Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church

Nearly three out of every five young Christians disconnect from their churches after the age of 15, but why? A new research study released by the Barna Group points to six different reasons as to why young people aren't staying in their pews.

The results of this study come from the interviews of teenagers, young adults, youth pastors, senior pastors and parents that were taken over the course of five years.

First, the study says, churches appear to be overprotective. Nearly one-fourth of the 18- to 29-year-olds interviewed said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church” most of the time. Twenty-two percent also said the church ignores real-world problems and 18 percent said that their church was too concerned about the negative impact of movies, music and video games.

Many young adults also feel that their experience of Christianity was shallow. One-third of survey participants felt that “church is boring.” Twenty percent of those who attended as a teenager said that God appeared to be missing from their experience of church.

The study also found many young adults do not like the way churches appear to be against science. Over one-third of young adults said that “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” and one-fourth of them said that “Christianity is anti-science.”

Some also feel that churches are too simple or too judgmental when it comes to issues of sexuality. Seventeen percent of young Christians say they've “made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” Two out of five young adult Catholics said that the church's teachings on birth control and sex are “out of date.”

The fifth reason the study gives for such an exodus from churches is many young adults struggle with the exclusivity of Christianity. Twenty-nine percent of young Christians said “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths” and feel they have to choose between their friends and their faith.

The last reason the study gives for young people leaving the church is they feel it is “unfriendly to those who doubt.” Over one-third of young adults said they feel like they can't ask life's most pressing questions in church and 23 percent said they had “significant intellectual doubts” about their faith.

U.S. Teen Pregnancy Rate Lowest In 40 Years - Thanks To Contraceptive Use

The use of contraceptives is seen as the reason that the U.S. teen pregnancy rate has hit a 30-year low, according to a new study published this week by the Guttmacher Institute.

Teen pregnancies have declined dramatically in the United States since their peak in the early 1990s, as have the births and abortions that result; in 2008, teen pregnancies reached their lowest level in nearly 40 years, according to “U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2008: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity,” by Kathryn Kost and Stanley Henshaw of the Guttmacher Institute.

In 2008, the teen pregnancy rate was 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19, which means that about 7% of U.S. teens became pregnant that year. This rate represents a 42% decline from the peak in 1990 (116.9 per 1,000). Similarly, the birthrate declined 35% between 1991 and 2008, from 61.8 to 40.2 births per 1,000 teens; the abortion rate declined 59% from its 1988 peak of 43.5 abortions per 1,000 teens to its 2008 level of 17.8 per 1,000.

“Continuing decreases in teen pregnancy more recently may be driven by increased use of the most effective contraceptive methods as well as dual method use,” the Guttmacher Institute explained. “In sum, teens appear to be making the decision to be more effective contraceptive users, and their actions are paying off in lower pregnancy, birth and abortion rates.”

Even with dramatic reductions in pregnancy, birth and abortion rates among all racial and ethnic groups, disparities between black, white and Hispanic teens persist. After peaking in the early 1990s, the teen pregnancy rate dropped by 37% among Hispanics, 48% among blacks and 50% among non-Hispanic whites; yet the rates among black and Hispanic teens remain 2–3 times as high as that of non-Hispanic white teens.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops (USCCB) are incensed at the decision by the Obama administration to guarantee that the women's health care benefit packages offered by employers includes contraceptive care. Beginning in August 2012, all of the services in this benefit package will be available in new employer insurance plans without any out-of-pocket costs to women. The rule specifically exempts pervasively religious institutions like houses of worship from offering their employees birth control coverage as part of their health insurance. But the Bishops claim that their religion also exempts them from providing preventive health care services to the millions of employees -- many of whom are not even Catholic -- at Catholic owned businesses, like hospitals and Universities!

Catholic Bishops object not only to the rule for business organizations they own, Bishops said Thursday that they would not be happy until the rule is scrubbed entirely, permitting any employer, religious or not, to deny contraceptive coverage to their workers.

But the Catholic Bishops do not speak for a majority of American Catholics, 52 percent of whom support requiring health plans to cover contraception. Several major Catholic universities and hospitals already offer contraception coverage. Ninety-eight percent of all American women, Catholic and otherwise, report using birth control during their lifetime.

States Line Up To Kill Voting Rights Act Sec. 5

WaPo:

Conservative activists and Republican attorneys general have launched a series of lawsuits meant to challenge the most muscular provision of the Voting Rights Act 0f 1965 before a Supreme Court that has signaled it is suspicious of its constitutionality.

Working their way to the high court are lawsuits from Arizona to North Carolina, challenging Section 5 of the historic civil rights act. The provision requires states and localities with a history of discrimination to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws.

The combination of skeptical justices and an increasingly partisan political environment has led some experts to predict that the end is near for that requirement, which civil rights groups have called the most effective weapon for eliminating voting discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s recent actions “have indicated that Section 5 is living on borrowed time,” Columbia University law professor Nathaniel Persily told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week. “Assuming the personnel on the court remains constant, the question is not whether the court will declare Section 5 unconstitutional, but when and how.”

The lawsuits are defending redistricting and a variety of new laws and electoral changes — including controversial requirements that voters show IDs at the polls — that Democrats and minorities charge will dilute minority rights.

Read the full story @ WaPo:

Pink Razors and Planned Parenthood

From the Most Excellent Margaret and Helen blog

In the past Margaret and I have stood up for Planned Parenthood. But that is no longer good enough. Today, tomorrow and every day that we have left on this planet, we won’t just stand up for them, we will stand up for women everywhere. We will vote for them. We will advocate for them. We will fight for them. And we will start right here. Right now.

My grandson tells us that people from all over the nation and even from other countries read this web page blog of ours. Well, I can’t imagine why, but if you are going to read it, then you should use your head for something other than a hat rack and learn a thing or two about the real Planned Parenthood.

Yes. They provide abortion services. Deal with it because they also do so much more and we remember the world before them. It wasn’t pretty.

I called a Board Member for Planned Parenthood in my community and we had a good talk. I found out that even I didn’t know the whole story. And after you read this, I challenge you to do what she asked me to do: inform the uninformed and educate the misinformed.

Planned Parenthood provides healthcare – pap smears, breast and pelvic exams, colposcopies, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and birth control for both women and men – most without access to any other health care services. About 97% of their services are for this basic healthcare.

If you want to talk about abortion services then you should at least know the truth. Providing that service for women who are faced with that daunting decision accounts for less than 3% of what Planned Parenthood does nationally. Less than three percent. They also provide prenatal care, vasectomies and adoption referrals. One Planned Parenthood clinic does more in a day to prevent abortions than the entire Pro-Life movement does in a year. We might not agree on abortion, but we should at least be able to agree that they should be safe, legal and rare.

If you want to talk about Planned Parenthood then talk about the thousands of uninsured women for whom the doctor or nurse at Planned Parenthood is the only health professional they will see this year. Tell them about the divorced 40-year-old woman who, for the first time, finds herself without health insurance and how she turned to Planned Parenthood to ensure that she is able to maintain her health and wellness. Planned Parenthood has never been just about sex and birth control. It has always been about ensuring women are healthy enough to care for the children they one day may bring into this world. And yes, it is also about making sure they are informed in their decisions not to bring children into this world.

Tell your Tea Party friends what good fiscal sense Planned Parenthood education and prevention programs make – that for every dollar spent providing family-planning services, $4 are saved in Medicaid costs. Remind them that more than one-third of the individuals who seek help from Planned Parenthood make less than $50 a week. That’s right – $50 a week.

If you are going to talk about Planned Parenthood, then at least have the courage to speak the truth. We knew the Komen decision was politically motivated because we know that far right politicians are the ones who continue to spread untruths and misinformation about Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich all stand ready to restrict a woman’s access to birth control and her right to make her own childbearing decisions. They will cater to the far right and happily deny essential health care to millions of women. The Republican field is united in its determination to overturn Roe v. Wade; to appoint Supreme Court justices supportive of that goal; and to end government funding of any kind to Planned Parenthood for family planning services, cancer screenings and other vital health services provided to low-income women. By the way, Planned Parenthood does not receive government funding for abortions. Although for the life of me, I can’t imagine why not.

Mr. Gingrich has called for punishing judges who make abortion rulings not to his liking. Mitt Romney supported the “personhood” initiative in Mississippi that would have given human fertilized eggs the legal rights and protections that apply to people, and outlawed abortion as well as some of the most widely used forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization. For goodness sakes Rick Santorum, the candidate who won the first primary this year, doesn’t even believe in birth control at all.

If you really, honestly want to reduce abortions in this country, the last thing you want to do is vote for a Republican. If you want to reduce abortions start in your own home by educating your children. Teach your sons to respect women and arm your daughters with information about birth control. If you are so outraged by abortions that your only criteria for a presidential candidate is that he be obsessed with my uterus, then arm your daughters with all the information she needs to protect herself from all those sons who were raised by politicians in Texas and Virginia. And if you really care, make a donation to Planned Parenthood or this other organization called Annie’s List. My grandson says that if you “click” on the underlined words in the previous sentence it will take you to a place you can make a donation on the internet. It couldn’t be any easier than that.

This November, I say we show them what it really means to Fight Like A Girl. Somebody call Gloria Steinem because we’ve got some more balls to bust. I mean it. Really.

Read the full post @ Margaret's and Helen's blog

Birth Control, Religion, Government And Individual Rights

The religious freedom of an organization to dominate or control the religious freedom of choice of individuals - which freedom should prevail; The organization's religious freedom or the individual's personal right of religious freedom?

The US Conference of Catholic bishops (USCCB) are incensed at the decision by the Obama administration to guarantee that the women's health care benefit package in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes contraceptive care. Beginning in August 2012, all of the services in this benefit package will be available in new insurance plans without any out-of-pocket costs to women.

The rule specifically exempts pervasively religious institutions like houses of worship from offering their employees birth control coverage as part of their health insurance. Even so, in a USCCB video, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the former Archbishop of Milwaukee, angrily invokes religious freedom, protected by the “very first amendment,” in castigating the policy that private insurance must provide reproductive health care to women. Archbishop Dolan calls upon his flock to contact their elected officials and let them know that “religious liberty must be restored.”

Under a cloak of reverence for religious freedom, the bishops say reproductive health care must be denied to women and men of other religious faiths, and even to American Catholics – most of whom disagree with the archbishop.

There are already approximately 335,000 churches and houses of worship that are not required to provide reproductive health care services for their employees because of religious exemption. Now the Bishops claim that their religion also exempts them from providing preventive health care services to the millions of employees -- many of whom are not even Catholic -- at Catholic owned businesses, like hospitals and Universities!

Add to those direct employees of Catholic owned businesses the families of workers who are covered under the employee insurance program, too.

Statistics show that most insurance plans already cover birth control and 28 states require it. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in announcing the Administration's decision, explained that birth control is the most commonly taken drug in the U.S. by young and middle-aged women -- and that holds true of women across the religious spectrum. Ninety-eight percent of all American women, Catholic and otherwise, report using birth control during their lifetime.

The lobbying against reproductive health care for women by the Catholic bishops has been widely publicized. What hasn't gotten as much attention is that many faith-based groups, including the National Council of Jewish Women weighed in on the other side.

NCJW says that this is an issue of religious liberty -- although there are differing religious views on the use of contraception, it should be up to women to decide on whether and when to use contraception based on their own beliefs and needs. On this most-personal decision, no woman should be forced to abide by the religious views of her bosses at work or those of her insured spouse's employer.

Many people do not remember that the purchase and use of birth control products and literature about birth control options, even by married couples, was against the law in many states until 1965. There are those who, for the last 46 years, have worked to reverse the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court finding that Americans have a fundamental right of privacy. That right includes making family planning decisions and the right to learn about and use birth control contraceptives. Among those who have worked to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops may be one of the quietest, yet most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill, with political allies that have enabled them to roll back decades of law and precedent in reproductive rights for women. Among those political allies are the 2012 GOP presidential candidates and Republicans who currently control the U.S. House of Representatives. This group of men, blessed with a strong personal interest in women’s bodies, have quietly influenced all of the major legislation on reproductive health care over the past several years.

As Voters Come Home To Obama, 2012 Begins To Look A Lot Like 2008

PoliticusUSA

A comparison of recent polls in Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia with 2008 polling shows that voters who supported President Obama last time are starting to come back home to him in 2012.

The Quinnipac Poll revealed a five point jump for President Obama over the past month in the state. In December, Romney narrowly led Obama 44%-42%. In the past month the Republican frontrunner (sort of) has gained one point in the state while Obama swung into the lead. The partisan split in the vote is high. Eighty five percent of Republicans support Romney and ninety three percent of Democrats support Obama, but the big shift towards Obama has been with two groups of voters.

While Romney has stayed at a flat 41%, President Obama gained four points and now leads with Independents, 45%-41%. The biggest swing for Obama has come with women. Romney led Obama among women, 45%-43% in December, but this month the president gained seven points, while Romney lost two, and took a 52%-40% lead.

Read the full story @ PoliticusUSA

Texas GOP Official Says Even April 17 Primary Doubtful

From Michael Li's Texas Redistricting Blog:

Former Harris County tax assessor/collector Paul Bettencourt - who serves on the Republican Party of Texas’ redistricting committee - told the San Antonio Express-News that an April 17 primary might not be possible. According to Bettencourt:

“Even at warp drive, it’s (at least) 75 days” to get ready for an election without the complication of redistricting, he said. “Even April 17 is doubtful,” he said about an alternative date offered by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on Monday.

The full article by Nolan Hicks here .

Keep in mind that the first day of early voting for an April 17 primary election date would be April 2.

After the SA court orders new district maps, county election officials must map election precincts to match those interim district maps. Then, those precinct maps must be precleared by the USDOJ, or the court, before election officials can get started on all the other early voting preparations.

Election officials in the larger counties would have a difficult time pulling together early voting by the last week of March, even if the SA court sets all the maps by late day Friday Feb. 17. That gives counties just 5 weeks to draw and clear precinct maps and then produce the early voting part of a April 17 primary election.

Voter registration cards must be in the mail no later than March 23-26 to be in the hands of voters by the Friday or Saturday before the first day of early voting on Monday April 2.

Voting machines and electronic poll book computers would have to be programmed and all other materials prepared by March 27-28 so they can be delivered to early voting locations.

During that same 5 weeks county election officials must also process vote by mail applications and return mail ballots to voters, both overseas and at home.

That all is a little like trying to put 2o pounds of sugar in a 10 pound bag...

Progress Toward An April 3 Primary?

Updated February 6, 2012 @ 2:50pm

Has Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attempted a hail Mary pass on redistricting interim maps?

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today announced some parties had reach agreement in the San Antonio District Court redistricting interim map trial, which is a step toward keeping Texas' primary election on track for April 3. But some minority groups are not supporting the map deal, Luis Vera, an attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens, told The Associated Press.

Today was the deadline a San Antonio federal court gave the state and involved parties to reach a compromise, in order to try to keep the April 3 primary date

Abbott said in a statement released Monday, “The proposed maps minimize changes to the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature and, as the U. S. Supreme Court required, makes changes only where necessary."

“The proposed maps minimize changes to the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature and, as the U. S. Supreme Court required, makes changes only where necessary," Abbott said in a statement released Monday. "The Texas Attorney General’s Office has worked with a wide range of interest groups to incorporate reasonable requests from all parties to the extent possible without compromising the will of the Texas Legislature."

"Even though these proposed interim maps aren’t fully supported by all interest groups, modifications have been incorporated based on requests made by all parties," he said. "Today’s maps should allow the court to finalize the interim redistricting maps in time to have elections in April."

Last Friday, The Hill reported that the Texas interim districts map negotiations in the San Antonio District Court case were on verge of collapse. According to The Hill, “Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) had approached the various plaintiffs last week, seeking a compromise. Most plaintiffs assumed that he would offer a plan close to what they wanted, since the courts have indicated they will throw out the maps drawn by the Republicans in the Texas Legislature. Abbott offered much less than they’d hoped for, leaving the compromise highly in doubt.”

When Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott initiated talks last week for a possible compromise on interim districts maps, he invited only the Mexican American Legislative Caucus and one other of the nine groups representing minority groups, or politicians representing minorities groups in the San Antonio District Court case, which angered the groups not invited. According to an AP news story, seven Texas members of Congress of Latino, African and Asian ancestry today wrote a letter to demand their inclusion in any negotiations and warned they would appeal a interim district map deal if they're excluded.

Update February 6, 2012 @ 2:50pm

Texas Democratic Party responds to Attorney General Abbott's statement outlining an agreement reached with some parties regarding the ongoing redistricting legal fight -- We were not party to the talks which produced this agreement, we are not in agreement on the maps and we do not expect that these will be the maps under which our candidates will run in the 2012 election.

TDP spokesperson Rebecca Acuña released the following statement in response to the redistricting maps released by General Abbott:

“We’re greatly disappointed the Attorney General did not deal in good faith with all parties involved.

For the Texas Democratic Party, any maps that do not have the consent of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, and other plaintiffs are nonstarters.

The Attorney General is clearly terrified that the DC court will find that the state’s maps are discriminatory in both effect and intent. Until there’s a legitimate agreement among the parties, we support the court continuing to do its work.”

Related:

• Republican Party of Texas Doubtful On Unified Primary Anytime In April
• Texas Democratic Party Doubtful On Unified Primary Anytime In April

Afghanistan 2013: America Shifts Course

Matthew Hoh, who in 2009 famously quit his State Department post in Afghanistan to protest U.S. strategy there, spoke on August 11, 2011 as part of the Dallas Peace Center’s dinner lecture series. Hoh didn’t mince words about how he thinks the war in Afghanistan is going --“Afghanistan is a disaster.”

Hoh is a former Marine Corps captain who served six years in Iraq and worked as a civilian for the Department of Defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and the Director of the Afghanistan Study Group. “I agree with (U.S.) objectives. The problem is our policy will not achieve those objectives,” Hoh told the Dallas Peace Center audience.

Chris Matthews speaks with The Atlantic's Steve Clemons and Matthew Hoh of the Center for International Policy on msnbc.com.

Last Friday, Matthew Hoh and The Atlantic's Steve Clemons had a discussion with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball about Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's comments that the US would cease combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013 -- rather than the end of 2014.

Key points made during the discussion:

First, this is a key shift in strategy -- and a positive one.

Second, this remains consistent with the President's announced strategy, also articulated well by Vice President Joe Biden, that the military's job today is not to "beat" the Taliban but rather to shape the choices in the field for the political stakeholders and to be able to preempt any effort to overthrow the government in Kabul.

Third, there is a bit of an 'invisible hand' at work in the message in sending confidence building signals during a fragile early process of trying to negotiate with the Taliban. There are secret negotiations that various sides are attempting to hatch -- and Panetta's comments may be designed to shore up the process. The trip by Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar to Kabul yesterday and his comments blessing the peace talks seem likely to also be part of this mutual posturing, confidence building process.

Lastly, for those like GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who think that the US should commit itself, its military manpower, and more deficit spending to a longer stay in Afghanistan, the discussion concluded that continuing military activities in Afghanistan another five or ten years would strategically deflated the United States, fueling the ambitions and agendas of nations like Iran in the region, and China globally.

STOKING FIRE: Millennials Stifled by Evangelical Doctrines

RH Reality Check by Eleanor J. Bader

The results of a five-year study of the Millennial Generation—people born between 1982 and 1993—are in. Thanks to the Barna Group, a 28-year-old, California-based, Christian research firm, we now know that conservative evangelical churches are losing formerly–affiliated “young creatives:” Actors, artists, biologists, designers, mathematicians, medical students, musicians, and writers.

Some leave because they oppose the church’s doctrinal stance. Others are turned off by its hostility to science, and still others reject the limitations placed on permissible sexual activity. The report cites the tension felt by young adults who find it difficult—if not impossible—to remain “sexually pure,” especially since most heterosexuals don’t marry until their mid-to-late twenties. “Young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers,” Barna concludes. What’s more, the report admits that Millennials see the evangelical church as an exclusive club, open only to those who adhere to every rule. This runs counter to values that rank high on the Millennial playlist—among them, open-mindedness, tolerance, and support for diversity.

These findings, of course, don’t necessarily mean that young evangelicals are becoming progressively engaged, but they do suggest that an opening exists for prochoice, feminist, and pro-LGBTQ activists to touch the hearts and minds of Generation Y. Angela Ferrell-Zabala, director of Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, a project of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, says that former Evangelicals are hungry for information about alternative faith and lifestyle options.

“Technology has given Millennials access to philosophies and people from all over, and they tend to think in ways that are bigger than where they came from or how they were raised,“ she begins.” At the same time, “young folks are not necessarily throwing in the towel on their faith. They’re working to reconcile the pieces of their lives, asking, ‘Who am I?’ and ‘What is my place in the world?’“

Read the full article @ RH Reality Check

Off-Shoring America's Hi-Tech Jobs

by Mark Karlin, Editor Of Buzzflash At Truthout

A short time ago, BuzzFlash at Truthout ran a commentary on how US global corporations don't give a hoot about increasing jobs in America.

In it, we included a section about how Silicon Valley high-tech companies, particularly Apple, use overseas contractors to manufacture their latest technological consumer products. It has been documented that some of these contractors create such harsh conditions and pay such low wages that workers have been driven to suicide, as The New York Times and other publications have detailed.

In a two-part Times expose, an Apple executive claimed: "We [Apple] don't have an obligation to solve America's problems." That was in response to Apple shipping so many potential US jobs overseas to these slave-wage sweatshops; e.g., "90 percent of the parts of an iPhone are made outside the U.S."

But there's another insidious way that the high-tech industry denies jobs to US citizens. It's called the H-1B visa, which allows America's technological firms - and other specialized employers - to bring in foreign employees, frequently at a lower wage package than might be paid to an individual with the same qualifications who is an American citizen. There are many arguments against the program, primarily the allegation that there is generally no actual shortage of US citizens with high-tech skills for the work done by H-1B visa holders.

President Obama appeared blindsided by a question on a Google Plus interactive town hall the other day from a woman whose husband had been laid off by Texas Instruments:

Jennifer Wedel was the second to question Obama, and the four-minute exchange was among the most memorable of the 50-minute online event.

"My question to you is to why does the government continue to issue and extend H-1B visas when there are tons of Americans just like my husband with no job?" she asked.

Obama offered that industry leaders have told him that there aren't enough of certain kinds of high-tech engineers in America to meet their needs. Jennifer Wedel interrupted him to explain that that answer didn't match what her husband is seeing out in the real world.

"Jennifer, can I ask what kind of engineer your husband is?"

"He's a semiconductor engineer," she told the president, who seemed genuinely surprised.

"If you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there," he told her. "The word we're getting is somebody in that high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away. And the H-1B should be reserved only for those companies who say they cannot find somebody in that particular field."

Of course, the high-tech companies are telling the White House and Congress that they can't find US citizens for the H-1B jobs, but many critics argue that many high-tech companies hire H-1B workers without even offering the positions to Americans. On top of that, after the H-1B workers are sent back to their native nations, there are reports that they are rehired by US companies abroad to start offshore high-tech offices that move more US jobs overseas. In short, the H-1B visa could be seen as an outsourcing training program at the expense of highly skilled US professionals.

It was nice of the president of the United States to offer his personal job placement services to Jennifer Wedel's husband, but it's a bit disturbing that the White House appears to have fallen for the Silicon Valley canard.

When it comes to the H-1B visa, it's the same old story: follow the profits.

Keep Politics Out Of Women’s Health?

RH Reality Check by TrustingWomen

In the extraordinary amount of activity surrounding the Komen’s foundation decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood for mammograms, you have probably heard something along the lines of “keep politics out of women’s health.” Komen was frequently criticized for making a politically-motivated move.

Of course it was a politically-motivated move. My question to us all: is it not also a political move to restore the funding? Is not funding mammograms for poor women inherently a political act?

You see, I believe that the personal is always political. I believe that all of our acts are rooted in our values and deepest held beliefs about good and bad, right and wrong. It’s impossible not to be ‘political.’ What you do as a human being on this earth inevitably makes a claim on what you believe and what you believe is good and right, and what you believe is harmful and wrong. ...

... You see, it’s impossible NOT to have religious or spiritual beliefs (humanism and atheism included) affect decisions, whether you are a toll-booth operator or a politician in office. Perhaps this is why Obama said his Christian faith guided his policy decisions.

Furthermore, statements about keeping religion out of women’s health seems to assume that all religion is antagonistic to women’s health. But what if my values, morals, even my religion is exactly what commands me to support contraception, mammograms, and accessible abortion, particularly for those impoverished and marginalized? Once again, the Left implicitly cedes the ground of ethics, morality, religion and spirituality to conservatives.

I get so frustrated as I routinely see Liberals and Lefties clutch onto the crumbling modern tenets of the secular vs. the religious. ...

... The Left will not achieve it’s goals by making dated and problematic arguments regarding secular and the religious, or by arguing for keeping “politics” out of women’s health. We will not achieve our goals by arguing that we are somehow universally right. We will win by arguing that our policy proposals are most effective at minimizing unnecessary suffering in this world.

Women’s health is inherently political. And dare I say, women’s health is inherently religious.

Read the full article @ RH Reality Check

Attorney General Eric Holder: Justice Department Can’t Do It Alone On Voter Rights

On Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at Tulane Law School. He noted the Justice Department can’t do it alone:

"But the Justice Department can’t do it alone.

For every citizen, protecting the right to vote, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed, not only as a legal issue – but as a moral imperative. And every citizen, in every state, must be part of this work.

You have the ability – and the responsibility – to help ensure that our election systems are free from fraud, discrimination, and partisan influence. And, no matter where you live, you can support – and call for – policies aimed at modernizing our voting systems; at making certain that all eligible citizens have access to complete, accurate, and understandable information about where, when, and how they can cast a ballot; and at preventing and punishing fraudulent voting practices. Let me reiterate that last point. Although we know that in-person voter fraud is uncommon, any instance of it is unacceptable – and will not be tolerated by this Justice Department.

As someone who began his career investigating and prosecuting voting-fraud cases, for me, this is a personal priority. But let me be very clear: new state rules requiring photo identification to cast a vote too often appear to make a mockery of the promise of real participation in our electoral system. We will be ever vigilant if these laws disproportionately negatively impact the young, people of color, and seniors because that is not acceptable, not in keeping with who we say we are as a nation. Where this Department of Justice finds these rules to be violative of the federal law we will, as we have, act aggressively and oppose such laws."

Prepared text of Attorney General Eric Holder's Speech
Tulane University Law School, New Orleans ~ Friday, February 3, 2012

Republicans Unhappy With Good Employment News

This week, the nation got some very encouraging news about our economy. For the 23rd consecutive month, the number of new American jobs has continued to grow. January saw an additional 257,000 private-sector jobs, bringing us to nearly 3.7 million cumulative private-sector jobs under this administration.

This is positive news, and it's a sign that the job-creation policies that President Obama and Democrats in Congress have fought for and implemented — despite near-universal Republican obstruction — are working.

When the Republican's won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections, they decided that a stalled American economy would be just the thing to ensure Pres. Obama's re-election defeat in 2012.

It is not surprising then that the Republican reaction to the better-than-expected job news Friday and the fact that unemployment had dropped for the 5th month in a row was hardly an occasion for celebration. Some of the GOP reaction:

Romney's Housing Plan: You're On Your Own

As Mitt Romney campaigns in Nevada, a state hit hard by the housing crisis, he has yet to offer a single proposal to lend a hand to America’s struggling homeowners, make it easier for them to refinance their homes, or help them avoid foreclosure. Or, as Rep. Jan Schakowsky put it in a call slamming Romney's housing policies (or lack thereof) today: "He hasn’t offered any ideas to help these families recover their piece of the American dream and the dignity that comes with having a home to raise a family in."

Instead, he believes the foreclosure process should just "run its course and hit the bottom." In other words, Romney would let homeowners lose their homes and let the banks make a quick buck from the wreckage of American middle-class families. And he had the gall to tell underwater Florida homeowners that the banks are "feeling the same thing" they are.

If you’re a homeowner in this country trying to make ends meet, Romney has four simple words for you: You’re on your own.

Banks, on the other hand…

Planned Parenthood Saved Me: Women Tell Their Stories

Social media and tech guru Deanna Zandt created a tumblr this week at which women are telling their stories about how Planned Parenthood saved their lives through early cancer detection and other means.

This is but one of many stories that are being told on the site:

When I was 21, just out of college, I had a wonderful job that, unfortunately, didn’t provide me with health insurance. I had never before considered Planned Parenthood for gynecological services because I had always been insured under my parents. Now, I had no other options for routine care. I made peanuts, and couldn’t afford a doctor’s visit.

During my visit to the PP in Richmond Va., I was shocked when the nurse practitioner discovered a breast lump. She told me it was probably harmless, but that I would need to follow up with a doctor. I realized the long-term implications of this. So, I got a new job, with health insurance, got a doctor, got a sonogram, and got surgery. I would never have discovered what was hiding just beneath the surface of my skin if I hadn’t been able to access inexpensive health care services provided by Planned Parenthood.

I’m incredibly lucky that I’m 100% healthy. I know that many many other men and women are out there right now, with no access to the nurses, doctors and tests that could catch this cancer early.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t care about how much money you make, where you grew up, how much education you had, or what you look like. They will treat you the same as everyone else.

I will always be grateful for the services they provide, and will show my support with my donations.

Go here to read the rest and, if you have a story, enter your own.

Indiana Election Chief Found Guilty Of Voter Fraud

Indiana’s Republican Secretary of State Charlie White could lose his freedom after jurors convicted him of multiple voter fraud-related charges on Saturday, leaving in flux the fate of one of the state’s most powerful positions. According AP and Politico, a Hamilton County jury found White, Indiana's top elections official, guilty of six of seven felony charges, including false voter registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot, theft and two counts of perjury.

Indiana was the first state to implement a strict photo ID requirement at the polls, where only narrow forms of government-issued photographic identification are acceptable to vote. The law is narrowly focused on in-person voting voter impersonation fraud. Texas passed nearly identical photo ID legislation (Senate Bill 14) in 2011.

Jobsanger: Komen - It's A Matter Of Trust Now

The Democratic Blog News joins with Jobsanger blog in expressing our disappointment in the Komen Foundation. While we are happy the Komen Foundation eventually made the right the decision to continue its funding grant to Planned Parenthood, our trust in Komen's leadership has been shaken.

From Jobsanger blog:

Yesterday I joined many other bloggers, individuals, and organizations in condemning the Komen Foundation for their putting right-wing ideology over the early detection of breast cancer among poor women -- a mean-spirited move that could have cost the lives of some women. They did this by cutting off funds for the breast cancer screening program of Planned Parenthood.