Morning Roundup: Feinstein Introduces DOMA Repeal

Michigan and Maryland’s slew of anti-abortion bills, trends in banning insurance coverage of abortion, Arizona voting on race and sex abortion ban, Bobby Franklin says something crazy, and Sen. Feinstein introduces repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

  • Michigan is the latest state to look at banning abortion coverage in insurance plans. Anti-choice activists feel the legislature is willing to advance their agenda, and is also pushing bills that would “change how abortion clinics can dispose of aborted fetuses, ban partial-birth abortions and prohibit minors from seeking a waiver to the parental consent law from a second judge if she’s already been denied once.”
  • A Maryland legislator has introduced a personhood bill that is likely to go nowhere, but other bills recently introduced in that state include emergency transportation requirements from abortion clinics, a rule that abortions started in the state of Maryland must be complete there, unless there is an emergency, new reporting requirements of complications from abortion, and requiring clinics to meet the standards of surgical facilities.
  • The Washington Post has a piece on the recent trend of states banning or attempting to ban abortion coverage in insurance exchanges or in all private health plans.
  • The Arizona Senate is voting on a race and sex abortion ban bill today. The bill has already been approved by the House.
  • Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin (miscarriage-as-murder investigator, rape victims aren’t victims) posted the following on his Facebook page regarding the air strikes in Libya, “This is nothing but pure evil. How would we like it if other countries launched attacks upon these United States because of our regime’s war against the unborn?”  Seriously, why is this guy in office?
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced a bill repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Obama administration recently announced that it would no longer defend the law because it is unconstitutional.

Mar 21

Mar 20

Mar 18

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • beenthere72

    The Bobby Franklin bit got me curious to read his blog.   You’ll find this interesting:



    Anything is germane, unless you are trying to save the life of a prenatal human person. Let me explain. Previously I have written about HB 301, the dog fighting bill. Well last week a House committee considered the Senate’s version of felony dog fighting, SB 16. The senator who proposed SB 16 testified that he got interested in the whole dog fighting issue when a pit bull that was being trained for fighting had gotten loose and ate a small child in the senator’s neighborhood. In other words, he proposed SB 16 in an effort to save helpless, innocent human life.

    So I made a motion to pass SB 16 by substitute with the new language for HB 1, my Georgia Life at Conception Act, since HB 1 is also designed to save helpless, innocent human life. The chairman ruled that my substitute was not germane to the original bill. So I did something unheard of; I appealed his ruling. Unfortunately, the vote was 4-7 and prenatal murder still goes unpunished here in Georgia.

  • arekushieru

    Unfortunately, he doesn’t equate a pregnant woman with a helpless, ACTually innocent human life.  So typical.  Wonder when he’ll realize that by calling abortion murder, you call the death penalty murder?

  • plume-assassine

    What a f—ing nutcase. I’m sure Bobby Franklin would enjoy being a “forensic vagina inspector” in El Salvador. I hope our country never turns into his fascist wet dream of imprisoning millions of women and forcing us into involuntary servitude.

  • beenthere72

    He mentions the ‘slaughter of the unborn’ in just about every journal posting.   And he is the sole ‘nay’-er on so many pieces of legislation.  Ugh, and his bible references! 


    Forgetting the Biblical jurisdiction that God gave to the civil government…


    … the state’s involvement in Medicaid unconstitutional it is also unGodly.


    The last time I checked, I could not find any Biblical role of the civil government in the function of tourism, agricultural or otherwise.


    First, individuals do not have any natural rights — which transitions to the second point: rights are given by God and are not privileges handed out by the state. It is very dangerous when those elected to office begin to believe and govern as if the State is God.


    Since a lawful calling is a right granted by God, the civil government does not have any jurisdiction to limit that calling with a licensing scheme.


    I didn’t know until today that the words ‘under God’ were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the early 50s.    My looking up separation of church and state on wiki led me to that fun fact


  • plume-assassine

    I seriously don’t understand how anyone in public office is incapable of grasping that the United States of America is NOT a Christian theocracy and never was. Haven’t they ever read the Constitution? The Treaty of Tripoli? Studied the philosophy of the Founding Fathers? You would think that they would’ve had some interest in these things since they are in government… but apparently not. Or were they all just home schooled?


    I didn’t know until today that the words ‘under God’ were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the early 50s.   

    I always felt that it was wrong to have that in the pledge, so around high school I refused to stand up and say it with my classmates out of protest. For some reason, this caused a big stink and really offended my teacher who had a “talk” with me about respecting the military and then complained to the principal about me. They were threatening me with disciplinary action but everything stopped when I mentioned involving the ACLU.

  • therealistmom

    Actually, she found the same rulings I did! My oldest had never been given grief  for not saying the Pledge until this year, when her homeroom teacher insisted, or at the very least that she  had to stand up. The ACLU brief from our state specifically noted that even requiring students to stand was not permissable, as it was basically infringing on their right to peacefully refuse to acknowledge the wording. It didn’t come to a facedown with the teacher, thankfully, after that first day it was left to drop, I think because the teacher was aware that she would be found wrong if anyone looked it up.

  • plume-assassine

    Good for you and your daughter! :)  That is also the same wording that we found when we looked at the ACLU website.

    I think because the teacher was aware that she would be found wrong if anyone looked it up.

    Yes, I think the type of people who throw a stink about kids saying the pledge are also hoping that you don’t really know your rights or that maybe they’ll shame you into participating, lest you look like someone who “hates their country.” I think that civil disobedience and peaceful protest are some of the best ways to show that you care about your country and care about freedom.