The battle against Planned Parenthood continues, but a nod to a woman who went into the lion's den and defended the faith. Well, you get the idea, with or without an overdose of metaphor.
Irin Carmon tweeted during the appearance of Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This is a big p.r. move really, since the Republicans are not likely to actually accomplish defunding. Much respect for the woman from the tenor of the few questions that I saw and heard. For instance, check out the first question here regarding the early apology she made, which to me was clearly a public relations move that was not really in response to something that really warranted (except for public relations) an apology. She explains why she apologized, but the person does not want to accept her answer.
The implication seems to be that some lie had to have occurred when Richards notes she apologized -- early on before the breadth of the b.s. behind the videos was shown -- because of the tone of some of the remarks (supposedly made to representatives of a lab or something) and doing so in a public place. As if such clinical talk is never made on a regular basis and sometimes one assumes during some sort of public business lunch. But, this was a major thing that was harped on, underlining the sort of irrationality of it all. Other comments were that abortion is not "health care," that there was no need to fund Planned Parenthood, fun with charts and so forth. These "hearings" can often leave a lot to be desired, but in the long run, perhaps these have been productive.
[One thing that annoys me, realize it is a venial sin, is when it is said the "no" funding goes to PP for abortions. If that means "federal" funding, not quite true -- rape and health are exceptions to the Hyde Amendment. States also allow funding in various instances, some states generally. Again, realize it isn't meant to be misleading but it's important to be fully accurate. Plus, my own state (NY) evenhandedly funds abortion as health care, which it very well should. One other thing -- PP doesn't deal with the few post-viability abortions that occur. Something of a footnote, but somewhat interesting.]
===
Georgia executed a woman for the first time in seventy years (that one was a dubious affair), this time for plotting the death of her husband with a boyfriend for the insurance money and so forth. The boyfriend did the actually killing but took a plea deal and got life without parole. Kelly Gissendaner refused to take a plea and was sentenced to die. Word was she was a good prisoner and found her faith or something. There was first deemed a problem with the drugs that was deemed corrected as well as interference with the clemency process. A few judges (and Sotomayor without comment) found this of merit but in the end appeals failed.
Overall, my sentiment here is that often we are dealing with the "worse of the worst" and at least one of the others due to be executed soon are reasonably so labeled. This is not what I think should be so labeled especially when she herself did not kill him, the means of killing often a aggravating factor. (Reading over the details, to be fair, the death and disposal of the body was grisly and she had a part in how it was carried out. But, still don't think as a whole she is akin to the worse of the worst on average.) I'm against the death penalty, but if we have it, it should be limited to a select few, including those who can be dangerous in prison. And, I don't think this execution or the threat of it was necessary to prove the crime (from what I can tell). Not that encouraging pleas in these cases with what is after all a sort of coercion lacks its own problems.
The fact a gratutious deprival of life by the state is involved leads me to be more receptive than in other cases of various due process challenges. Did not examine them, but let's grant her claims are not that compelling. Nonetheless, my sentiments would be that even if a few judges did believe so, especially in a case like this, it would be damning. Beyond the death penalty itself being wrong, there continuously tends to be some individual issues such as questions over procedure, the drugs used and so forth. These might not be compelling enough to stop the execution all things considered but they do warrant continual notice. But, the bottom line for me would be she is not a very good choice for execution.
Finally, I am somewhat upset that Breyer and Ginsburg continue to be silent as executions go forward. I wonder, since claims of innocence actually have been raised, if the same will occur during the expected forthcoming execution of Richard Glossip. If her case and so forth are deemed not significantly worse than others, fine, but I cannot be the only one a bit confused at their silence as executions go forward after they said the death penalty was likely unconstitutional. A brief statement (in proper legalese) saying something like "we still think so, but don't have the votes, so do not think repeatedly saying so is warranted" is fine. But, executions have occurred, now with one justice dissenting from denial of a stay. Something like that might be warranted.
Update: Without comment, Breyer alone on record stated he would grant a stay in the Glossip case. Why? If you think a person should not be executed, shouldn't we know why? Anyway, the governor pushed things back to early November to deal with execution protocols that some might have thought were met in June. Innocence concerns still out there.
A third execution, of a serial killer who was the "easiest" case though issues were raised, has just occurred as well (10/1). The state didn't bother to wait for the Supreme Court, including the liberals, to silently reject his final pleas. A bit in bad taste, maybe it will annoy someone to actually say something (questionable), but guess they figured it was just academic. SCOTUS got around to declaring the petition moot without comment.
Irin Carmon tweeted during the appearance of Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This is a big p.r. move really, since the Republicans are not likely to actually accomplish defunding. Much respect for the woman from the tenor of the few questions that I saw and heard. For instance, check out the first question here regarding the early apology she made, which to me was clearly a public relations move that was not really in response to something that really warranted (except for public relations) an apology. She explains why she apologized, but the person does not want to accept her answer.
The implication seems to be that some lie had to have occurred when Richards notes she apologized -- early on before the breadth of the b.s. behind the videos was shown -- because of the tone of some of the remarks (supposedly made to representatives of a lab or something) and doing so in a public place. As if such clinical talk is never made on a regular basis and sometimes one assumes during some sort of public business lunch. But, this was a major thing that was harped on, underlining the sort of irrationality of it all. Other comments were that abortion is not "health care," that there was no need to fund Planned Parenthood, fun with charts and so forth. These "hearings" can often leave a lot to be desired, but in the long run, perhaps these have been productive.
[One thing that annoys me, realize it is a venial sin, is when it is said the "no" funding goes to PP for abortions. If that means "federal" funding, not quite true -- rape and health are exceptions to the Hyde Amendment. States also allow funding in various instances, some states generally. Again, realize it isn't meant to be misleading but it's important to be fully accurate. Plus, my own state (NY) evenhandedly funds abortion as health care, which it very well should. One other thing -- PP doesn't deal with the few post-viability abortions that occur. Something of a footnote, but somewhat interesting.]
===
Georgia executed a woman for the first time in seventy years (that one was a dubious affair), this time for plotting the death of her husband with a boyfriend for the insurance money and so forth. The boyfriend did the actually killing but took a plea deal and got life without parole. Kelly Gissendaner refused to take a plea and was sentenced to die. Word was she was a good prisoner and found her faith or something. There was first deemed a problem with the drugs that was deemed corrected as well as interference with the clemency process. A few judges (and Sotomayor without comment) found this of merit but in the end appeals failed.
Overall, my sentiment here is that often we are dealing with the "worse of the worst" and at least one of the others due to be executed soon are reasonably so labeled. This is not what I think should be so labeled especially when she herself did not kill him, the means of killing often a aggravating factor. (Reading over the details, to be fair, the death and disposal of the body was grisly and she had a part in how it was carried out. But, still don't think as a whole she is akin to the worse of the worst on average.) I'm against the death penalty, but if we have it, it should be limited to a select few, including those who can be dangerous in prison. And, I don't think this execution or the threat of it was necessary to prove the crime (from what I can tell). Not that encouraging pleas in these cases with what is after all a sort of coercion lacks its own problems.
The fact a gratutious deprival of life by the state is involved leads me to be more receptive than in other cases of various due process challenges. Did not examine them, but let's grant her claims are not that compelling. Nonetheless, my sentiments would be that even if a few judges did believe so, especially in a case like this, it would be damning. Beyond the death penalty itself being wrong, there continuously tends to be some individual issues such as questions over procedure, the drugs used and so forth. These might not be compelling enough to stop the execution all things considered but they do warrant continual notice. But, the bottom line for me would be she is not a very good choice for execution.
Finally, I am somewhat upset that Breyer and Ginsburg continue to be silent as executions go forward. I wonder, since claims of innocence actually have been raised, if the same will occur during the expected forthcoming execution of Richard Glossip. If her case and so forth are deemed not significantly worse than others, fine, but I cannot be the only one a bit confused at their silence as executions go forward after they said the death penalty was likely unconstitutional. A brief statement (in proper legalese) saying something like "we still think so, but don't have the votes, so do not think repeatedly saying so is warranted" is fine. But, executions have occurred, now with one justice dissenting from denial of a stay. Something like that might be warranted.
Update: Without comment, Breyer alone on record stated he would grant a stay in the Glossip case. Why? If you think a person should not be executed, shouldn't we know why? Anyway, the governor pushed things back to early November to deal with execution protocols that some might have thought were met in June. Innocence concerns still out there.
A third execution, of a serial killer who was the "easiest" case though issues were raised, has just occurred as well (10/1). The state didn't bother to wait for the Supreme Court, including the liberals, to silently reject his final pleas. A bit in bad taste, maybe it will annoy someone to actually say something (questionable), but guess they figured it was just academic. SCOTUS got around to declaring the petition moot without comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!