Support NeoGAF

[rocketknight]

Jesus, man up.

If democrats lose in 2016 it'll be due to 8 years of stagnant growth, scandals, and incumbent fatigue...not because of today. That of course is assuming a few things: mainly that we have 3 more years of stagnant growth (unlikely) and the scandals matter (also unlikely).

Whichever democrat runs in 2016 will win more of the white vote than Obama by default. That alone will ensure urban areas aren't as important as they were last year. TLDR: nobody is going to beat Hillary regardless, so chill out. And in a few years when the conservative lean of the Supreme Court is gone*, celebrate.

*it'll remain pro-corporation (Kagan...thanks Obama)

Presidential election aside, this is horrible news for already-gerrymandered Congressional elections.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Presidential election aside, this is horrible news for already-gerrymandered Congressional elections.

I'd worry more for state and local elections.

 

[speculawyer]

We're fucked. Did the SCOTUS just invalidate the VRA? Yes the law is still valid, but without the formula, what good is it to fully protect the rights of minorities and any other type of individual a state would want to prevent from voting just because? No, seriously? What's it going to do now?

It's a shell of its former self now... LBJ and the Congress he worked with would have a stroke if they were to see this unfold...

Am I just being paranoid or are they going to expect all kinds of things from people to vote now? I.e. 20 pages of questions just because they can? What are the implications of this going to be?

And yeah it's terrifying that the SCOTUS can just render a settled part of a historic law null and void. I mean we've had this law since the fucking 60's ffs. Leave it alone.

Do NOT count on Congress to fix this. If anything they will just make it worse or reflect the opinions of the SCOTUS so that's not going to help anything.

We are so fucked. Dems aren''t getting the House back next year. I can't believe this shit. They're setting up 2016 to be stacked in the GOP's favor already. And with Obama facing a lot of controversy (none of it really being his fault, but it makes him and the party look terrible) it's just going to be even more of an uphill battle.

Hillary's people better be getting with Obama's people and talking to the DNC and DSCC to ensure that elections next year and in 2016 are as painless as possible for minorities and any other 'targeted' groups (i.e. students)

Wow. That is almost election grade Diablosing.

 

[Diablos]

So funny. Bush vowed that he'd nominate Justices that would not legislate from the bench. lulz. They are rewriting laws. Five people revising history. Awesome.

 

[B-Dubs]

Wow. That is almost election grade Diablosing.

Almost? It feels like he's gearing up to surpass himself, we're going to need a new word for what he's doing soon.

 

[Black Mamba]

Here's my 3 part take on the SCOTUS ruling via VRA today.


1. We all knew this was coming. SCOTUS in 2009 told Congress to change the formula or it would be struck down. Congress did nothing and thus it was struck down. No one should be surprised, we were told what would happen.

2. I don't necessarily disagree with the Court's reasoning behind the changing of the formula. It is outdated and almost certainly in need of revision. And Congress will do something. hell, it was extended under a completely majority GOP House and Senate (unanimous in the Senate btw). They won't go against it. But it will take time.

3. What I do disagree with, however, is the Court's ability to strike it down. This was a huge power grab by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS, time & again in the past, has argued its Court should not make judgments on the merits of data that Congress compiles. It is one of the reason it didn't compel Congress to re-schedule marijuana in Raich despite all the scientific evidence because it gave deference to Congress to evaluate the data.

What we know is Congress did evaluate the formula before extending it. Even if Congress is wrong, SCOTUS has time and again said Congress is the one to make that determination and here the SCOTUS is stepping on Congress' toes and telling them their evaluation of the data is incorrect. Is there even precedence for this type of decision? Since when does SCOTUS tell Congress how to interpret data? This is an immense power grab by the Court. Perhaps the largest we've seen in decades.


The next time a conservative whines about "activist liberal judges," I will point them in the direction of Shelby County v. Holder.


editL it should be known that section 3 of the VRA wasn't struck down and thus section 5 can be applied to states and counties still under that provision. So until the formula is rewritten, the executive could take that route in the mean time.

 

[The Librarian]

Here's my 3 part take on the SCOTUS ruling via VRA today.


1. We all knew this was coming. SCOTUS in 2009 told Congress to change the formula or it would be struck down. Congress did nothing and thus it was struck down. No one should be surprised, we were told what would happen.

That doesn't mean it should be struck down, nor does it make it any better, as you pointed out. The old formula may be out of date, but it's not ineffective. IIRC, weren't you saying SCOTUS oral arguments weren't indicative of their decision making? At least in this case.

 

[Angry Fork]

We're fucked. Did the SCOTUS just invalidate the VRA? Yes the law is still valid, but without the formula, what good is it to fully protect the rights of minorities and any other type of individual a state would want to prevent from voting just because? No, seriously? What's it going to do now?

It's a shell of its former self now... LBJ and the Congress he worked with would have a stroke if they were to see this unfold...

Am I just being paranoid or are they going to expect all kinds of things from people to vote now? I.e. 20 pages of questions just because they can? What are the implications of this going to be?

And yeah it's terrifying that the SCOTUS can just render a settled part of a historic law null and void. I mean we've had this law since the fucking 60's ffs. Leave it alone.

Do NOT count on Congress to fix this. If anything they will just make it worse or reflect the opinions of the SCOTUS so that's not going to help anything.

We are so fucked. Dems aren''t getting the House back next year. I can't believe this shit. They're setting up 2016 to be stacked in the GOP's favor already. And with Obama facing a lot of controversy (none of it really being his fault, but it makes him and the party look terrible) it's just going to be even more of an uphill battle.

Hillary's people better be getting with Obama's people and talking to the DNC and DSCC to ensure that elections next year and in 2016 are as painless as possible for minorities and any other 'targeted' groups (i.e. students)

lol @ "none" of the controversy being his fault. If Obama was a real progressive and turned to the left he could get back the young voters who have become disillusioned with him. If democrats lose shit it's all on them for acting like center-right republicans for the last 2 decades.

If dems do lose everything I hope it will finally cause a party split and a further left wing is produced out of the rubble. I honestly hope the party implodes.

 

[Black Mamba]

That doesn't mean it should be struck down, nor does it make it any better, as you pointed out. The old formula may be out of date, but it's not ineffective. IIRC, weren't you saying SCOTUS oral arguments weren't indicative of their decision making? At least in this case.

Read the rest of my post regarding whether it should be struck down. All I said in #1 is that no one should be surprised, nothing more.

I said if you were betting on oral arguments, you'd come out a loser overall. That doesn't mean 1 case doesn't line up.

But you could predict this outcome based on the 2009 ruling. Roberts told us Congress needs to change the formula or it will be struck down. And thus he did.

 

[The Librarian]

Read the rest of my post regarding whether it should be struck down.

Yeah, I did. That's why I said "as you pointed out."

But you could predict this outcome based on the 2009 ruling. Roberts told us Congress needs to change the formula or it will be struck down. And thus he did.

Yeah, well, Roberts has a history of wanting to gut the VRA. Dating back from his time in the Regan administration.

 

[empty vessel]

I said if you were betting on oral arguments, you'd come out a loser overall. That doesn't mean 1 case doesn't line up.

You still have this backwards. In run of the mill cases, you can bet on the outcome based on oral argument and win 9 times out of 10. It is only high profile controversial cases where you might lose more than win, and that's due mostly to the chickening out factor of judges otherwise disposed to make changes.

 

[Black Mamba]

What I want to know is where was this interpretation in cases like Raich? Hey fuckhead Scalia, you didn't want to step on Congress' ability to interpret the data for drugs then but when it comes to discrimination in voting you're all for it?

Fucking hypocrite. So sick of people telling me that even when he is wrong he is consistent in his beliefs.

This is a very activist ruling. I really hate the majority opinion's framework for striking it down.

Luckily, it seems clear to me that section 5 being struck down did not come close to majority. Of course Thomas wanted that gone too..

You still have this backwards. In run of the mill cases, you can bet on the outcome based on oral argument and win 9 times out of 10. It is only high profile controversial cases where you might lose more than win, and that's due mostly to the chickening out factor of judges otherwise disposed to make changes.

It's been a long time since I've seen the data, but georgetown did a study on this a while ago and it wasn't 9/10. However, they set up a computer program that accurately predicted about 95% of cases including who was on which side using nothing but previous cases and zero oral argument.

edit: you might get the outcome right but not who votes where 9/10

 

[rocketknight]

I'd worry more for state and local elections.

Yeah, only just started thinking about implications like that. Ugh.

lol @ "none" of the controversy being his fault. If Obama was a real progressive and turned to the left he could get back the young voters who have become disillusioned with him. If democrats lose shit it's all on them for acting like center-right republicans for the last 2 decades.

If dems do lose everything I hope it will finally cause a party split and a further left wing is produced out of the rubble. I honestly hope the party implodes.

So you're looking at what the GOP is going through and thinking, yeah, I want me some of that?

 

[Angry Fork]

So you're looking at what the GOP is going through and thinking, yeah, I want me some of that?

Yes, definitely. The country would not only move further left but stay there, as nobody is going to want to give up universal college education if things of that nature were ever implemented.

 

[PhoenixDark]

lol @ "none" of the controversy being his fault. If Obama was a real progressive and turned to the left he could get back the young voters who have become disillusioned with him. If democrats lose shit it's all on them for acting like center-right republicans for the last 2 decades.

If dems do lose everything I hope it will finally cause a party split and a further left wing is produced out of the rubble. I honestly hope the party implodes.

I don't agree with all of this but I will say Obama wins the youth vote largely because he's the only option. If young people actually had a choice I don't think it would be hard to see through his facade - not just for young voters but US voters in general; hence why the campaign thought Huntsman was so dangerous, potentially. Luckily the GOP is so far right that they'll never understand this.

Seriously, there was not a legitimate republican candidate in 08 or '12 who wasn't making ignorant comments about gays, had any sort of mainstream (consistent) position on abortion, wasn't insulting Hispanics with nativist language, had any sort of plan on student loans, etc.

 

[empty vessel]

It's been a long time since I've seen the data, but georgetown did a study on this a while ago and it wasn't 9/10. However, they set up a computer program that accurately predicted about 95% of cases including who was on which side using nothing but previous cases and zero oral argument.

Knowing the judges' ideological dispositions will always be the most important factor to predicting outcome, to be sure. This goes for the circuit courts especially; I'm not just talking about SCOTUS. Oral argument just provides additional insight that increases or lowers confidence. By whatever means, the outcome of most appellate cases are utterly predictable.

 

[speculawyer]

lol @ "none" of the controversy being his fault. If Obama was a real progressive and turned to the left he could get back the young voters who have become disillusioned with him. If democrats lose shit it's all on them for acting like center-right republicans for the last 2 decades.

If dems do lose everything I hope it will finally cause a party split and a further left wing is produced out of the rubble. I honestly hope the party implodes.

Damn, son. You are like the left mirror image of a Tea Partier.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...how-congress-could-fix-the-voting-rights-act/

Here is a good article on what to do going forward.

 

[Diablos]

I don't agree with all of this but I will say Obama wins the youth vote largely because he's the only option. If young people actually had a choice I don't think it would be hard to see through his facade - not just for young voters but US voters in general; hence why the campaign thought Huntsman was so dangerous, potentially. Luckily the GOP is so far right that they'll never understand this.

Seriously, there was not a legitimate republican candidate in 08 or '12 who wasn't making ignorant comments about gays, had any sort of mainstream (consistent) position on abortion, wasn't insulting Hispanics with nativist language, had any sort of plan on student loans, etc.

tl;dr they banked on the old angry white man/racists/sexists and it paid the dividends in the midterms, so they still managed to get their way a lot of the time despite losing Presidential elections.

 

[BSsBrolly]

I was thinking about the conservative "bubble" and was wondering what could be done about it? You can't make people read/watch the news. These people are told by Rush/Beck/Hannity etc to avoid all news outside Fox, talk radio, drudge report, etc because its "liberal."

It's no wonder facts mean nothing to them... They don't know what they are and when told how things really are, they refuse to believe it!

 

[B-Dubs]

I was thinking about the conservative "bubble" and was wondering what could be done about it? You can't make people read/watch the news. These people are told by Rush/Beck/Hannity etc to avoid all news outside Fox, talk radio, drudge report, etc because its "liberal."

It's no wonder facts mean nothing to them... They don't know what they are and when told how things really are, they refuse to believe it!

It'll pop eventually, all bubbles do.

 

[Slacker]

This has been pretty interesting to listen to. Texas State Senator Wendy Davis is around four hours in to a ~13 hour filibuster trying to stop a vote on new abortion regulations that would likely shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Hours upon hours of unscripted debate and she's holding her own amazingly well. She's wearing sneakers as she has to be on her feet the whole time.

http://media.wfaa.com/images/600*338/0625davisfilibusterone.jpg

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news...-the-wire-at-Texas-Legislature-212857491.html

 

[Angry Fork]

Damn, son. You are like the left mirror image of a Tea Partier.

Except Tea Partiers don't recognize their politicians already are on the far right, and their goals are regressive for everyone who isn't white and christian. I know you know that but it isn't quite the same =P

 

[bonercop]

Damn, son. You are like the left mirror image of a Tea Partier.

Polls show that the public is to the left of both parties on the vast majority of issues, even with the massive disinformation machine of the press and the lack of alternative voices. I think he's absolutely right. If Obama had governed as a progressive and didn't save the Republicans by allowing them to frame every single debate since 2008, and setting himself as some post-partisan jesus -- there's no doubt in my mind that they'd have been completely crushed in the last couple of elections.

That's not who Obama is, though, so in that sense it is a moot point.

 

[speculawyer]

Today's hero:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Wearing pink tennis shoes to prepare for nearly 13 consecutive hours of standing, a Democratic Texas state senator on Tuesday began a one-woman filibuster to block a GOP-led effort that would impose stringent new abortion restrictions across the nation's second-most populous state.

Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth began the filibuster at 11:18 a.m. CDT Tuesday. To derail a vote in the GOP-dominated Senate, she must keep speaking on the bill until midnight — the deadline for the end of the 30-day special session.

Before Davis began speaking, her chair was removed. Rules stipulate she remain standing, not lean on her desk or take any breaks — even for meals or to use the bathroom.

When combined in a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long and with 26 million people, the measures would close almost every abortion clinic in Texas. A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion if the law passes.

In her opening remarks, Davis said she was "rising on the floor today to humbly give voice to thousands of Texans" and called Republican efforts to pass the bill a "raw abuse of power."

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...how-congress-could-fix-the-voting-rights-act/

Here is a good article on what to do going forward.

LBJ is not pleased with today's decision.

 

[Owzers]

Eric Bolling knows what's up, the irs lied about progressive and occupy being flag terms too, they made it up.

 

[Wilsongt]

Eric Bolling knows what's up, the irs lied about progressive and occupy being flag terms too, they made it up.

Uh....

 

[Slacker]

A TX state senator arguing with Sen Davis just recommended everyone write a letter to their mamas thanking them for being pro-life. I don't think that's how it works, hoss.

 

[Wilsongt]

Cuntick Erickson gonna cunt.

Erick Erickson To Cavuto: If Liberal Groups Were Targeted By IRS Like Conservative Groups, Where Are They?

RedState.com co-founder and Fox News Channel contributor Erick Erickson joined Fox’s Neil Cavuto on Tuesday to push back against the noting that the scandal surrounding the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups has been derailed following the news that memos show the agency’s representatives were tasked with looking out for liberal groups as well. Erickson said that it is clear conservative groups were targeted with undue scrutiny because no liberal group has come out and admitted to being forced to, for example, disclose “the content of their prayers.”

“I guess it negates everything because some liberals went through it,” Cavuto said.

“We know that this happened because Democrats in Congress found some documents, Neil, but when you actually look at the documents, it doesn’t say what they say it showed,” Erickson said.

He noted that some organizations that were liberal groups sought improper classification, while conservative groups that were seeking proper status were targeted with unnecessary and onerous scrutiny in the pursuit of that status.

“We don’t know that that has happened to any liberal groups had that happen,” Erickson said. “None of them came forward to say it and it, thus far, doesn’t look like any of them did experience that level of harassment.”

“It should burn you that they’re doing this period, with anyone,” Cavuto added. “Testing their political agenda and having them go through hoops.”

“That’s targeting and that’s bullying,” he continued.

Erickson said that he has been disappointed in Democrats who appear to want to protect the president when it is apparent that he has done nothing wrong personally. Erickson said that Democrats should want to see political scrutinizing by the tax collection agency ended.

“When the media takes the cover saying, ‘Well, at least they were going after everybody,’ that should incense everybody,” Cavuto declared.

Not even a nuclear warhead can penetrate that bubble.

 

[The Librarian]

Not even a nuclear warhead can penetrate that bubble.

https://twitter.com/lawblob/status/349585766994804736

 

[B-Dubs]

Cuntick Erickson gonna cunt.

Erick Erickson To Cavuto: If Liberal Groups Were Targeted By IRS Like Conservative Groups, Where Are They?



Not even a nuclear warhead can penetrate that bubble.

Dat bubble

 

[Aaron Strife]

Today's hero:

Wow, it's almost like she's filibustering out of a conviction to halt bad legislation than simply to gum up the works and go out for drinks afterward.

 

[Black Mamba]

Cuntick Erickson gonna cunt.

Erick Erickson To Cavuto: If Liberal Groups Were Targeted By IRS Like Conservative Groups, Where Are They?



Not even a nuclear warhead can penetrate that bubble.

LIBERAL GROUPS NOT ACTING LIKE WHINY BITCHES PROVE IRS TARGETED CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[empty vessel]

Wow, it's almost like she's filibustering out of a conviction to halt bad legislation than simply to gum up the works and go out for drinks afterward.

And showing Congress how a filibuster is supposed to work.

 

[Slacker]

Wow, it's almost like she's filibustering out of a conviction to halt bad legislation than simply to gum up the works and go out for drinks afterward.

She's doing awesome. Really inspiring to listen to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q8Hr0O20LY

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"My experience with John Lewis in Selma earlier this year was a profound experience that demonstrated the fortitude it took to advance civil rights and ensure equal protection for all,"

Spoiler

Cantor

said in a statement provided to TPM. "I'm hopeful Congress will put politics aside, as we did on that trip, and find a responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected."

Guess who said this? (Name is in the spoiler)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Guess who said this? (Name is in the spoiler)

I'm curious to see how this plays out. He seems to have been genuine, at least when I read the story a few months ago.

 

[The Librarian]

MS now going ahead with Voter ID: http://m.wdam.com/autojuice?targetU...story/22683993/hosemann-voter-id-starts-today

Thank you, SCOTUS. The Court is so wise.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm curious to see how this plays out. He seems to have been genuine, at least when I read the story a few months ago.

The Jewish community has always been pretty been sympathetic towards the civil rights movement. There's a kinship there to some extent.

MS now going ahead with Voter ID: http://m.wdam.com/autojuice?targetU...story/22683993/hosemann-voter-id-starts-today

Thank you, SCOTUS. The Court is so wise.

"Mississippi citizens have earned the right to determine our voting processes," said Hosemann. "Our relationships and trust in each other have matured. This chapter is closed."

Racism is over guys.

From twitter, Justice Roberts Consitution:

 

[The Librarian]

From twitter, Justice Roberts Consitution:

I was just about to post that. Hilarious.

 

[The Librarian]

Double post. Worth it. Weiner is now frontrunner in NYC mayoral race: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...oral-Race-Poll-Christine-Quinn-213008841.html

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Double post. Worth it. Weiner is now frontrunner in NYC mayoral race: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...oral-Race-Poll-Christine-Quinn-213008841.html

Drudge: Weiner Spurts to Lead...

 

[RustyNails]

Weiner in stiff competition

 

[Wilsongt]

More VRA stuff out of South Carolina.

South Carolina politicians react to Voting Rights Act ruling

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) -

As the US Supreme Court voted to rule a part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, South Carolina politicians were quick to react to the results.

The decision says states and jurisdictions including South Carolina are no longer required to get federal approval when they change election laws.

Some of the state's top elected officials, all of them Republicans, cheered the decision.

They say it supports their belief that South Carolina has moved forward and corrected many of the wrongs that existed when the Voting Rights Act became law.

And barring an Act of Congress to update the section struck down Tuesday, meaning controversial election law changes like voter ID will soon be fully implemented.

South Carolina has been one of nine states and more than 50 townships and counties nationwide forced to meet a special test when they changed voting laws.

Because those areas had histories of discrimination, they would have to get approval from the U.S. Justice Department in order to make those changes.

But with Tuesday's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, a critical part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is dismantled.

It was something the state's NAACP leader Lonnie Randolph saw coming when he attended oral arguments at the high court back in February.

The ruling focused on Section Four of the act, the map that included the Palmetto State.

The court said that map put together with information that once showed wide disparities in turnout between white and black populations is now outdated and needs to be re-evaluated by Congress.

Randolph says some in the minority community have at least partial responsibility for Tuesday's ruling.

In writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts included a chart comparing voter turnout at the time of the act.

That chart showed South Carolina in 1965 had a 76 percent white voter turnout with only 37 percent of black voters going to the polls.

By 2004, the chart indicated just over 74 percent of white voters taking part with what was then 71 percent black voter participation.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson released a statement shortly after the court's ruling, saying it was a "victory for all voters as all states can now act equally without some having to ask for permission or being required to jump through the extraordinary hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy."

Third District Congressman Jeff Duncan also called the ruling a "win for fairness, South Carolina, and the rule of law."

Meanwhile, Gov. Nikki Haley's office says she "applauds today's decision."

"She understands better than anyone how South Carolina has changed for the better - and that's thanks in no small part to the fact that she, and members of the General Assembly, have fought to strengthen the integrity of our electoral process and make sure more, and not fewer, South Carolinians have access to the ballot box," said Haley's spokesperson Rob Godfrey.

State Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison called the ruling "extremely disappointing."

"The Democratic Party will continue to oppose legislative and political efforts that erode the right to vote and will actively support efforts to protect and expand voting rights in South Carolina and across the country," said Harrison.

 

[Oblivion]

I never understood the "we don't need this or that law anymore cause things are better" argument. Rand Paul used the same defense when he was arguing for the EPA to be gutted, because companies are polluting less now. Ignoring the fact that they're doing so...BECAUSE of the freakin' EPA!

Same applies to the VRA. Colbert (as usual) said it best when he said that it's like a wife beater saying he hasn't beat his wife in a long time, so there's no need for that restraining order anymore.

 

[The Librarian]

This is a very, very good point. Roberts, in writing the Court's opinion, didn't mention what part of the Constitution the VRA violated.

"Your question highlights a fundamental flaw in Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court strikes down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional without ever explaining what provision of the Constitution commands this result. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the conservative majority argued that the Voting Rights Act provision was inconsistent with the 'letter and spirit of the Constitution,' but he never really explained why.

"His majority opinion emphasized that the Voting Rights Act diminished the sovereignty of states, ignoring that Fifteenth Amendment expressly gives to Congress broad power to prevent all forms of racial discrimination in voting by the states. As Justice Ginsburg's powerful dissent demonstrates, the Court's opinion cannot be squared with the text, history, and meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment."

Roberts: "Yeah, I don't really like it. So let's chuck it."

 

[Oblivion]

Also, too. It looks like the left got its own ACORN moment:

Imagine you just had unprotected sex and, worried about becoming pregnant but believing (correctly) from your internet research that there's still time to prevent it, you go to a "maternal and prenatal care" center and ask about Plan B, and:
After some confusion, the counselor replies inaccurately, “It sounds like the morning after pill. If you have intercourse and then take this pill and it causes a period to come on or something, or bleeding. It’s like having kind of an abortion.” She adds, “That could harm you. It really could harm you … You could hemorrhage from anything like that.”

Also, she tells you, "sometimes taking a pill like that could cause more bleeding than what you think" and "It could leave damage to the cervix, it could mean hemorrhaging." Scary, huh?

That's all on a secret video filmed by activist and patients' advocate Katie Stack as she went undercover as a patient at an Ohio crisis pregnancy center, and it raises a question. What's scarier: the fake side effects the "counselor" lists, or the fact that many women and girls are being denied actual medical care, care that could safely keep them from becoming pregnant, by fake advice like this?

Stack founded the Crisis Project to document the lies women are told at crisis pregnancy centers, the anti-abortion offices set up to trick women out of having abortions with whatever combination of misinformation and fear-mongering necessary. We're talking serious, intentional deception here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ion-pregnancy-center-lies-caught-on-nbsp-tape

 

[Wilsongt]

If Jim Clyburn is up for reelection next year, he better do everything in his power to hold onto his seat or it's gonna flip to an OWR (Old White Republican).

 

[Oblivion]

There goes Obama, attacking god fearin' patriots yet again: "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society"