Jackson Free Press

Verbatim statement, just in:

National Organization for Woman, Mississippi Insists Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant apologize for statements against working mothers

The Mississippi Chapter of the National Organization for Women condemns the comments Governor Phil Bryant made regarding working women and working families being the cause of education problems in Mississippi.

His statement places all responsibility on mothers and none on the state. It disregards the impact of racism and integration in the decline of Mississippi's historically underfunded schools. It conveniently takes away any responsibility from the Governor and his failure to focus on jobs, healthcare, states economy, and equal/adequate funding for schools.

Rather, the Governor and GOP-controlled House and Senate have been focused on abortion restrictions, guns, school prayer, and immigration.

The Governor is missing the economic reality of the lives of many Mississippians--where both parents have to work, they do not choose to work. Even if women are not economically forced to work, we have the right to make a career without being made scapegoats by state officials who are not doing all they can to create great schools.

If Governor Bryant is sincerely concerned about having a Mississippi where one parent can stay home-if they choose-then we urge him to focus on statewide policies that make that possible. We encourage him to support policies like state-funded childcare so families can afford to have one person work. We encourage him to support raising the minimum wage, so one job/one parent can support a family. Lastly we encourage him to support medicaid expansion because healthy kids are able to learn better and kids need healthy parents.

Policies like these matter just as much if not more than if a child's mother has a job. Governor Bryant you can not blame Mississippi mothers for the state not doing its job.

In light of Rep. Todd Akin's lunatic comments this weekend about "legitimate rape," other extremist statements about women's health issues are emerging from members of Congress. Take this video of Rep. Alan Nunnelee, R-Miss., slamming Planned Parenthood in support of an effort to de-fund the organization. In it, Nunnelee states:

In this resolution not one dime or womens’ health or family planning health funding is reduced. It simply says those dollars cannot go to Planned Parenthood. This is an organization that has protected those who prey on our children and has protected those who have raped our granddaughters.

Raped our granddaughters? WT...? We have called Nunnelee's office to find out what he was talking about. Our best guess is that he is referring to accusations by the right that Planned Parenthood protect older statutory rapists who prey on under-age women.

Of course, that would be especially ironic if so, considering that Nunnelee worked with Rep. Akin, Ryan and other House Republicans to redefine the definition of rape to "forcible rape" to make it harder for teen girls to get abortions, especially in the case of statutory rape.

So, is this really about protecting our granddaughters, Rep. Nunnelee—or forcing teenagers to give birth to babies of their rapists of whatever age? Mississippi rape victims, and their parents, eagerly await your response.

The Rachel Maddow show did a long segment last night tying the inaction in Congress (yet another meaningless vote on "Obamacare") to action in Mississippi -- a court case to determine whether Mississippi legislators overstepped in trying to close down the state's only remaining clinic where abortions are performed.

The court case, which was Tweeted, live-blogged and throughly photographed by JFP team coverage on Wednesday, got the attention the Maddow show, which quoted extensively from our piece. Enjoy!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Props to the whole team!

Call it "us vs. them politics"—like National Memo does in this piece—or what I call the "virtue of selfishness" that has been pushed for the last 30 years by conservative think tanks and pundits, but it boils down to this—social conservatives in this country like to blame the "other" for societal ills.

From the American Family Council calling an open-door campaign in the wake of anti-gay legislation "bullying" of Christians, to the persistent bellyaching here in the JFP comments about crime and social safety net programs, you see this "us vs. them" argument over and over again.

But here's what's interesting... the "us" may be getting smaller and smaller all the time.

For the first time since Gallup started asking the question in 1999, there's a tie between people who identify as "socially liberal" and those who identify as "socially conservative." The number is pinned at 31 percent each. Up until now, conservatives had led in that poll.

Likewise, on specific "moral" issues, again as measured by Gallup, the country has showed large left-ward shifts since 2001 on questions such as gay and lesbian acceptance, sex and childrearing out of wedlock, divorce, and stem cell research; smaller shift show on issues such as abortion rights, doctor-assisted suicide and against the death penalty.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx

Going into an election year in Mississippi, we probably won't feel that shift; most likely the we'll hear more about conservative wedge issues such as immigration, marriage equality and irrational rallying cries against expanding Medicaid and education.

But on a national stage going into the 2016 elections, this tilting landscape could spell trouble for the GOP, especially as it seems largely intent on trotting out the same candidates and many of the same tropes that have failed them in previous presidential election cycles. From the Salon piece:

Gen-X dreamboats Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, on the other hand, are offering young people a bleak vision of endless war, antiquated social values and economic hardship and they know it. It matters little if that dark picture of the future is offered by a youthful fellow with an ethnic name. It’s embarrassing for the Republicans that they don’t understand that.

If the country continues on its path to the left on social issues, it does seem that the clever politician who can marry a fiscally moderate position (strong economy plus strong safety net plus modern education and workforce) with a leftward social platform will likely continue to win outside of the gerrymandered districts of Congress.

From there, it's a question of rallying voters to the cause of fixing broken Congressional districts and campaign finance, so the voice of the people truly be heard at all levels of government.

After careful review of the law, and the social and fiscal impacts of HB 1523, I have decided not to appeal the Federal Court's injunction in this case against me. I am convinced that continuing this divisive and expensive litigation is not in the best interests of the state of Mississippi or its taxpayers.

This falls in the can't-make-it-up column.

Most of you know that Mitchell Moore of Campbell's Bakery, who is straight, and Eddie Outlaw of William Wallace Salon, who is gay, and others started the amazing "If You're Buying, We're Selling" campaign. They want Mississippi business owners to put stickers in their windows to indicate that they don't discriminate, in response to SB 2681, Mississippi's version of the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act." (See lots of business owners with the icon in their ads in this week's JFP, too.)

So, the religious right is apparently not happy with the international media coverage the campaign is getting -- and from Mississippi, which is supposed to be their wheelhouse, you know. They really didn't like it when Emily Pettus of the AP (the JFP's next-door neighbors) did a story about this that was picked up by many outlets.

In response, they went on a PR tear to take back the messaging. Greg Scott, who tweets at @adfmedia, led the way, tweeting this week in response to the AP story: "Sticker folks protest imaginary law .@AP bows false narrative, RFRA not "vaguely written," no threat to "=treatment" http://bit.ly/QEU2El

Curious, I did some research. Turns out, Scott is the VP for media communications for Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly Alliance Defense Fund), a nonprofit group founded in 1994 by extreme-right and vocally anti-gay leaders including James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. (Interestingly, Mississippi's Judge Charles Pickering is also on the board.)

Not to be outdone, the American Family Association, an alliance co-founder, also blasted the sticker campaign on a Christian "news" site, which is part of the American Family News Network, which is part of the ... American Family Association. "It's not really a buying campaign, but it's a bully campaign," said Buddy Smith, executive vice president of Tupelo-based American Family Association, "and it's being carried out by radical homosexual activists who intend to trample the freedom of Christians to live according to the dictates of scripture."

The Southern Poverty Law Center includes the alliance (and AFA) on its list of a dozen groups that drive the "religious right's anti-gay crusade." On its website, it brags that its "attorneys have successfully defended marriage as the union between one man and one woman in over 40 cases nationwide."

SPLC indicates that the alliance was established in the early 1990s in response to gay-rights battles in the courts—which it clearly believes is the "principal" threat to religious freedom. ADF President Alan Sears and Vice President Craig Osten wrote " The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom," which ties homosexuality to pedophilia and other "disordered sexual behavior."

SPLC states: "The ADF has also mounted legal challenges to gay military service, marriage, adoption and foster-parenting, as well as to domestic partner benefits around the nation. It trains other attorneys 'to battle the radical homosexual …