Hung out to dry

After the Senate passed the controversial ultrasound bill, it has now apparently hit a snag in the House.  Unbelievable.  "Inconceivable!"

The much more right-wing House has actually stopped the forward progress of this reactionary bill.  I was sure it would sail right through, unmolested.  But an odd thing happened.  Actually, two odd things.  One, Idaho citizens finally objected to some of the extreme legislation that's in vogue in our Republican legislature.  And two, the legislators, or rather, the Representatives, listened.

They didn't listen to parents and educators about the education bills.  They didn't listen to local residents when rejecting local control over oil and gas activities.  But they listened to, well, I'm not sure.  Women, I suppose.

We don't know because they went into a closed caucus to decide to put off the scheduled hearing on the bill.  And isn't that just special?  They do their important business, as usual, behind closed doors.  Well, at least they did it.

Anyway, I'm guessing the Senators who voted for the bill are squirming uncomfortably right now.  I'd bet that they thought, like me, that it would cruise through the House, thus giving them cover.  But no.  Now the Senators are on record for supporting a bill that's too reactionary for even Idaho's House of Representatives.  That's saying something.  And apparently voters don't like what they're saying. 

Knock me over with a feather.

The coming zombie apocalypse

Meet Eric P, arrested and charged with a no contact order violation and possession of drug paraphernalia.

And so it begins ....

Who pays?

The sweethearts in our legislature are looking out for us, especially the females among us, and are trying to ensure that none of said females can get an abortion without looking at an ultrasound picture of the fetus.  How thoughtful.  Such concern for our fairer sex.

But I'm wondering, who's going to pay for that?  Does the clinic or ultrasound technician have to do it for free? Will the insurer, or the uninsured, i.e., the patient, pay for it.  When there's no medical reason for the ultrasound it's just a, gasp!, unfunded mandate.  

Maybe the legislature will ask the taxpayers to pay for it.

Actually, the bill calls for a list of clinics who will provide the ultrasound for free, so the patient "may" view the image and "may" hear the "heart tone."  Well, that's nice, for those who want it.

But I'm suspicious (which is a character flaw of mine, I'll admit). I suspect that anti-abortion groups will set up such clinics, and any female going there will hear the heart tone regardless of choice (technician; oops, I left the sound turned up), and will also be subject to their anti-abortion message.The bill is obviously just another hurdle for a woman seeking an abortion.

Which is clear from the requirement that no physician can perform an abortion before "certifying" that the abortion was done, the woman was offered the choice to view and hear, and she has to initial a form certifying this, and jeezus, what a hassle for the doctor and the patient.  It even specifies "the statement must be in bold print of at least twelve-point type."

Ah, those small government, nanny-state hating, freedom lovers in our legislature.  Where would we be without them?

Obamacare

For most Republicans, the word "Obamacare" is a pejorative that is either hissed between clenched teeth, or moaned out with a shudder.  The Reds did a great job lying about it and demonizing it and turning it into a real right-wing bugaboo.  They simply fricking hate it.

Doesn't matter that they mostly completely misunderstand it.  They believed their leaders and liars, and truly think it's a "government takeover of health care." 

Well, Medicare started out pretty unpopular in some circles, too, but look at it now.  It's expensive, and worrisome, but beloved, especially by seniors.  I think that over time as Obamacare takes effect - by 2014 - it's benefits will adhere to more and more folks, and it will also become beloved.  And that's where the Reds screwed up.

See, from now on it'll always be known as Obamacare.  30 years from now, Obamacare.  As it grows in popularity, Obamacare.  As it becomes a central fact of American life and health, Obamacare.  It will forever cement in the public consciousness that Barack Obama, and Democrats, are responsible for this great new public good.

Of course, I suppose that Reds will continue to hate on it, but I think in decreasing numbers and intensity over time.  I mean even Reds won't actually say they want to kill Medicare (though they do); when they talk about it, they talk of "saving" it by reforms.  And so it will be with Obamacare.

Delicious irony: Reds tagged it a Obamacare as a way to demonize it, but it will end up as an enduring beloved legacy of Barack Obama, one that gets mentioned in households all across the country, sometimes on a daily basis.  Hahahahah....

It's never enough

I heard Lenore Barrett (R-Custer) explain* why she voted against taxing Internet sales. Now, personally, I dig being able to avoid paying sales tax on stuff I buy over the intertoobs, though it's probably not good tax policy. Not sure about that without some more thought.

Anyway, Barrett said she thinks it's not important and that the legislature ought to be focusing on important stuff like cutting taxes and spending. So, agreed that our fine representatives ought to focus on important stuff, lord knows there's little enough of that, what with anti-contraception bills and anti-Occupy Boise bills and what not taking up their time and attention.

Jeebus, after three years of shrinking budgets spending cuts, one might figure that particular itch had been scratched. But, no, I again fail to grok the Republican mind. There is never enough cutting, until there is no government, apparently.

Gee, I always figured government was something we do together to help us all improve our station. Part of it is to referee, part of it is to provide a hand up, but to do those two functions it takes resources, and for Lenore and her ilk, government resources are bad resources.

*If you call that an explanation. It doesn't really say anything substantive about the bill under consideration.