And the links shall inherit the Earth

•Digby reports on Arizona, where a new bill would allow employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control if they have moral objections. Employees who need the drug for other reasons must present proof of their medical need. As Digby notes, how many of us want to be forced to have this conversation with our employers?
Over in New Hanover, the County Commission refuses a family planning grant that includes contraceptive funding on the grounds that women who use birth control are irresponsible: “If these young women were responsible people and didn’t have the sex to begin with, we wouldn’t be in this situation,” according to the chairman.
Alternet rounds up several stories of women going to jail for fetal homicide because they used drugs and had a miscarriage (whether there’s a cause-and-effect or not). One 15 year old faces life in prison for coke use while pregnant.
But the real prize is a Georgia bill that bans abortions even if the fetus is dead, or not going to live to term. One legislator states that as farm animals give birth to dead babies, women should be able to do it. And who cares about the health risks?
I used to think that when I worried we could end up like El Salvador, where even ectopic pregnancies (one that occurs outside the womb, with almost no chance of the fetus surviving) can’t be removed until the fetus ruptures and dies, despite the horrible health risks. And where miscarriages result in police investigations just in case it was a secret abortion (Georgia tackled a similar bill previously). I was naive.
But I do wonder what’s behind the increasing push to become even more extreme on women’s issues? Do they really think this is a political winner? Is it a cornered-rat reaction based on awareness their base is a dwindling minority? Or are they really that opposed to women having sexual freedom or any other kind?
On the good guys’ side, Lawyers Guns and Money rips apart yet another argument that women who want their birth control covered by insurance are just skanky ‘ho’s. Shakesville suggests a personhood amendment for women.
•The Daily Howler has noted for a while how Gail Collins keeps repeating the anecdote of Mitt Romney’s “dog strapped to the top of the car (because it’s revealing). Here, the site points out how Collins’ commenters are now taking and embroidering on the story further (Collins reports rumors the dog ran away when the family reached their destination; commenters take it as fact). Thus are distorted facts born. The writer who originated the anecdote weighs in here.
•Supporting terrorism is illegal, unless you’re a government official getting money from the terrorists
•The Howler also adds a good point about misogyny in the media.
•More on the arguments by some religious conservatives that Obama isn’t a real Christian. As this blogger notes, for some evangelicals, it’s all in how you vote.
*In the UK, the government wants employees to stop wearing Christian crosses. This would seem like a violation of EU freedom-of-religion rules but the government’s position is that wearing the cross isn’t really a form of Christian faith (even if it isn’t, I think the government’s in the wrong here).
•Ta-Nehisi Coates looks at how the late Andrew Breitbart slimed a black government employee for discriminating against whites when it wasn’t true.
•Robert Reich points out that if conservatives want to lecture us on morality, the topic should be the ethics of the rich and powerful, not unwed mothers and gay couples (some thoughts on David Brooks’ contributions to the debate are here and here)
•On a lighter note, court case involving a graduate student who defended his right to insert an “FU” statement to his thesis where the acknowledgements normally go.