Author Archives: ProgressiveCowgirl

Robert Bork’s nomination to the US Supreme Court was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42 in 1987, before I was born. Until today, I’d never heard his name, much less been aware that Time called him “one of history’s most controversial Supreme Court nominees.

Today, I stumbled across RomneyCourt.com and saw the frightening claim that Romney would receive help picking Supreme Court justices from a judge who “ruled that a corporation is free to tell women to be sterilized or be fired.”

“That’s obviously an exaggeration,” said I, wisely, and rode forth to The Google. To The Google I did submit the query: Robert Bork sterilization women employees. The Google intoned:

In 1978, the plant instituted a “fetal protection policy” which barred all unsterilized women between the ages of sixteen and fifty from working with twenty-eight of the twenty-nine chemicals used at the plant; the chemical with which women were allowed to work was lead, and eventually the company offered women workers in that division the option of sterilization if they wanted to keep their jobs.  Five women had the surgery done in Parkersburg.

….

The union’s case ended up before federal judge Robert Bork, who, in 1984, found in favor of the company. Bork ruled the fetal protection policy wasn’t hazardous because the women had the option of surgical sterilization. The civil rights case was dropped after 3 1/2 years of pre-trial proceedings. In 1983, the women accepted a settlement from the company.

I asked The Google, “Really?” and The Google, in its infinite wisdom, did highlight the reliability of the source, with its prized .edu domain. Defeated, I faced the truth: It wasn’t a left-wing talking point. A chairman of Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee really does think it’s okay for corporations to tell women to be sterilized or be fired.

Your uterus: Now your employer’s property, unless you’d rather be unemployed and exist as a “welfare queen,” in the parlance of Reagan, who nominated Bork to the Supreme Court.

And it doesn’t end there.

From the New York Times, circa 1987:

In 1963 and 1964, as a 36-year-old law professor, Mr. Bork wrote impassioned attacks on legislation to desegregate lunch counters and other public accommodations. He argued that the bill, by invading the liberty of proprietors to turn away blacks, was based on ”a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.” Not until 1973, when seeking Senate confirmation as Solicitor General, did he publicly renounce this view, stated with such unsurpassed surliness.

….

Not until two weeks ago did Judge Bork accept the Supreme Court’s gradual, belated extension of equal protection to women. As recently as June 10, just before his nomination, he told an interviewer that he thought the 14th Amendment, which covers all persons, ”should have been kept to things like race and ethnicity” and not extended to women. Judge Bork’s conversion on a subject of such importance came so late that it’s hard to know how seriously to take it.

After the initial shock wore off, a realization came over me: I was born right when America started assuming by default that women have rights. Had Bork been nominated a decade earlier, even the Times might not have objected so much to his views on women. In fact, it wasn’t until after my birth that the Court righted Bork’s wrong–and after five women became permanently unable to themselves give birth as a result of Bork’s decision:

The 1991 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared fetal protection policies to be a violation of CIVIL RIGHTS laws came too late for five women from West Virginia who were forced by their employer to choose between undergoing a sterilization procedure to avoid health risks associated with their higher paying jobs, remaining fertile but moving to lower paying jobs, or quitting their jobs altogether (International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 111 S. Ct. 1196, 113 L. Ed. 2d 158 [1991]). The women worked at an American Cyanamid factory in Willow Island, a poor region where decent-paying jobs were scarce. They were all among the first women to work in these factories, which, before 1974, had employed only men.

We may not be equal today. We may be fighting yet another personhood amendment–one which would likely bring “fetal protection policies” back to conservative workplaces, since without abortion or even many common methods of birth control, only sterilization could prevent a woman from unknowingly harming a “person” inside her body–but we are more equal than we were. Wage gap (and “yes, Virginia, there is a gender wage gap“) aside, we can generally work in the fields we prefer. The glass ceiling is thinner than it was. 40% of the CEOs I’ve worked under in my lifetime have been women. It is generally assumed that women have rights.

And this is, pardon my French, a recent fucking development.

And Mitt Romney isn’t on board with it. Neither is the guy who’d be picking his justices.

I’ve known for a long time that we can’t take reproductive rights for granted; even if I hadn’t, the last year’s worth of legislation would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I think this is the first time it’s really hit me that we can’t even take being considered persons (unlike fetuses, of course!) for granted.

I’m reading a mystery series currently, one which was written over a period of more than 30 years, following its main character from the 1950s to 1980s. In the first few books, women’s rights aren’t addressed; wives keep house and cook with no complaint. In the 1960s, they begin to agitate for “women’s lib,” but the author carefully constructs scenes in which the “women’s libbers” express irrational, hysterical anger and are shut down by coolly logical men. By the 1970s the main character begins to become sympathetic, even calling women “Ms.” instead of “miss” or “Mrs.”, but continues to mock the idea that the special privileges of women (like their absence from dangerous industries) are in any way sexist, believing instead that these special favors are offered by men to compensate women for their misfortune in being born female in a society where the lives of men are generally easier. It’s not until the last few books that the detective really comes around and begins treating women like he treats men. He includes them in intellectual conversations, and at one point is employed by one. (Granted, she turns out to be a murderess, but you can’t have everything.)

I’m enjoying the books, but complained peevishly to a friend, “He sure doesn’t seem to like women much!” then amended it to, “Well, he has yet to include a female character who has any interests aside from her husband and children.” My friend–substantially older than myself–pointed out with a chuckle that the author is recording an era in which women were not expected to have interests apart from their husbands and children.

What a dull, miserable life that would be. Who would I be if I hadn’t started a job I loved when I was 19, barely out of high school? Who would I be if I hadn’t grown up fearlessly scolding Governors and Congressmen for the standardized testing that annoyed me in elementary school? What in the world would I do with myself all day, staring at four walls and occasionally scrubbing them, if my parents hadn’t expected me to get an education?

This year, I’m as old as my mother was when I was born.

She is a member of the first generation to benefit from women’s lib. She went to college and started a business. Yet, for her, those rights were new. If she’d worked for anyone other than herself, she would have encountered glass ceilings. When my mother heard her mother-in-law recount the discrimination that venerable lady faced as a woman attending college even though she had children to think of (gasp!), that was less a galling historical anecdote than something she nervously hoped she wouldn’t face after giving birth to me.

I am a member of the first generation never to wonder if we’re really as good as men. I am a member of the first generation to grow up expecting to fulfill our educational and career aspirations with no significant interference based on gender. That’s not to say I haven’t run into sexism or suffered as a result of it–I have–but it’s never thrown me off track in pursuing my ambitions, nor have I ever been seriously worried that it would. Misogyny is a nuisance, not a real factor in my everyday life.

Mitt Romney and Robert Bork could, quite feasibly, not just turn the clock back to my mother’s world, but turn it back to the world of my grandmother, where a woman in college is expected to pursue her Mrs., not her PhD. Where a woman’s interests ought to be limited to husband and children, but a little job on the side to keep her busy is all right, if her husband approves and it doesn’t endanger any fetuses or any hypothetical future fetuses.

This isn’t an exaggeration. It’s a real threat, and one that was only recently beaten back. For most of my life, it’s been socially unacceptable to suggest that women are perpetually pre-pregnant incubator units. Suddenly, the ghosts of sexism past have risen, and they’re running for President–freely, with very little interference from the same public that so vehemently rejected Bork in 1987.

People older than me: What the hell is going on? Where did our progress go? Has my entire lifetime been a brief period of female freedom and prosperity that is about to end?

People my age: If you need convincing that it’s time to wake up, I’ve got a mystery series to lend you. Let’s get the fuck out on the streets and make Robert Bork a household name again, before Mitt Romney does that for us by nominating one of Bork’s suggested justices to the court that will, in the next few years, be revisiting the question of whether or not slightly more than 50% of us are allowed to live as free, equal human beings.

Full story: Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee Chairman a Chilling Reminder for Women

Chevron’s refinery in Richmond, CA, caught fire last night, forcing area residents to “shelter in place” and sending dozens to hospitals with smoke inhalation. According to the local news affiliate:

The fire started at the refinery’s “4 Crude Unit” at 6:15 p.m. Monday, according to a statement from Chevron. The company said a small leak in the diesel processing unit grew and caught fire.

A shot time later, at least two steady eruptions of flame were visible from CBS 5 cameras. A pair of thick plumes of smoke were also rising into the skies of the East Bay well into the night.

Refinery officials were quick to apologize for “inconveniencing our neighbors.” Meanwhile, a midnight deadline expired for Chevron to pay $19 billion in damages to Ecuador for environmental damages in the Amazon region.

Oil prices are expected to rise as a consequence of the refinery fire, although Chevron will presumably continue to earn $85 million per day in profits (not gross earnings, profits) — an amount which could pay many times over for the hospital treatment of Bay Area residents suffering from smoke inhalation, but which presumably won’t.

Meanwhile, Mitt Rommey continues to explain to wind energy supporters in his own party why wind energy tax credits are really dangerous to America. Because, you see, the free market should be allowed to pick the winners in the energy wars. And if a few grandmothers with lung disease in the Bay Area are losers? Well, you can’t make a free market without killing a few 99%ers.

Full story: Thank Goodness Mitt Romney Opposes Wind Energy!

When Republican candidates aren’t failing kindergarten math in their lit, they’re failing first grade English by using implied three-letter cuss words to sling mud at, ironically, one of the most eloquent Democrats in the legislature. Observe:

That’s a mailer from Brian Watson, the Republican opposing Democratic incumbent Representative Daniel Kagan, running in the brand-new HD3. Watson, a political novice whose website is long on buzzwords like “accountability” and “transparency” but hasn’t published a single concrete policy proposal (how transparent of him!), seems to have nothing to say about Kagan that can be said to your grandmother or in church. That’s probably because there’s really nothing to attack Daniel on, even if you’re a desperate Republican newcomer.

Pretty much the same point, in Kagan’s own words, after the fold:

An email from Kagan responded to the slimy mailer:

I am saddened that my opponent has chosen to begin his campaign with name-calling. We have come to expect divisive, ugly politics from Washington DC, but that’s not the way we do things in Colorado.

I was proud last year to receive support from members of both parties to pass the “Skills for Jobs Act”, legislation which will help Coloradans have access to the skills that will lead to high paying jobs. I believe in Colorado. We have a great future ahead of us if we put politics aside, work together, and solve the very real problems Colorado families are facing.

Name-calling and game playing by ambitious politicians is the wrong recipe for our future. As your state representative, I believe that we can work together to address the challenges facing our families. I have been proud to serve my district for four years, and with your support, I promise to continue solving roblems, improving education, and fostering innovation to strengthen our economy. Together, we can make Colorado the best place to live, work and raise our families.

During my four years in the Colorado House, I have been proud to be part of a legislature that holds itself to a higher standard. I am more interested in solving problems than playing politics. That’s why I entered the Colorado House – because the families of our community deserve real leadership, not petty name calling.

Wash that mouth out with soap, Brian Watson, and call Dan Kagan back when you’ve got something interesting to debate. Meanwhile, Colorado voters can regale themselves with fascinating, informative statements like this one, from Watson’s website:

Brian Watson will work to remove government red tape and give employers some breathing room to create new, well-paying jobs.

Compare to Kagan’s policy statement on the same issue:

Instead of catering to big corporations, Daniel is looking out for you. He closed corporate loopholes that benefit wealthy special interests, and passed legislation holding government accountable. He also championed legislation that is projected to create 23,000 clean energy jobs. [HB10-1001; HB10-1119; HB10-1189]

Brian Watson: Platitudes and mudslinging from the peanut gallery.

Daniel Kagan: Actual legislative accomplishments, and numbers to go with them.

Shouldn’t be a tough choice for voters, even with reapportionment adding a hefty chunk of Republicans to Kagan’s territory.

Full story: Next Up in the 2012 Class of Horrible Republican Lit

Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that Mitt Romney was a key player in Bain Capital’s decision to invest in Stericycle, a company that disposes of medical waste, including aborted fetuses and the bodies of animals used for medical testing. Stericycle is a favorite target of pro-life protesters, prompting boycotts related to their operations as recently as this February.

Bain Capital previously denied that Romney was involved in the Stericycle investment, according to Mother Jones:

Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate’s reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.

But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission-and obtained by Mother Jones-list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents-one of which was signed by Romney-also contradict the official account of Romney’s exit from Bain.

Exactly HOW those fetuses were sometimes disposed of, and why it’ll turn conservative activists’ stomachs, after the jump.

Stericycle describes its services in appropriately vague and sanitized terms on its own website, but various other sources paint a clearer picture. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for instance, hires Stericycle to incinerate animal carcasses following their use for various forms of medical research. Even more disturbingly, Stericycle was fined by the state of Texas for dumping aborted fetuses in a landfill, in violation of state codes. Specifically, Stericycle:

Failed to dispose of pathological waste according to approved methods of treatment and disposition, in violation of 30 TEx. ADMIN. CODE § 33o.1219Q,)(3), as documented during an investigation conducted on May 12, 2011. Specifically, the Respondent allowed pathological waste, including fetuses, to be  treated by steam disinfection treatment followed by deposition in a municipal solid waste  landfill.

(emphasis mine)

So, Romney’s signature is on documents relating to Bain Capital’s investment in a company that dumps aborted fetuses in municipal solid waste landfills. At the time, Romney was more sympathetic toward pro-choice views than he is now that he’s running for President at a time when there’s a “War on Women” going on around the country. Occam’s Razor dictates that the most acceptable explanation is the obvious one: Romney, tasked with making as much money as possible for Bain Capital, signed off on an investment that he viewed as potentially lucrative and morally acceptable.

The question is, will socially conservative voters see it that way when Romney makes his campaign stops, ostensibly as a pro-life candidate, this fall? Or will it strike a sour note with pro-life activists to see the GOP nominee touch down in their hometowns to stump for his campaign, when they’ve seen Stericycle trucks stop at the very clinics they picket? Let’s be clear: Bain Capital helped Stericyle make a whole lot of money. Bain made a lot of money on the deal. And Romney could have called it off:

Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds “voting and dispositive power” with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?

I don’t have a problem with a privately held capital firm investing in a business that does the the necessary dirty work of disposing of medical waste. However, pro-life voters who use abortion opposition as a litmus test almost certainly will be troubled by Romney’s decision to continue Bain’s investment in a company that trashes human fetuses is municipal landfills.

As for voters who don’t use abortion as a litmus test, there’s the little matter of Stericycle’s safety record and its unfortunate habit of spreading lethal diseases around:

In 1991, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited its Arkansas operation for 11 workplace safety violations. The facility had not provided employees with sufficient protective gear, and it had kept body parts, fetuses, and dead experimental animals in unmarked storage containers, placing workers at risk. In 1995, Stericycle was fined $3.3 million-later decreased to $800,000-by Rhode Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at its medical-waste treatment facility in Woonsocket. Two years later, workers at another of its medical-waste processing plants in Morton, Washington, were exposed to tuberculosis. In 2002 and 2003-after Bain and its partners had bought their major interest in the firm-Stericycle reached settlements with the attorneys general in Arizona and Utah after it was accused of violating antitrust laws. It paid Arizona $320,000 in civil penalties and lawyers’ fees, and paid Utah $580,000.

We all know that Romney was okay with abortion before he was against it, but conservative values voters should ask him why he let Bain lie about his involvement in the Stericycle deal, and how he feels about his role in generating big profits for a company known to place human fetal remains in landfills alongside household and industrial trash. Even as a pro-choice activist myself, I don’t feel that’s a fitting end for something that once had the potential for human life. Stericycle itself provides a more respectful disposal method for animal carcasses.

Full story: Romney Against Women’s Right to Choose, but for Profiting from Aborted Fetus Disposal

Members of the Colorado Republican Party will demonstrate their accessibility to and compassion for the American middle class this Thursday, June 28, with a miniature golf tournament featuring Speaker Frank McNulty and other House Republicans.

The Republican representatives in attendance, whose time, attention, and votes cannot be bought for any price, will play on your miniature golf team for just $10,000. For just $1,000, you can mingle with these defenders of the working man over barbecue food and cocktails. Golf, however, costs at least $5,000 (two entries), a small sum considering the opportunity offered to share what’s on your mind with the folks responsible for defending the working family from the Democratic Party’s destructive agenda of offering workers living wages and the right to bargain collectively.

More details on how you can see for yourselves that Republicans just can’t be bought, after the jump:

Demonstrating Republicans’ commitment to individual rights, the event will offer corporate persons various sponsorship options, ranging from $2,500 to $25,000. These options all include the featuring of a corporate person’s logo in various official materials–or would have, had they not announced the event in an email dated June 26th and carrying the following fine print:

*Logo’s must be received no later than June 25th to be included

Here, the misuse of an apostrophe demonstrates that Republicans aren’t elitists, like those awful Democrats. Only liberal snobs use possessive forms correctly. Ordinary everyday people like Republicans can’t be bothered with elitist socialist grammar. They’re too busy exercising their right to the pursuit of happiness on a golf course, and you, too, can join them, for just a measly ten grand. Cut back on the caviar for a month or two if you must, but don’t miss this exciting event supporting the party of the working American!

Full details follow:

Mini Golf Majority Challenge

Join Speaker Frank McNulty and members of the House Republican Caucus for the best golf tournament of the year.   (ONLY 18 teams available!)  For those of you interested in networking and having a burger or brat hot off the grill, join us beginning at 4:30pm.  

We look forward to seeing you!!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Adventure Golf and Raceway

9650 North Sheridan

Westminster, CO 80031

3:30 pm            Team sponsors and golf participants meet at the Adventure Golf

                        Adventure Club Room

3:45 pm            Miniature Golf Tournament PROMPTLY Begins

4:30 pm            BBQ and Cocktails Begin

5:30 pm            Awards and Remarks

For questions and to RSVP please email Julie Herrmann at julie@julieherrmann.net

or call 720-217-7846

********************

As a 527, the Colorado Leadership Fund accepts Corporate, LLC, LP, PAC and individual checks.  Contributions are NOT tax deductible.

You can bring your checks with you or send your checks in advance to:

Colorado Leadership Fund

PO Box 238, Denver, CO 80201

Make checks payable to: Colorado Leadership Fund, Tax ID# 84-1664434

Or, you may go to www.coloradoleadershipfund.comto make your contribution on line.

***********************

2012 Summer Sponsor Levels

2012  Event Title Sponsor

Logo on Welcome Sign at Tent entrance *

Logo at Entryway of miniature golf course *

Verbal recognition during awards ceremony

Corporate Sponsor Entry for Speakers Club, 2012-2013

One Golf Team – 3 people to golf with Speaker Frank McNulty **

Team Picture with House Leadership

6 entries into Cocktails and BBQ

$25,000

Logo at Entry of Miniature golf course *

Logo on signage at BBQ and Cocktails *

Verbal recognition during awards ceremony

One Golf Team – 3 people to golf with a member of leadership

Team Picture with House Leadership

5 entries into Cocktails and BBQ

$10,000

Logo on signage at BBQ and Cocktails *

Logo at One Hole of 18 hole golf course *

Verbal recognition during Awards Ceremony

One Golf Team – 3 people to golf with a member of the House

4 entries into Cocktails and BBQ

$5,000

Logo on signage at BBQ and Cocktails *

Logo at One Hole of 18 hole golf course *

2 entries to play golf AND into Cocktails and BBQ

$2,500

Logo on signage at BBQ and Cocktails *

Two entries into BBQ and Cocktails

$1,000 – Personal Contribution Level ONLY

One person entry into BBQ and Cocktails

*Logo’s must be received no later than June 25th to be included

**First Company to Commit to Sponsor Level

You may notice that “event title sponsor” doesn’t have a price listed. If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

….Okay, I blogged about one of your events, now will whoever is adding me to Republican email lists please knock it off already? I’ve gotten two invitations to meet Mitt Romney in Florida this month! I don’t even LIVE there!

Full story: Golf with a House Republican for Just ,000!

(crossposting from Jeffco Pols)

Democratic challenger Tracy Kraft-Tharp has blown incumbent Representative Robert Ramirez (R-29) out of the water in fundraising, surpassing the incumbent’s 2010 fundraising total with more than four months left to go in the campaign. Keep in mind that Ramirez unseated a Democratic incumbent, Debbie Benefield, in 2010. If Kraft-Tharp has already raised more than Ramirez needed to win against an incumbent in the last election cycle, could anything short of an act of God keep Ramirez in his seat for 2012?

The press release just gets uglier for the Ramirez campaign:

In just the latest two-week reporting period, Kraft-Tharp more than quintupled the $1,038 Ramirez raised over the same period with over $5,000 raised. Kraft-Tharp also has more than a two-to-one cash on hand advantage.

With a fragile one-seat House majority, Republicans should be sweating bullets. In her first campaign, newcomer Kraft-Tharp has already drawn rave reviews and big endorsements. Her respectable cash flow is a symptom of her success, not its root, as anyone who’s seen Tracy canvass can testify.

I’ve volunteered for most of the Democrats running in Jeffco, and Kraft-Tharp is especially impressive in nearly every area important for electoral success. She connects at the door; she works hard; she makes the right hiring decisions for her campaign; she thinks before she speaks; and she makes anyone who gets involved with her campaign feel truly appreciated and heard. The ability to convey a sense of ownership in a political campaign to hundreds of supporters is something that can’t be bought or taught.

Call those interest groups and issue committees, Republicans, because if you don’t stop Tracy Kraft-Tharp in this campaign, you’re going to have  another Perlmutter on your hands: A popular incumbent who knows everyone in their district and dismantles one of your “rising stars” every two years like clockwork.

[Added disclaimer: I know Tracy. I like Tracy. I also know and like most every other Democratic candidate in the area. Tracy does not pay me to do anything for her campaign and my only volunteer role involves knocking on doors, which I also do for numerous other candidates.]

Full story: Tracy Kraft-Tharp Eclipses Ramirez’s 2010 Fundraising and It’s Only June

When Weird Al Yankovic sings, “I Love Rocky Road,” that’s satire.

When Lord Dark Helmet crotch-zaps someone, that’s satire.

When Hustler Magazine punishes S.E. Cupp for being both an attractive woman and opinionated by putting a Photoshopped penis in her mouth in their magazine, that might be protected as satire, under Larry Flynt’s famous Supreme Court ruling, but it is–”satire” or not–an example of unacceptable, misogynist sexual shaming of an outspoken woman. S.E. Cupp’s opinions may be as repulsive as her use of this scandal to slam reputable women’s rights organizations, but neither her opinions nor her opportunism justify Larry Flynt’s behavior.

The following text accompanied a “Celebrity Fantasy” photo of S.E. Cupp, edited to appear as if Cupp had a penis in her mouth.

S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator, who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.

A disclaimer follows:

No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose.

Let’s break this down:

S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady

Cupp is a conservative political commentator employed by Glenn Beck’s GBTV. She is an adult, and her loveliness, while certainly an asset in seeking media commentator jobs, is hardly the first thing one should mention when describing who Cupp, fundamentally, “is.”

read too much Ayn Rand in high school

Pair that with the above, and the juvenile, condescending characterization of S.E. Cupp is clearly based on her gender. “Oh, look at the cute little girl with a high school education trying to talk politics!”

Cupp, an author and media commentator, who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute

She doesn’t just “show up” on TV, like a streaker during the Olympics. Cupp is invited to appear as an expert media personality on Fox programs. Her cuteness probably doesn’t hurt her chances of getting an invite, but there are quite a few cute women in the world who are not authors, media commentators, or frequently invited to opine about politics on a national network.

But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood.

That’s her real crime, huh, Larry Flynt? Why do cute girls have to open their mouths, anyway? It’s also worth noting that he uses the word “dumb,” not “misguided,” or “morally wrong.” Among all the ways one could characterize a desire to defund Planned Parenthood, “dumb” is one of few that’s also a typical characterization of women by misogynists.

Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.

I doubt one would have to go very far into the Fox or GBTV archives to find Cupp declaring, on the record, that she suggests sexual abstinence as a method of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. Whether or not one disagrees with her on that point, there’s no need to guess.

As usually happens with this kind of thing, the faked photo of Cupp will spread like wildfire around the Internet, without its accompanying disclaimer. If Cupp weren’t already a seasoned media personality capable of controlling her Google results, it could easily follow her from job application to job application. As it is, a certain number of people will believe it’s a real photo even when told otherwise, or will believe a forwarded email (“LEAKED private photo shows Glenn Beck’s CUTE sidekick putting something tastier than WORDS in her mouth!!!1!”) without bothering to do a quick online search to find out if the photos is legit.  

More disturbing still is the example Flynt sets here. By openly defending this photo as an acceptable satire, he’s suggesting a couple really creepy things:

1. It’s okay to respond to women having opinions you don’t like by creating pornography featuring them without their consent.

2. It’s okay to profit by selling a pornographic image of someone who hasn’t even performed the act depicted while in range of a camera.

The First Amendment gives Larry Flynt the right to publish even material that is offensive, disgusting, and grotesquely sexist. However, Flynt obtained his favorable ruling about obscene satire based on a satire of Jerry Falwell–hardly someone whose theoretical sex life would sell magazines. An image of “undeniably cute” S.E. Cupp with a penis in her mouth? Yeah, that’s gonna move a few issues. Legal though it is, this “satire” is faked pornography with a condescending caption about Cupp’s views slapped on as an afterthought. It’s a blow even to Flynt’s more ethical fellow pornographers, who’ve been working for decades to disabuse the media of its notion that porn always damages women.

Cupp is a misogynist herself, a vituperative anti-feminist commentator, and a tool of Glenn Beck. She does not deserve the respect of progressive women. She does, however, deserve our support as she copes with this unacceptable, sexist attacks. Sign a petition here to send your message to the world: Misogyny is not an acceptable weapon in the political arena, whether you aim it at a liberal, conservative, or moderate woman.

We don’t expect Hustler to change. Degrading women behind a thin curtain of legally-protected “satire” is the way they have sold magazines for decades. But the boundaries of taste and conscience are drawn much more narrowly than the boundaries of legality. We call on women and men, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, to stand with S.E. Cupp against media misogyny against outspoken women. No matter where they are on the political spectrum.  

Full story: Liberal and Moderate Women Stand with Conservative S.E. Cupp Against Sexual Shaming