War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[Quath]

It's interesting how you left out key components of this issue. Like how the government is forcing employers to cover contraception despite the fact that it violates their conscience, or how insurance is meant to only cover unexpected and catastrophic events, or how contraceptives are one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market. War against Women? Give me a break, more like a War against Religious Freedom and Liberty.

It forces Christian Science employers to allow their employees to have blood transfusions. It forces the Amish to allow for automobile ambulances to take their workers to a hospital. It forces white supremacists to allow for any black workers to have same access to the hospital they may be taken from. Basically, it frees the workers from any odd morality constraint of the employer with regards to their health.

[East of Eden]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

That's funny, you talk of the bogus 'War on Women' then proceed to vilify a female governor, Jan Brewer.

Not having the government pay for something doesn't equate with banning it.

How come nobody talks about Obama's gender gap with men?

[Quath]

Some women voted against women's suffrage. A woman can just as easily remove women's rights as a man could. One thing that has always surprised me is that many people vote against their best interest when they think they are voting for their best interest.

The issues are not about banning, but about leading up to a ban. The goal of many of these conservatives is to make things very hard on women to do actions other than those the conservatives think women should do.

Gender gap with men? Not sure what this means? Is this some kind of men's rights thing?

[East of Eden]

Some women voted against women's suffrage. A woman can just as easily remove women's rights as a man could. One thing that has always surprised me is that many people vote against their best interest when they think they are voting for their best interest.

So Gov. Brewer and all the women who voted for her don't know their own interest just because they don't drink the liberal kool-aid?

The issues are not about banning, but about leading up to a ban. The goal of many of these conservatives is to make things very hard on women to do actions other than those the conservatives think women should do.

Most Americans support reasonable abortion restrictions, if that's what you're referring to. We have about the most liberal abortion laws in the world, sad to say.

Gender gap with men? Not sure what this means? Is this some kind of men's rights thing?

Obama trails among men against Romney 42-50. Hasn't the media been talking about this?

/sarcasm off

[WinePusher]

I specifically stated that this new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires (forces) most health insurance plans to cover beneficial preventive services for women. Employers should not interfere with the private health-related decisions made by their employees. Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exempt psychiatric care from their employer-based health care plan? Should a Christian fundie who believe in the power of prayer be allowed to exempt medical treatment of diabetes?

Your analogies are totally off base. Is there a government mandate out there that forces employers to cover psychiatric care and diabetic medications? And you know full well that contraceptives are not only use for preventive healthcare measures, they're used to prevent pregnancies. There are multiple uses for birth control as opposed to things like diabetic medication, which really only has one use.

Would you prefer that, since nearly every employers has private biases, that we do away with employer-based health care and give everyone the option of enrolling in Medicare?

What I would prefer is for insurance companies to compete nationally which would solve this so called 'problem.' If I work for a Catholic institution and they won't cover my birth control pills but I want my insurance to cover birth control, I would simply go to another insurance provider that does cover birth control. But because of the way the law is written, the number of insurance options I can choose from is limited.

Contraception might be one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market, however high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access.[2] Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs. More than half of young adult women say they have not used their contraception as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.[ibid.]

Should all women have access to their preferred method of birth control, or should only wealthy women have this privilege?

It's funny you'd ask that since there are plenty of birth control methods out there, not including contraceptives. If a woman wants to have recreational sex and can't afford contraceptives, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. You are only kidding yourself if you think that this issue is solely about the medical aspect of birth control. Once insurance companies start covering birth control do you really think that women will utilize it only for medical purposes? You really don't think women will use it in order to have recreational sex, which is something religious institutions like the Catholic Church consider morally wrong?

War against Women? Give me a break, more like a War against Religious Freedom and Liberty.

You talk of religious freedom… But you forget that my health care decisions should be free of your religion nonsense. Your liberty ends where my health begins![/quote]

How am I limiting your healthcare decisionmaking freedom by saying that birth control shouldn't be forced into insurance plans by the government? I'm not saying that birth control should be banned, in fact I'm not even saying that insurance plans should never cover birth control. I'm saying that institutions that provide insurance should be able to determine what is included and what isn't included....the horror . Would you still be arguing for this if the government imposed a mandate saying that Catholic Employers had to cover abortions in their insurance plans.

Why is it you want to alter an HMO's business plan in order to fit your definition of what insurance is and specifically in this case health insurance. Why do you insist it makes better business sense for an HMO to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat a heart attack and other such expensive unexpected and catastrophic events instead of treating the patient with simple and cheap procedures which will forestall the heart attack in the first place? Strangely enough I looked through my health plan and not once do they call themselves health insurance, the company which runs my health plan is not a health insurance company it is a health maintenance organization. The government is not forcing employers to cover contraceptives except for the HMO's which considering the positive health aspects contraceptives give to women it is simply good business for them to do so. Why is it I a liberal has to explain to a conservative a good business practice?

Right, so let's get this straight. In Wyvern's world contraception and birth control is the same as heart attack prevention procedures. Fascinating.

As for your HMO nonsense, the contraception mandate doesn't just apply to HMO's. If it did there would be no contreversy because most HMO's are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It applies to all insurance plans and providers.

[nursebenjamin]

Some women voted against women's suffrage. A woman can just as easily remove women's rights as a man could. One thing that has always surprised me is that many people vote against their best interest when they think they are voting for their best interest.

So Gov. Brewer and all the women who voted for her don't know their own interest just because they don't drink the liberal kool-aid?

Many Americans, unfortunately, prefer emotional engagement over reasonable argument. In my opinion ,this is the fault of high religiosity. Having blind faith rewires the brain so that the emotional centers override areas of the brain that deal with reason and logic. And Republicans are quite good at exploiting emotions, stoking irrational fears, finding scapegoats, distorting reality, etc…:

[center]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM9DVC7kd7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrfxymxuyxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH9pIDUshww[/center]

The issues are not about banning, but about leading up to a ban. The goal of many of these conservatives is to make things very hard on women to do actions other than those the conservatives think women should do.

Most Americans support reasonable abortion restrictions, if that's what you're referring to. We have about the most liberal abortion laws in the world, sad to say.

You are mistaken.

"Roe vs. Wade makes early abortion more-or-less a right-- which is in theory a more liberal law than some other first-world countries and many developing countries.

But "on the other hand, the bizarre legal restrictions imposed by states (mandatory ultrasounds, restrictions on clinics, mandatory counseling, parental consent laws and waiting periods) and the threat of anti-abortion terrorism can make it much, much, harder for a woman in the US to actually get an abortion than a woman in much of the industrialized world.

"Furthermore, the US lacks a real public health care system and imposes funding restrictions on abortion that make it hard for low-income women to access, while in most of the industrialized world, and abortion is treated the same way as any other medical procedure.

"As far as I'm aware, the most liberal environments for abortion exist in some Asian and European countries, and especially in Canada."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_i ... s_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Obama trails among men against Romney 42-50. Hasn't the media been talking about this?

Despite the fact that Romney wears magic underwear, this I will still vote for Obama come November.

[East of Eden]

Some women voted against women's suffrage. A woman can just as easily remove women's rights as a man could. One thing that has always surprised me is that many people vote against their best interest when they think they are voting for their best interest.

So Gov. Brewer and all the women who voted for her don't know their own interest just because they don't drink the liberal kool-aid?

Many Americans, unfortunately, prefer emotional engagement over reasonable argument. In my opinion ,this is the fault of high religiosity. Having blind faith rewires the brain so that the emotional centers override areas of the brain that deal with reason and logic.

Who said we have blind faith?

And Republicans are quite good at exploiting emotions, stoking irrational fears, finding scapegoats, distorting reality, etc…

That certainly describes Obama with his class warfare and attacks on evil oil companies.

You are mistaken.

"Roe vs. Wade makes early abortion more-or-less a right-- which is in theory a more liberal law than some other first-world countries and many developing countries.

It is legal to abort here throughout pregnancy, including the barbaric partial birth abortion, which Obama supports. In France abortion is legal through the first 12 weeks, then two doctors must approve for specific reasons. Rather different than here, where abortion is often birth control for lazy women. My father in law is a retired Spanish MD and can't believe the liberal abortion laws in the US.

Despite the fact that Romney wears magic underwear, this I will still vote for Obama come November.

Was that ever in doubt? I'm sure Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright will vote for him also.

Speaking of Obama, here's an article where his former literary editor says he was born in Kenya:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... -a-kenyan/

Why are all the real journalists overseas?

[100%atheist]

Speaking of Obama, here's an article where his former literary editor says he was born in Kenya:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... -a-kenyan/

Why are all the real journalists overseas?

I think one needs to possess quite a bit of blind faith in order to truly believe in this.

[nursebenjamin]

We have about the most liberal abortion laws in the world, sad to say.

You are mistaken.

"Roe vs. Wade makes early abortion more-or-less a right-- which is in theory a more liberal law than some other first-world countries and many developing countries.

It is legal to abort here throughout pregnancy, including the barbaric partial birth abortion, which Obama supports. In France abortion is legal through the first 12 weeks, then two doctors must approve for specific reasons. Rather different than here,

Abortion is legal throughout pregnancy in both countries. In the U.S., states cannot outright ban abortion before an (ambiguous) point of fetal viability.[4] In France abortion is legal on-request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[5] Both countries allow abortion later in pregnancy under certain circumstances, such as to protect the life of the mother or because of severe fetal defects.

It’s interesting that you ignored a key portion of my last post: “the bizarre legal restrictions imposed by states (mandatory ultrasounds, restrictions on clinics, mandatory counseling, parental consent laws and waiting periods) and the threat of anti-abortion terrorism can make it much, much, harder for a woman in the US to actually get an abortion than a woman in much of the industrialized world.

"Furthermore, the US lacks a real public health care system and imposes funding restrictions on abortion that make it hard for low-income women to access, while in most of the industrialized world, and abortion is treated the same way as any other medical procedure.�

France does not have these bizarre legal restrictions, nor the funding restrictions. These restrictions actually make it much harder for women in the U.S. to actually get an abortion compared to women living in much of the industrialized world.

Rather different than here, where abortion is often birth control for lazy women.

What a silly and ignorant thing to say. If you want to discuss abortion, then why don’t you try to figure out the real reasons for why people undergo an abortion? Lazy? There’s fairly good evidence that few women request an abortion without sufficient social, economic, or medical reasons.

My father in law is a retired Spanish MD and can't believe the liberal abortion laws in the US.

Abortion in Spain is currently available on request during the first trimester.[6] As far as I know, there are none of those bizarre legal and funding restrictions.

[nursebenjamin]

Speaking of Obama, here's an article where his former literary editor says he was born in Kenya:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... -a-kenyan/

Why are all the real journalists overseas?

You're a birther? Thank you for providing an excellent example of emotional centers in the brain overriding areas that deal with reason and logic!