With nearly 50% of the votes in for the Iowa caucus, it’s clear that Gingrich’s refined – and newly stricter – stance on abortion just before the caucus didn’t help him garner support. At 10:30pm EST, coverage reporting 49% of the vote show a three-way tie between Romney (24%), Santorum (24%), and Paul (22%). It was reported that 46% of those predicted to caucus identified as “born again” or Evangelical.

Newt Gingrich has had a more “liberal” stance on a woman’s right to choose than the other candidates throughout the campaign, supporting exceptions be made in instances of rape and incest. However, when asked yesterday about his pro-life stance and his willingness to make exceptions, Gingrich replied,

No, I wouldn’t make exceptions.

Gingrich follows the tied pack of frontrunners with 13% of caucus support in reporting precincts – something that indicates his recent radicalization may not have made the difference he predicted.

Update: Now at 10:50pm EST, Romney leads with 25% of caucus support followed closely by Santorum (24%). Paul has fallen behind with 21% of support. Nearly 80% of precincts are reporting. Gingrich stays fourth with 13%.

Siri, the iPhone app turned personal assistant, can help you with that.  How about making a plane reservation?  Got it.  She can schedule a meeting and make a phone call.

Siri’s also great for some non-traditional, personal assistant tasks – score some pot, pick up Viagra, even dump a dead body.  Siri’s got the answers.

Except if you ask about abortion.  Or birth control.  Or emergency contraceptives.  Or a mammogram.  Or for help after being raped.

Siri stirred up quite the controversy this week when users started reporting that Siri was less than helpful when trying to access any of these resources.  Check out some of these responses.

Jill: I need contraception.
Siri : I don’t understand ‘I need contraception.’”

Amaditalks: I was raped.
Siri: Is that so?

Q: I need birth control. Where can I go for birth control?
Siri: I didn’t find any birth control clinics.” [This was repeated every time I asked about birth control, all three times. This is also the answer given when I asked, “What is birth control?”]

When users asked Siri to help them find abortion providers, she responded back either with no results or with crisis pregnancy centers – pro-life organizations that disguise as reproductive health clinics in order to deter women from getting care.

In fact, pro-life groups have praised Siri for her oversights.

The controversy has elicited an apology from Apple, which attributed the problem to a tech glitch.

However, one writer put out another explanation:

I am not under the impression that Apple is anti-choice or that they’re out to screw over women. I think they’re just reliant on too many dude programmers.

With a paucity of female programmers, this explanation could be pretty likely.  Another commentator for Forbes further explains the problem.

The problem isn’t that anyone involved with this hates women. The problem is that they just don’t think about women very much. Siri’s programmers clearly imagined a straight male user as their ideal and neglected to remember the nearly half of iPhone users who are female.

What do you think?  Is Siri sexist?

Image from Philly Voices for Life

In Dr Suess’ cartoon “Horton Hears a Who” the kindly elephant Horton is known for saying:

“a person’s a person,no matter how small“

Now there are some in America that want to make that cartoon quote a law

A so-called “Personhood Amendment” was a recent ballot initiative that would have amended Mississippi’s state constitution to declare that personhood begins at fertilization.

This measure would – as proponents intended – cause legal conflict with the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a woman’s right to reproductive choice.

However, concerns were also raised about what a personhood amendment would mean for certain kinds of birth control, for women who have miscarriages, and for in-vitro fertilization.

Apparently these concerns resonated with Mississippi voters who rejected the ballot initiative by over 55 percent.  However, the personhood movement is still alive and spreading.

Virginia: Introduced on November 21st by state Republican Delegate Robert Marshall.  Attempts to include language that protects “a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child” and fertility treatments.  As Colorlines eloquently puts it, “Phew. That’s a relief. Not.”

Georgia: State Democrat Delegate Rick Crawford and Georgia Right To Life President Dan Becker are working on the language of a Georgia personhood bill that would avoid the vagueness that they think was the downfall of Mississippi’s attempt (you know, ignoring the fact that perhaps voters just didn’t think constitutionally prioritizing a bundle of cells over a woman’s life was the smartest move).  As reported by the Huffington Post,

Becker said Georgia’s latest version of personhood would only ban the methods of birth control, stem cell research and in vitro fertilization that would kill a zygote.

As if the use of the word zygote wasn’t hint enough…

Wisconsin: Republican state legislators are attempting to amend the state constitution to protect all the zygotes by changing the clause stating that “all people are born equally free and independent” to “all people are equally free and independent.”  That whole birthing thing is really just a technicality.

Colorado: Personhood USA has filed to amend include that the right to life ““applies equally to all innocent persons” and “the intentional killing of any innocent person is prohibited.”  The organization says that this amendment clarifies any confusion about their intentions.  Obviously they intend to prohibit abortion and legalize revenge killings.  Duh.

At least 8 other states have introduced similar propositions and 3 bill have been introduced in Congress.  The political fad of 2012 seems like it might be personhood.  Let’s hope voters across the country have the same sense as those of Mississippi.

Image from Flickr

Across the country, there is a not-so-secret war brewing over a once settled issue…

Abortion.

Members of the decidedly pro-life Republican Party are mobilizing. Their goal is to restrict or deny a woman’s right to choose. Unfortunately for them, their goal remains elusive.

In Kansas, a new state budget barred Planned Parenthood from any of the state’s federal funding. On Tuesday, a judge ordered the state to resume payments immediately. (To be clear, Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds to pay for abortions.)

Also this week, a judge in Texas blocked parts of a law that would require women to go through a sonogram before an abortion, a tactic used to make them rethink their decision.

Considering abortion was made legal in 1973, should opponents abort their mission?

Image Thanks to the BBC!

Minnesota’s state government shuts down…and not just for the holiday weekend.

Saved by the bell…I mean, by the judge!  Kansas judge blocks new abortion clinic regulations.

Terminating the Terminator: Maria Shriver files for divorce.

It’s alive!!!  The Oxford Comma, that is.

Watch out, New Jersey!  You’ve got a baboon on the loose!

Photo courtesy of forbes.com

When was the last time you drove through Alamogordo, N.M.?

Where is Alamogordo, you may ask? It is smack in the middle of a big fight.

The above billboard, showing New Mexico man Greg Fultz holding the outline of a baby, graces a main street of booming Alamogordo.

Mr Fultz’s is clearly quite upset with his ex-girlfriend, claiming she terminated the pregnancy of a child they conceived together.

His ex, in turn has brought Fultz to court on charges of harassment and invasion of privacy.

According to the Huffington Post, Fultz’s attorney, Todd Holmes, defended the billboard, stating,

“As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech.”

The message of the billboard has also been called into question. Friends of the ex-girlfriend have claimed she suffered a miscarriage, not an abortion.

But for Ellen Jensen, the lawyer of Fultz’s ex-girlfriend, the question of abortion or miscarriage is irrelevant, but the invasion of privacy and the emotional distress caused by the billboard are unacceptable,

“Nobody is stopping him from talking about father’s rights. … but a person can’t invade someone’s private life.”

Supposed this happened to you… would you mind having your personal business plastered over a giant billboard in your hometown?

Image Courtesy of WikiCommons and the Library of Congress.

Mommy’s gonna knock your block off…

Forget brunch. Sports promoters in a Peruvian city are honoring its mothers by inviting them to slip on gloves and head protectors and try to punch each others’ lights out.

Split Personality… Obama proposes to split the agency that oversees offshore drilling.

Beware the sleeper issue of… Abortion. No, really. Not many people are talking about it. Seriously.

CBS is kicking this age-old adage through the uprights and throwing caution to the wind.

In a move that will be sure fan the flames (are we using enough metaphors here) of the proverbial “culture wars,” the network approved the airing of a controversial pro-life (or is it anti-abortion?) Super Bowl ad. The ad features the Heisman Trophy-winning Tim Tebow, and his mother Pam Tebow.
Hut! Hut!

ABC News gives us the overhead coverage on the pro-life plug…

Paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, the ad tells the story of Bob and Pam Tebow, who was pregnant with their fifth child when the couple travelled to the Philippines on a missionary trip.

As you can image, some people aren’t please with the networks call. WaPo keeps us in the know…

After learning of the ad late Monday, Women’s Media Center (speaking on behalf of the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation and other organizations) asked CBS to pull the ad. It also questioned how and why the network, which used to forbid “advocacy” advertising

Tim Rutten at the LA Times is saying this isn’t the time or the place for anything but football…

Whatever its motives, CBS has made a bad call…You don’t talk politics at the Thanksgiving table, and you really ought to be able to watch a football game without being confronted with another person’s views on abortion…

Meanwhile the NYTimes Editorial says any censorship is worrysome…

CBS was right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates…viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.

William Saletan from Slate says this ad has a “grisly” truth behind it…

Pam’s story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it’s misleading…Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses.

Also at Slate, Jason Fagone says Tebow is all about making his Christian message. He regrets not asking the college QB star religious questions earlier…

After all, it can’t be much fun to be a culture warrior if the opposing culture is constantly wimping out, denying you a chance to show your true mettle. Grind him, test him—he’s ready.

Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman says the Pro-Choicers could learn a thing or two…

Instead of trying to block or criticize the Focus on the Family ad, the pro-choice movement needs its own Super Bowl strategy. People want to be inspired, and abortion is as tough and courageous a decision as is the decision to continue a pregnancy.

HuffPost is going so far as to cry foul…

A commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam that is likely to air during Super Bowl XLIV may be rife with inaccuracies, according to power lawyer Gloria Allred

Get in on the debate at The Fifth Down at the NYTimes…

Should a network allow an issue ad during the Super Bowl? That’s the debate topic of the day at the Fifth Down. (We’ll talk football most of the rest of the week, promise.)

But we here at USDemocrazy want to know what YOU think?

Senator Nelson will make us all smile if Health care is sorted out

For months and months and months and MONTHS, the nation has suffered through a never-ending health care debate.

Thankfully, we at USDemocrazy have decent health coverage. This is fortunate as we are suffering from aneurysms, ulcers, night sweats, strokes, and convulsions (due in large part to our general lack of exercise, caused by our non-stop monitoring of the health care debate).

But today, we can boldly announce there might be a tentative chance of an unconfirmed possibility that the Health care debate will (kinda/sorta/maybe)  be all over!

Yes! The news of the day is if the Senate stays on its current track they will pass health care legislation by Christmas! Hooray!

But that’s not the end. (you really thought this was going to end?)

The Senate bill has to be reconciled (ie, merged) with a previous version passed by the the House of Representatives. This can be tricky.  If the House tries to liberalize the merged bill, conservative Dems in the Senate might withdraw their support. Then we’ll be back to square one.

To get the bill out of Santa’s workshop and wrapped up by Christmas will require the support of either Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, or Republican Olympia Snowe.

However, neither is anxious to jump on board.

Nelson’s objection centers on abortion, while Snowe claims she will not have enough time to read the bill (maybe we should pitch in and get her hooked on phonics to help out).

Of course, this is all assuming the liberal members of Congress do not abandon the bill. They are angry over the many compromises concessions that have been in order to win over conservative Democrats.

So with all the sincerity we can muster USDemocrazy would like to make a Christmas wish.

Please, Congress… Solve Health Care… then you can move on to the next divisive, partisan, and ultimately nauseating topic to endlessly debate.

Courtesy of Google Images

Why the gift of a HUMAN BRAIN is driving scientists simply wild!

The Catholic Church is writing an amendment to the Health Care Reform Bill?!? Why the issue of abortion might be a bigger road block than public option…

Let’s get pumped for Copenhagen and practice BOYCOTT “Going Green” ! Read why one columnist thinks “Going Green” is actually hurting our efforts to save Mother Earth!