck of a job after Katrina. I don't know how anyone could trust his evaluation of any matter.

What I've been reading about Miers suggests that she's about as moderate a nominee as we could have hoped for. Perhaps it's a good sign that there's criticism from both sides. But the cronyism going on is ridiculous. I don't know how BushCo. keeps getting away with it, especially with the whole Katrina thing still fresh in people's minds.

If Miers is fairly moderate, I can live with things, because the overall balance of the Court won't have changed. I'm surprised, actually, that BushCo. didn't take this opportunity to swing the Court to the right. They could probably have gotten away with it, what with spinelessness being so prevalent among the Democrats of Congress.

[watty]

I came across this post at boing boing:

Proposed Indiana law would make the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit criminals

If the Virgin Mary had been born 2000 years later, she might have ended up in an Indiana State prison, if Republican lawmakers there get their way. A proposed bill hopes to make criminals out of unmarried women in Indiana who conceive "by means other than sexual intercourse."

Peter Svensson says: "Under the proposed Indiana law, if [Mary] willingly accepted the Holy Spirit's visitation, that would be a misdemeanor:

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent 'who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure' without court approval, 'commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.' The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit 'unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction.'

"Presumably, if the Holy Spirit didn't give her a choice in the matter, she would have been let off. But in either case, the Holy Spirit would be charged."

Theoriginal article at progressive independent:

The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction"
New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood
By Laura McPhee

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for motherhood and criminalizing "unauthorized reproduction" was introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly's Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this month.

Republican Senator Patricia Miller is both the Health Finance Commission Chair and the sponsor of the bill. She believes the new law will protect children in the state of Indiana and make parenting laws more explicit.

According to Sen. Miller, the laws prohibiting surrogacy in the state of Indiana are currently too vague and unenforceable, and that is the purpose of the new legislation.

"But it's not just surrogacy," Miller told NUVO. " The law is vague on all types of extraordinary types of infertility treatment, and we wanted to address that as well."

"Ordinary treatment would be the mother's egg and the father's sperm. But now there are a lot of extraordinary thing s that raise issues of who has legal rights as parents," she explained when asked what she considers "extraordinary" infertility treatment.

Sen. Miller believes the requirement of marriage for parenting is for the benefit of the children that result from infertility treatments.

"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.

When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be a requirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill's intention, Sen. Miller responded, "Yes. Yes, I do."

A draft of the legislation is available on the Health Finance Commission website:

pdf document

The next meeting of the Health Finance Commission will be held at the Statehouse on October 20, 2005 at 10 am in Senate Chambers and is open to the public.

To express your support or opposition of legislation making "unauthorized reproduction" a criminal act, contact members of the Health Finance Commission by telephone or email:

Sen. Patricia Miller (R) 232-9489 s32@...
Sen. Gregory Server (R) 232-9490 s50@...
Sen. Gary Dillon (R) 232-9808 s17@...
Sen. Beverly Gard (R) 232-9493 s28@...
Sen. Ryan Mishler (R) 233-0930 s9@...
Sen. Connie Lawson (R) 232-9984 s24@...
Sen. Marvin Riegsecker (R) 232-9488 s12@...
Sen. Billie Breaux (D) 232-9849 s34@...
Sen. Vi Simpson (D) 232-9849 s40@...
Sen. Connie Sipes (D) 232-9526 s46@...
Sen. Timothy Skinner (D) 232-9523 s38@...
Rep. Vaneta Becker (R) 232-9769 h78@...
Rep. Robert Behning (R) 232-9981 h91@...
Rep. Timothy Brown (R) 234-3825 h41@...
Rep.Mary Kay Budak(R) 232-9641 h20@...
Rep. Da vid Frizzell (R) 232-9981 h93@...
Rep. Donald Lehe (R) 232-9648 h15@...
Rep. Richard Dodge (R) 232-9729 h51@...
Rep. Charlie Brown (D) 232-9676 h3@...
Rep. David Orentlicher (D) 232-9991 h86@...
Rep. Craig Fry (D) 232-9994 h5@...
Rep. Carolene Mays (D) 232-0243 h94@...
Rep. Scott Reske (D) 232-9695 h37@...
[br]

At first I was skeptical about the article, it has a surreal feel to it, I expect Big Brother (not the TV program, George Orwell's version) to show up somewhere along the way. If it is real then the proposal is a joke. I mean, you can have babies the regular way, but if you want to have them through modern technology you must be vetted and married?

Imagine being handcuffed and led away by the thought police while still holding your turkey baster. LOL.
[br]

[maudmac]

Okay, that scared the shit out of me. Very surreal, yes. I wondered if I was dreaming or awake. I searched around and it doesn't seem there's much information out there. I did find this, at 365gay.com:

Indiana Bill To Ban Lesbian Pregnancies Dropped
by The Associated Press

Posted: October 6, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Indianapolis, Indiana) A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.

State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement late Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.

"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission," she said.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana. (story)

But Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana called it government intrusion.

"It feels pretty chilling," Cockrum said.

Miller acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."

Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that was to vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.

The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then required "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor could not begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

©365Gay.com 2005

Dropped is good, but it's scary as hell that it was proposed in the first place.

I remember in late 1983, t-shirts came out that said "1984 - Orwell Was Wrong" (in flourescent orange and green, of course). I had one, even though I was 10 years old and only barely beginning to understand what all that Big Brother stuff meant. Anyway, the point of this is...perhaps it's not that Orwell was wrong, just that Orwell was off by about 20 years. Fucking terrifying.

[Willowlicious]

"Unauthorized reproduction" and "gestational certificate" may be the most terrifying phrases I've heard since the last time I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Oh. My. God.

[DaddyCatALSO]

Miers is, I think, meant to sound like a moderate for confirmation purposes, as Mr Bush the Younger has low political capital right now. I guess he's hoping to to pick up a bounce somehwere along the way in the next couple years (so he can exert more leverage in the Senate) and that mr Justice Stevens will vacate his seat in that timeframe so he can throw a serious bone to those among us in his core ideological constituency.