To Hell With ‘Today’

From the Hollywood Reporter:

NBC’s “Today” show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent — former first daughter Jenna Bush Hager.

‘Scuse me while I kiss this overflowing spitoon.

Well, no – but that’s something I’ll be more likely to do than ever watching Today again.

Even at that, here’s the money shot:

“It wasn’t something I’d always dreamed to do,” she said. “But I think one of the most important things in life is to be open-minded and to be open-minded for change.”

I can presume, then, that she’s never actually met her father?

One More Reason to Hate the Bush Junta

Oh – and I’ve been warning about this sort of christianist usurpation of federal preemptive authority for years.  But, here’s the LA Times on one of the parting shots by the coke-snorting, draft-dodging rich brat:

The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new “right of conscience” rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

…

Health and Human Services Department officials said the rule would apply to “any entity” that receives federal funds. It estimated 584,000 entities could be covered, including 4,800 hospitals, 234,000 doctor’s offices and 58,000 pharmacies.

Proponents, including the Christian Medical Assn. and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens, president of CMA.

“The real battle line is the morning-after pill,” he said. “This prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity. Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a moral objection to.”

Autumn, over at Pam’s House Blend, mentions what the post-Christine Daniels LA Times neglected to:

Not mentioned is that transsexuals like me might have difficulties receiving hormone prescriptions, or filling hormone prescriptions because of religious convictions of providers.

The August press release on the new rules is here; the proposed rules are here.

Hey – all of you trannies who voted for the coke-snorting, draft-dodging rich brat because you thought Ann Richards or Gary Mauro or Al Gore or John Kerry would take your guns away: What are you going to do once the coke-snorting, draft-dodging rich brat succeeds in taking your hormones away?

More Conservaqueer Denial on the Half-Shill

Andrew Sullivan points to the ever-objective voices (cough, cough) of reason (hack, hack): Dale Carpenter and Chris Crain.

The former claims:

Whether Bush will actually veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk is unknown. The reasons given for a veto by OMB seem transparently thin, which suggests either that they’re a sop to religious conservatives and that Bush may sign ENDA anyway or that they’re a pretext for deep political concerns Congress simply won’t be able to allay while Bush is president. 

Only a gay male Republican would actually believe that Bush would sign ENDA.

To be fair to Carp, he also adds: “a dose of cold realism about the law’s prospects until at least 2009 has now been added to the mix.”

The latter spews:

I continue to believe there is a strong likelihood the president will not veto either the (trans-inclusive) hate crimes bill or ENDA (so long as it’s not trans-inclusive), should either reach his desk — whether solo or attached to some larger piece of legislation.  The veto threat was an easy political move to satisfy conservative rabble rousers, and in ENDA’s case seemed a direct response to the LaBarbera rally cry.

Of course, the United ENDA trans-first’ers still have a chance to beat President Bush’s advisers to the punch, and derail historic gay rights legislation because it doesn’t also expressly protect transsexuals, cross-dressers and transvestites as well.  If they succeed, whether in the House or by scaring the Senate away from the legislation, the president will owe them a debt of gratitude.

I’m filing this under satire – even though Lame Crain is, based on past experience, dead serious.

Where ENDA is now (as of last night)

This is a copy of the article on ENDA that will run in tomorrow’s issue of Colorez!, southern Arizona’s GLBTS newsmagazine. Props to ENDAblog contributor justkelly, from whom I stole the headline pun that was just too good to not steal.

The Never-ENDA Story: the Baldwin Amendment, a Veto Threat, and Another Delay

By Kynn Bartlett

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a landmark civil rights law designed to protect GLBT employees from workplace discrimination, is stalled again after a tumultuous fortnight of political wrangling — and some GLBT-community in-fighting.
As reported in the Oct. 11 issue of Colorez!, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., conducted a “whip count” of the Democratic members of the House and found there were not enough votes to pass ENDA with gender identity protections included. There were, Frank said, enough Democratic votes to overcome Republican opposition if gender identity language were removed from the bill; ENDA would pass the House if it only provided protection based on sexual orientation.
“I am convinced that we have the votes to pass in this House a bill that has been the number one goal of the gay and lesbian and bisexual community and our allies for many years, a bill to ban discrimination based on employment,” said Frank on Oct. 10, in a speech on the floor of the House. “I think it will be an extraordinarily good thing for America if we are able to do that.”
Frank introduced H.R. 3685, a revised version of ENDA that addresses sexual orientation, and H.R. 3686, a version only for gender identity. These bills were designed to replace Frank’s H.R. 2015, the version of ENDA introduced in April 2007, which included gender identity for the first time since federal legislation establishing protection from workplace discrimination was first proposed in 1974.

White House promises ENDA-lite veto

I read it first at Good As You:

[T]he White House staffers cite as reasons why they want the measure vetoed such fallacious things as the supposed burdening of religious freedom that they feel the bill would introduce, as well as the provisions that they feel would weaken DOMA (with them even using the words “sanctity of marriage” in the release). In fact, upon reading it, we hear all of the nation’s most rabidly anti-gay groups silenced all fears that they’d be facing a hiring crisis come January 2009.

From the official administration position paper: (emphasis mine)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 3685 – The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
(Rep. Frank (D) MA and 9 cosponsors)

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish “a comprehensive
Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard. For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.

A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on “perceived” sexual orientation, or “association” with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.

Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.

No word if John Aravosis is on suicide watch yet, or whether “25 million gays and lesbians” are being held hostage by Mr. Bush.

By the way, I win five bucks if Aravosis argues that “his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill” isn’t REALLY a veto promise, since Bush might just ignore those advisers and sign it anyway!

Update: Actually, Aravosis is more likely to just say “we’ll attach it to a war funding bill and he’ll have to sign it!” because that’s the fantasy world he lives in. If you can force Bush to sign ENDA-lite, why can’t you force him to sign inclusive ENDA?

Update 2: Here’s the response from Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor committee.

ENDAs Game

Well, another week has gone by in what is rapidly becoming The Never-ENDA Story. A lot has been going on, and the historical significance really cannot be overstressed. Never in the history of the GBLT movement has ENDA received so much attention and action; in thirty years of struggle, it has never before been this close to actually being vetoed.

Over the past week, activists have made phone calls, staged protests, written letters and lobbied almost nonstop for a fully-inclusive bill. A line has been drawn in the sand, and we have stood up to our leadership and declared that a divided ENDA is an unacceptable compromise of our principles. It does not reflect our values as a community, and we do not endorse it. And our leadership has heard us. They have heeded the will of the people, and after much deliberation have declared that tough noogies, they’re doing it anyway.

Incidentally, I’m not generally one to spread rumors, and lord knows I have no proof of this, but I have it on pretty good authority that, prior to revising the bill, Barney Frank made some hefty investments in the makers of Zantac and Pepto Bismol. I’m just saying, that’s all.

Still, there is a contingent within the community that feel the pro-trans-inclusive side are being “selfish” by demanding the original bill be kept intact. The argument is with trans-inclusion, ENDA is bound to fail a vote, and the whole community would be held back unnecessarily. And to tell the truth, while I still disagree with it, I can see where this argument comes from; and if the bill had a snowflake’s chance in hell of going all the way, it is an argument that would need to be addressed.

But let’s not kid ourselves; trans-inclusive or not, anything GBLT-related that gets anywhere near the White House is going to get stomped down faster than you can say “circular file”. I mean, this is George Bush we’re talking about, here: the man just vetoed children’s healthcare, for crying out loud. He’s like the villain in Oliver Twist. He’s sure not going to show the love for his queer peeps.

So, let’s review: in the past few weeks Barney Frank has crippled a vitally important bill, opened up a huge rift in the community, put everyone at each other’s throats, unleashed more animosity and malice within the community than we usually get from the outside, and pretty much guaranteed failure for both versions of a bill that nobody ever seriously expected to be signed into law in the first place. This, as I understand it, is called “Taking a principled stand.”

And so it goes. ENDA-lite is scheduled to be introduced to committee this Thursday, but Speaker of the House Pelosi has has promised to hold a floor vote on the full version just as soon as political support is there—that is, when mainstream acceptance of transgendered individuals has reached the point where most people are okay with hiring them. That’s an interesting strategy for you: don’t pass the law until it’s not needed anymore. Well, you can always count on today’s Democratic Party to do the Right Thing. Or at least the middle-right.

In any case, ENDA is down but not out. No time period has been established for adding Gender Identity back in, but it is tentatively scheduled sometime after the Final Trump. Still, as Barney Frank has pointed out, even getting a stunted, crippled version of ENDA within striking distance of the veto pen is still a victory, of sorts. But then, you have to wonder about a man for whom even symbolic victories are Pyhrric. After all, he was instrumental in the passage of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, a compromise bill whose author believed it would last “five to ten years”.

 

That was nearly fifteen years ago, but no doubt he’s working on it.