NY Times Misses Link Between Anti-Civil Rights Zealot And Right-Wing's "Dark Money ATM"

MEAGAN HATCHER-MAYS/Media Matters For America:

The New York Times missed the opportunity to explore the close connection between Donors Trust, the right-wing's "Dark Money ATM," and the conservative activist behind high-profile Supreme Court cases that are successfully attacking decades-old civil rights precedent.

The Times recently ran a profile of Edward Blum, the director of the Project on Fair Representation, a non-profit group that solicits plaintiffs to challenge civil rights policy and law like affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. The article reported that this self-described "one-man organization" receives funding from "conservative groups like the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust." This support from some of the right-wing's biggest donors has allowed Blum to pursue high-profile cases that are challenging half a century of civil rights precedent.  

Blum was the driving force behind the failed attempt to overturn constitutional race-conscious admissions policies in the recent case of Abigail Fisher, a white student who sued the University of Texas after she wasdenied admission. Blum also organized the recent challenge to the Voting Rights Act, which successfully gutted a key provision of the Act that protects minority voters from racial discrimination at the polls. Blum is now rolling out new websites to troll for other rejected students in his attempt to once again provide the Supreme Court's conservative justices an opportunity to overturn case law that allows affirmative action.

But the Times provided an incomplete picture of Blum's access to deep-pocketed conservative groups by omitting the fact that Blum also has long-standing ties to the "donor-advised fund" Donors Trust. Mother Jonesrecently coined the "dark money ATM of the conservative movement" to refer to Donors Trust because of its history of raising and handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to libertarian and conservative groups, without disclosing the original sources. Although Blum's website explicitly noted the connection between the Project on Fair Representation and Donors Trust as recently as June 30 and September 9 of last year, he has scrubbed that information from the site, instead claiming to now be affiliated with "Project Liberty, Inc." This new sponsoring organization has the exact same contact information as Donors Trust, which Joan Biskupic of Reuters previously reported "fully financed" Blum's efforts to roll back civil rights law.

This is what Blum's website looked like in 2013, with explicit references to Donors Trust:

And this is what it looked like on April 8, 2014, with references to Donors Trust replaced with Project Liberty:

Tax records from 2012 show that Project Liberty is a grantee many times over of Donors Trust. These same records also show that the Project on Fair Representation was spun off from Donors Trust to "a supporting organization during 2012."

According to the Conservative Transparency website, in 2012 alone Donors Trust donated over $1 million to Project Liberty, conveniently housed at the same address as Donors Trust. In fact, Donors Trust's website still lists the Project on Fair Representation as one of the "current special program funds" it administers, describedas "donor-initiated and donor-funded projects incubated by DonorsTrust and administered at the pleasure of its Board of Directors."

The spotlight of a Times profile could have clarified why this significant financial tie between Blum and Donors Trust is in the process of being buried.

In addition to the Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust, Donors Trust's ability to "drape[ ] in secrecy" the right-wing money fueling the current attack on progressive law and policy has also attracteddonations from the Charles Koch-controlled Knowledge and Progress Fund, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and the Adolph Coors Foundation -- money that has funded conservative groups like Blum's as well as think tanks like the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. As explained by a former top IRS official to the Center for Public Integrity: "Koch is among an exclusive pool of donors who have used Donors Trust as a 'pass-through,' says Marcus Owens, the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, now in private legal practice. 'It obscures the source of the money. It becomes a grant from Donors Trust, not a grant from the Koch brothers.'"

Hopefully, now that the Times has once again turned to the peculiar story of Blum and the Project on Fair Representation, they will investigate his role in this obfuscation as well.

More evidence Obamacare is working

Nazi derangement from the fringe on the right

Many Obamacare Critics, Including Koch Brothers, Accepted Its Subsidies

CHARLES BABINGTON/Talking Point Memo

WASHINGTON (AP) — Several big corporations have reaped millions of dollars from "Obamacare" even as they support GOP candidates who vow to repeal the law. This condemn-while-benefiting strategy angers Democrats, who see some of their top congressional candidates struggling against waves of anti-Obamacare ads partly funded by these companies.

Among the corporations is a familiar Democratic nemesis, Koch Industries, the giant conglomerate headed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. They and some conservative allies are spending millions of dollars to hammer Democratic senators in North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Iowa and elsewhere, chiefly for backing President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., renewed his criticisms of the Kochs this week. In a Senate chamber speech, Reid noted that Koch Industries benefited from a temporary provision of the health care law.
The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, Reid said, "helped the company pay health insurance costs for its retirees who are not covered by Medicare." Reid asked sarcastically: "So it's OK for Koch Industries to save money through Obamacare" even as Koch-related groups seek the law's repeal.
When Congress enacted the health care law in 2010, it appropriated $5 billion for the temporary reinsurance program. The goal was to subsidize employers' costs for workers who retire before they become eligible for Medicare. Hundreds of employers applied — many were corporations, cities and public universities — and virtually all the money was soon distributed.
"If the Affordable Care Act is so awful," Reid asked, "why did Koch Industries use it to their advantage?"
Federal records show that Koch Industries received $1.4 million in early retiree subsidies. That's considerably less than the sums many other employers received. A Koch Industries spokesman said he had no comment on Reid's latest criticisms.
The Koch consortium may be the loudest "Obamacare" critic among the subsidized employers. But many others accepted the subsidies while heavily backing GOP House and Senate candidates, most of who call for repealing the 2010 health care law.
For instance, United Parcel Service received $37 million from the program's subsidies for early retirees. From 1989 through this year, political action committees affiliated with UPS donated $32 million to federal candidates and political parties. Of that, 64 percent went to Republicans, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Union Pacific Railroad's employee health system received $9.7 million in subsidies. Republicans received more than two-thirds of the nearly $20 million in political donations from the railroad's PACs in the 25-year period tracked by the center.
Altria Client Services Inc. received nearly $11 million in the early retiree subsidies. And Republicans received 71 percent of the nearly $24 million in Altria-related political donations from 1989 to 2014.
One of the biggest subsidy recipients was AT&T, at $213 million. More than half of the $56 million in AT&T-related political donations went to Republicans during the 25-year period.
Spokesmen for AT&T and Altria declined to comment about accepting "Obamacare" subsidies while funding candidates who want to repeal the law.
Other companies that steer most of their political donations to Republicans, and the early-retiree subsidies they received, include: Pfizer Inc., $23 million; GlaxoSmithKline, $14 million; Southern Company Services, $7 million; Lockheed Martin Corp., $4 million; CSX Corp., $2.2 million; KPMG LLP, $1.4 million; and Deloitte LLP, $1.2 million.
The data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics omits much of this year's heavy political spending, because many major players are not required to report donations. The Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity is among those "super PACs" that can keep their finance details private, even as it dominates the airwaves in some states, like North Carolina, with competitive Senate races.
The Kochs and their allies show little sheepishness about denouncing a federal health law that benefited them. In fact, the Koch-related group FreedomPartners is spending more than $1 million on ads criticizing Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa, Democrats running in tight Senate races.
Their alleged wrongdoing? Accepting campaign donations from health companies that benefit from "Obamacare."

Attorney general mocks Louie Gohmert at hearing: ‘Good luck with your asparagus’

By Travis Gettys/Raw Story

Attorney General Eric Holder got the last laugh Tuesday when Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) tried to outfox him.

The Tea Party lawmaker tried to lure Holder into a trap during a House Judiciary Committee with a series of questions on same-sex marriage.

The attorney general said he did not believe a person who held the personal belief that marriage was between a man and a woman had violated the civil rights of same sex couple.

“How about if they have a business and they believe that?” Gohmert said, and Holder acted confused and asked if he meant the business itself held that belief.

“If it’s a private business, and the owners of the private business believe marriage is between a man and a woman, are they violating a same-sex couple’s civil rights, in your opinion?” Gohmert said.

But Holder declined to take the bait, saying he did not wish to comment on a matter currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It is your opinion that matters on whether you tell attorneys general how to act in the states or how you approach businesses or individuals that have this biblical view that the president had when he was a senator in 2008, so I thought it was rather important,” Gohmert said.

The lawmaker tried to ask one more question, but his time expired and his adversary fired off a parting zinger as the chairman introduced the next speaker.

“Good luck with your asparagus,” Holder said, briefly stopping the proceedings.

When last the two tangled, Gohmert complained in colorful but baffling language that the attorney general had challenged his character.

“The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus!” Gohmert said.

Watch the exchange posted online by Fox News:

Rachel Maddow: Wisconsin GOP senator hid alleged sexual misconduct by party ‘rising star’

By Arturo Garcia/Raw Story

While a Wisconsin Republican faces allegations of sexual misconduct, it is the way some of those allegations were kept secret by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that is really rocking the state, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says on her show Tuesday.

The alleged victim worked on Johnson’s staff when state Rep. Bill Kramer allegedly assaulted her in 2011. At the time, the woman declined to press charges, saying she did not want to cause “embarassment” to herself or the party. But she did inform both Johnson and his chief of staff, Tony Blando.

Maddow explained that the woman and her lawyer sent Kramer a letter warning him that if he was accused of similar behavior in the future, that she would alert the authorities. Kramer, who became majority leader in September 2013, was stripped of his powers after being accused of fondling and harassing two different women during a party fundraiser in Washington D.C. this past February.

“In the interim, he has risen steadily through the ranks of Wisconsin Republicans,” Maddow said. “He was elected majority leader for the Republicans. And in all that time, neither Senator Johnson nor his chief of staff apparently said ‘beep’ to anyone about this guy maybe being a bad choice he was for leadership.”

Johnson’s association with the alleged victim, Maddow said, came to light because of what she described as a shoddy attempt by authorities to redact the police report related to the incident with “magic marker.”

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Johnson’s office failed to inform either Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) or former speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R), who was serving in that position at the time of the alleged attack.

“She requested that Senator Johnson and Mr. Blando keep the matter confidential and take no further action,” Johnson’s office said in a statement. “Senator Johnson and Mr. Blando fully honored her request.”

Kramer has been charged with two counts of felony sexual assault following the alleged victim’s statement to the authorities. He is scheduled to appear in court on Monday.

“From the start of this story to the present of this story, it has never felt like this story was under control,” Maddow said. “And on Monday, it will go to court. But in Wisconsin politics, it is officially out of control entirely.”

Watch Madddow’s commentary, as aired on Tuesday, below.

Mitch McConnell Compares ‘Obsession’ With Closing Gender Pay Gap To Blowing ‘A Few Kisses’

BY REBECCA LEBER/Think Progress

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) honored Equal Pay Day — a day that symbolizes the amount of time it takes women to earn what men make in a year — by accusing Democrats and President Obama of a “never-ending political road show” that merely blows “a few kisses” to their voter base.

“Instead of focusing on jobs, he launched into another confusing attack on the left’s latest bizarre obsession,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “Just think about that. The percentage of Americans in the workforce is at an almost four-decade low, and Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left.”

McConnell argued the fact that women still earn 77 percent of what men make should take a backseat to more serious Republican priorities. These priorities typically include building Keystone XL pipeline and repealing Obamacare (which Republicans have attempted more than 50 times).

Leading up to Democrats’ latest push for equal pay, Republicans have claimed that the gender wage gap is a “myth” and that it is “condescending” to discuss. But the reality is that women still earn less even when they achieve the same education and job level, with gender discrimination accounting for as much as much as 40 percent of their pay gap.

In the past, McConnell’s voting record against women has not stopped him from taking credit anyway. He once touted the Violence Against Women Act to women voters, although he opposed it in both 1993 and 2012. McConnell has also opposed both the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. And the very health care law that McConnell wants to repeal prevents insurance companies from charging women more and ensures 

GOP Spokesperson Asked What Republicans Are Willing To Do To Close Gender Pay Gap, Comes Up Empty

BY IGOR VOLSKY/Think Progress

A spokesperson for the Republican National Committee (RNC) was unable to explain how the GOP would address the pay disparity gap between men and women during an appearance on MSNBC Tuesday and instead repeatedly insisted that Democrats were misleading the public about the issue.

Kirsten Kukowski, the RNC’s National Press Secretary, dodged questions about the Republican Party’s solutions three different times. Instead, she reiterated that Republicans believe “people should be paid equal pay for equal work” but claimed that the Paycheck Fairness Act would tie down employers in regulations. Pressed for a solution, however, Kurkowski would only say that lawmakers should look to “best corporate practices” and allow for additional flex time. Watch it:

The Paycheck Fairness Act increases pay transparency by prohibiting employers from punishing workers who share their salary information and allowing employees to discuss their salaries without fear of losing their jobs. Under the Act, businesses must identify a legitimate business-related reason for maintaining a pay inequity and prove that there are no comparable alternatives that would not result in a pay disparity. The measure only applies to employees who are performing the same job with the same skill, responsibilities, and working conditions.

The GOP has responded to the Democrats’ push for pay equity by releasing a memo, of which Kukowski is listed as the primary author. The document seeks to dismiss concerns about equal pay by questioning the validity of the often-used statistic showing that women, on average, earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. “That number comes from the average earnings of women in all positions and contrasts it with the average earning of men in all positions,” the memo notes. “But women and men hold different jobs in different industries and varying levels of experience.”

But research has shown that the problem of pay equity goes beyond a single statistic. Women earn less than men in their very first year out of college — and in almost every job category tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women even earn less than men in the 20 most common occupations for full-time working women — including education, nursing, and social work — and in the highest paid fields.

Kukowski, along with other critics, also noted that using an average number would mean that the median pay for women in the White House “is 88 cents for every dollar a man makes.” The administration denies that it discriminates against women, noting that discrimination is not fully responsible for the wage gap. Instead, women are often steered away from high-level positions or have trouble starting a family given the lack of paid family leave and child care assistance programs. A recent study by economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, however, found that while experience, occupation, and industry explain much of the gap, more than 40 percent could be the result of discrimination.

Ultimately, however, Republicans don’t seem too concerned about the pay equity problem. The GOP memo notes that the issue is simply a distraction from the health care law. “ObamaCare is deeply unpopular, and they don’t want to talk about how policy cancellations are hurting women, or about how women are losing access to the doctors of their choice, or about how it’s meant smaller paychecks for working women (and men),” it says.

Tags:

 

• Equal Pay

Fox Kept Cutting Away From Democrats During Benghazi Hearing

 EMILY ARROWOOD/Media Matters For America

Fox News repeatedly cut away from live coverage of a House Benghazi hearing when Democrats held the floor. 

Former deputy CIA director Michael Morell testified on April 2 before the House Intelligence Committee about the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Fox afforded extensive live coverage to the hearing, beginning with opening statements from Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA), and Morell.

For nearly an hour, Fox stayed live on the hearings without interruption, airing over 20 minutes of questioning from the Republican chairman. But when Rogers yielded the floor to Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff (CA) to question Morell, Fox cut away to hear "analysis" from a network contributor, breaking live footage for the first time.

As the hearing went on, a pattern emerged -- out of the five Democrats who asked questions at the hearing, four saw Fox break live coverage less than a minute into their time, with the network choosing instead to air commentary or go to commercial break. Fox allowed the questioning of only one Democrat, Ruppersberger, to air for over 60 seconds. In contrast, the network aired a majority of Republican congressmen's questions, cutting away from only one Republican, Rep. Joe Heck (NV).

In all, Republicans were granted live coverage for an average of 5 minutes of questioning, while time given to Democrats averaged 3:16 minutes (an average heavily helped by coverage of Ruppersberger's questions). 

Fox has repeatedly campaigned for more Benghazi hearings, no matter their efficacy, and celebrated when their demands were answered. It only follows that the network would politicize its coverage of these repetitive hearings as well. 

Advocating ‘opportunity for all’

Glenn Beck Blasts Media 'Rat Bastards' Who Report 'Fairy Tale' Obamacare Numbers

DYLAN SCOTT/Talking Points Memo:

It seems Glenn Beck is not buying what the Obama administration is selling on Obamacare enrollment.

In a particularly memorable rant on his radio show, during which he derides President Barack Obama as "sociopathic," Beck ripped the "rat bastards" in the media who uncritically reported on Obamacare's 7 million enrollees.

"This is complete bogus. This is a complete bogus fairy tale. This is completely made up. This is nonsensical," Beck said in a clip pulled by Right Wing Watch. “The emperor has no clothes. And everyone in the press, you rat bastards, every single one of you know what he’s saying isn’t true. You know it. You know it.”
Beck has company in his disbelief: The purveyor of Unskewed Polls and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).

Did Chuck Todd just admit that the media works for the GOP?

by illinifan17/Daily Kos

Over on the NBC News website, Chucky just asked, "What if all the negative healthcare headlines go away?"  Well, that's a really odd question.

Todd mentions the new WP/ABC poll from yesterday, about which we are all cautiously optimistic, and says this amazing thing:

We’re taking the poll with a grain of salt for now until we see more numbers post-enrollment deadline, but at a minimum, it’s an important political booster shot for Democrats, even if it is just for today.)

We could make a long list of things we all wish Chucky had taken with "a grain of salt."  Where has his bag of salt-grains been?

Back to the more central question, though.

Since mid-October 2013, the GOP has been riding a wave of negative stories about the law, whether it's been the troubled website, the early low enrollment, the delays in implementing the law, and the stories about Americans negatively impacted.

Could he say more plainly that the MSM has been doing all of the GOP's heavy lifting for them in the past six months (or really, much longer than that)?  Behind the question seems the implication that it is a choice the MSM must make.  Will they continue to try to sell the ACA as a failure?  Notice that the implied alternative is not a bunch of positive stories, but simply nothing.  Chucky does not ask "What if all the negative headlines are replaced by positive headlines?"  Where's the fun in that?

Perhaps more telling is the discussion further down in his badly written column about the mental disconnect in Kentucky:

“Even Republicans here say that some Kentuckians will criticize ‘Obamacare,’ but in the next breadth emphasize how well ‘kynect’ works, as if they are not part of the same law.” So can Democrats in Kentucky somehow run on “kynect” and thus “dis-kynect” themselves from the president’s health-care plan?

Notice, he gives no thought to the possibility that the media might work to educate the public about facts.

Chucky, you are giving away the game.

Bernie Sanders: Supreme Court is paving the way to an oligarchic society

By David Ferguson/Raw Story

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to abolish overall federal campaign spending limits, meaning that wealthy individuals now have carte blanche to spend as much as they like to affect the outcomes of federal elections.

“Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” said Sanders in a statement.

Wednesday’s 5-to-4 Court vote struck down limits on total amounts that individual donors can contribute to parties, candidates and political action committees within a two-year federal election cycle.

Sanders warned that this will give billionaires like brothers Charles and David Koch unfettered access to the airwaves for campaign ad buys and to candidates themselves.

“What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in?” Sanders said. “To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ‘freedom of speech’ is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.”

Wednesday’s ruling, he said, echoes the “disastrous” 2012 Citizens United verdict, which led to an unprecedented $7 billion in political spending for the 2012 election.

The current cap on spending per individual is a limit of $123,200 per cycle. That includes a separate $48,600 on individual donations to particular candidates.

To remove these spending limits, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the dissenting opinion on Wednesday, “eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”

Sanders has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would overturn Citizens Unitedand make the type of pay-for-play Congressional culture it engenders a thing of the past. His website said that the Senator hopes to assure Americans that “the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to real people.”

Paul Ryan’s Budget Makes Wild New Claims About Obamacare

BY IGOR VOLSKY/Think Progress

As Obama administration moves closer to meeting it original goal of enrolling 7 million people in the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance marketplaces, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has released a budget that repeals the law and asks Congress to “pursue patient-centered health-care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by empowering consumers.”

And while this new Fiscal Year 2015 budget borrows heavily from previous versions, the April 1st release is far more critical of Obamacare. In a possible preview of the GOP’s election-year rhetoric, this year, Ryan warns — in almost apocalyptic terms — that the law “will undermine the private insurance” and “the competitive forces of the marketplace.” He even argues that it would “eventually lead to a single-payer system.” Here is a comparison between last year’s blueprint and Tuesday’s release:

Fiscal Year 2014: Repeal the health-care law’s exchange subsidies

The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered. Taken together, these provisions will weaken the private-insurance market. Exchange subsidies take the health-care market in the wrong direction, breaking what’s working at a time when policymakers need to fix what’s broken. Government mandates will drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether they want it or not. Further, the law does not condone any policy that would require entities or individuals to finance activities or make health decisions that violate their religious beliefs.

This budget repeals the President’s onerous health-care law. Instead of putting health-care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, Congress should pursue patient-centered health-care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by empowering consumers.

Fiscal Year 2015: Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health-Care Law.

The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered. Taken together, these provisions will undermine the private insurance market, which serves as the backbone of the current U.S. health-care system. Exchange subsidies will undermine the competitive forces of the marketplace. Government mandates will drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether they choose to or not. Further, this budget does not condone any policy that would require entities or individuals to finance activities or make health decisions that violate their religious beliefs. This budget provides for the repeal of the President’s onerous health-care law for this and many other reasons.

Left in place, the health law will create pressures that will eventually lead to a single-payer system in which the federal government determines how much health care Americans need and what kind of care they can receive. This budget recommends repealing the architecture of this new law, which puts health- care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, and instead allowing Congress to pursue patient centered health-care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by empowering consumers.

Interestingly, while Ryan goes to great lengths to criticize the ACA’s “government mandates” and and the supposed decision to leave “health- care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats,” he praises this very same kind of government-control elsewhere in the budget.

For instance, in discussing his plan to allow future retirees the choice of private insurance through his “premium support” proposal, Ryan promises that “the Medicare program and its benefits will remain as they are, without change.” For future retirees, Ryan proposes an Obamacare-like exchange that will feature private insurers providing Medicare-like plans. However, Ryan tasks the government with policing the plans private insurers offer “to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.” Just four pages earlier, Ryan criticizes such government intervention in the exchanges.

Republicans have already voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in full or in part at least 51 times and on Monday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) doubled down on his commitment to hold more repeal votes. “House Republicans will continue to work to repeal this law and protect families and small businesses from its harmful consequences,” he said. “We will also continue our work to replace this fundamentally-flawed law with patient-centered solutions focused on lowering health care costs and protecting jobs.” House leadership has also pledged to introduce a unified alternative to the health care law, although they have not provided a timeline for drafting or debating that measure.

Mississippi Legislature Passes ‘Religious Liberty’ Bill That Legalizes Discrimination Against Gay People

BY ZACK FORD/Think Progress

The Mississippi legislature has passed legislation that would allow people to use their religion to justify discrimination. It seemed last month that the “religious liberty” bill had sufficiently stalled after the House voted to send it a study committee instead of passing it, with many members noting how it could be used to promote discrimination. However, both the House and Senate have approved a conference report on the bill, advancing it to Gov. Phil Bryant (R) with problematic language.

“Religious liberty” bills like the one vetoed in Arizona differ from other states’ “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” (RFRAs) because they extend religious protections to businesses.Mississippi’s bill has this same problem, because state law already defines a “person” to include “all public and private corporations.” Thus, if Bryant were to sign Mississippi’s bill into law, it would grant all businesses in the state a license to discriminate based on religious grounds.

Mississippi does not currently have any state or local nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT community, but a business could use this legislation to justify discrimination against anybody not protected by federal law. Public accommodations that are supposed to provide equal access to all citizens could attempt to refuse service to divorcees, people who’ve had children outside of wedlock, or anyone else who might give rise to a religious objection. And if any town or city in Mississippivoted to extend protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity, businesses could claim that those protections violate their religious beliefs and insist on discriminating against LGBT people.

Though proponents of such “religious liberty” bills claim that they do not promote discrimination, the examples they cite to explain why such legislation is necessary entailphotographers and bakers refusing service to same-sex couples. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins praised Mississippi for advancing this bill, specifically highlighting how it would protect “a wedding vendor, whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Bryant has not yet indicated whether he intends to sign the bill.