Arizona bill would declare pregnancy 2 weeks before conception

By David Edwards/

A measure passed Arizona’s Senate claims that it would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but experts say that the bill is far more restrictive, effectively banning abortions after 18 weeks and declaring that a woman could be pregnant 2 weeks before she even had sex.

Arizona’s HB 2036 takes Nebraska’s 20-week abortion ban one step further by starting the clock on pregnancies at the woman’s last last menstrual period, which could be two weeks before fertilization.

Specifically, the bill would “[p]rohibit abortions at or after twenty weeks of gestation, except in cases of a medical emergency, based on the documented risks to women’s health and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an abortion at that gestational age,” where gestational age is defined as “age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.”

Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash told Raw Story that obstetricians start the clock on pregnancies after the “last menstrual period” to “be on the safe side.”

“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Nash explained. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”

RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte noted that this means legislators are arguing women could be pregnant before they even have sex.

“Think about the implications down the road,” she wrote. “If a woman is ‘pregnant’ two weeks before she becomes pregnant, than any fertile woman—including those currently menstruating!—should really be considered pregnant. After all, we don’t know the future. We don’t know that any non-pregnant woman couldn’t be pregnant two weeks from now, making her retroactively pregnant now.”

“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” Marcotte added. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”

At this point, Nash said the Arizona bill has “very good chances of passage” because it is largely misunderstood.

“The media has been talking about this as a 20-week abortion ban without, I think, really looking into the definition,” she observed. “Two weeks is a long time. … [The bill] does not talk about any sort of fetal impairment. In this time frame is when you would have an [amniocentesis] done or other tests and it takes away women’s options if there is a problem with the pregnancy.”

Because clinicians use the definition of “last menstrual period” to determine the start of the pregnancy, Nash did not expect any legal challenges on those grounds — but the bill has other problems.

“What the Supreme Court has said is that states have the right to ban abortion after viability, but that any ban on abortions after viability must protect a woman’s life or health,” she told Raw Story. “So, a law like this would be in conflict with those decisions in the sense that it bans abortion much earlier than viability and does not take into account the full ramifications of life and health.”

“This is a very dangerous bill,” Nash concluded.

In First Month Of Legislative Session, GOP Lawmakers In Five States Seek To Eliminate, Criminalize Abortion

By Tanya Somanader

Last week, House Republicans launched an indefensible effort to redefine rape to exclude certain rape victims from abortion coverage. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) then followed up with the Protect Life Act, a bill that would “give doctors the green light to let pregnant women die if they have a life-threatening condition and need an emergency abortion.”

Not to be outpaced by their federal, anti-women counterparts, GOP lawmakers in states across the country are ginning up woefully ignorant abortion measures to mandate their anti-choice views on doctors and women. Whether through forcing a woman to hear heartbeats or see sonograms, making up imaginary data on race and gender, nullifying the Supreme Court, or redefining the state constitution, lawmakers in Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa intend to make this year the year they win their war against reproductive rights by any means necessary:

– OHIO: State GOP Rep. Lynn Wachtmann will unveil the so-called “Heartbeat Bill” today, the “first proposal of its kind” that “would prohibit women from ending pregnancies at the first detectable fetal heartbeat,” which can be heard “within 18 to 24 days of conception” and “in almost all cases by six weeks.” As NARAL Ohio pointed out, this bill targets “a point when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant.” Crafted by the right-wing group Faith2Action, the bill is being advertised via “heart-shaped balloons” and “a music video” with “a few fetuses appearing to keep the beat from inside the womb.”

– TEXAS: This week, the Texas Senate will consider state Sen. Dan Patrick’s (R) anti-abortion measure mandating that “pregnant women be shown an ultrasound of the fetus at least two hours before an abortion.” Physicians would be required to show the fetus’ dimensions, presence of limbs or internal organs if applicable, and –if audible – the fetal heartbeat. Similar provisions failed in 2007 and 2009 but two weeks ago, Gov. Rick Perry (R-OH) “fast-tracked the sonogram bill by declaring it an emergency item” to allow early consideration. The bill’s author, state Sen. Dan Patrick (R) says the emergency designation is legitimate because “we have 80,000 abortions in Texas every year” and the emotional pain caused by this bill will inevitably compel “one out of five women” to bring the baby to term.

– ARIZONA: State GOP Rep. Steve Montenegro introduced two bills tocriminalize abortions if they’re sought because of race or sex. The bill would slam doctors who “knowingly perform abortions for these reasons” with Class 3 felony charges. While neither Montenegro norindependent searches of state records provide support for his claims, Montenegro insists “that there are targeted communities that the abortion industry targets.” He even believes that “an abortion based on race would include situations where the parents are the same race as the fetus.” Arizona Department of Health Services does not collect information on fetus gender and only recently began asking about racial statistics. As of last week, Montenegro has yet to provide the “promised” statistics to support of his bills.

– FLORIDA: Ordained minister State Rep. Charles Van Zant (R-FL) recently introduced the Florida for Life Act, a bill that mimics Florida’s recent “fetal personhood” amendment which defines all human beings as persons “regardless of age, race, health function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability.” The Florida for Life Act is “more overtly religious,” stating that “all life comes from the Creator and begins at conception.” The bill also states that the Supreme Court is unqualified to “determine, establish, or define the moral values” of Floridians and that the Constitution expresses no qualifications for states to “protect life in a manner consistent with the moral consensus of the people, and reflecting the peoples’ belief in a Creator.” The bill would not only prohibit induced abortions but would “punish abortion doctors as felons, should they violate the measures” of the bill.

– IOWA: Two Iowa Republican representatives are opposing a bill seeking to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks because “it doesn’t go far enough.” Because she feels the bill “would codify deaths of babies from zero to 19 weeks,” State Rep. Kim Pearson is “not willing” to support this legislation and will instead introduce her own bill “that would define life as beginning at conception” and effectively “end all abortions in Iowa.” GOP state Sen. Randy Feenstra is trying to push the marker with a bill to restrict abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy. If all else fails, a resolution to amend the Iowa Constitution to “define a person as starting from a single-cell human embryo” is now pending in the Iowa House.

These measures are certainly not the first efforts by pro-life lawmakers to change state law. Last year, a Kansas GOP lawmaker proposed levying a sales tax on abortions. Perhaps inspiring Texas, Oklahoma overrode a veto last year to enforce an ultrasound mandate with “no exceptions for rape or incest.” And a fetal personhood amendment like the one in Florida appeared on the Colorado ballot in 2008 and 2010 but was “decisively defeated.”

But the state-level efforts right out of the gate in 2011 implies a renewed motivation to blindly pre-determine what is already a difficult and deeply personal choice. A recent NARAL report counts a total of 15 states with anti-choice governments. Arizona has already introduced a “heartbeat” bill similar to Ohio and Texas, Georgia, and Oklahoma are watching its progress “closely.” With concerted attack on reproductive health coming both from the federal and state level, the GOP may just walk women’s rights all the way back before the Supreme Court protected them in 1973.

M.C.L Comment: The funny thing about the pro-life movement yeah they want these women to have these babies yet they want to gut programs that were intended to help them raise their children. Again folks if you have a pro-life friend or relative ask them how they feel about welfare and be prepare to hear the most vile things. They might as well say we want to protect more cops by taking away their bullet proof vest.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: You Don’t Have to Call Everyone ‘Socialists’ or ‘Fascists’

By George Zornick

On Fox and Friends yesterday, the hosts spoke with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace about the tone in Washington following shocking violence against public officials in Arizona, and President Obama’s plea to “use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” Wallace said that, indeed, he was hoping for a more constructive dialogue: “You don’t have to call the other side socialists, or fascists, or whatever. And maybe the tone — maybe we can agree, or disagree, more agreeably.”

Perhaps Fox News will listen to one of its most prominent and popular hosts. But there’s a lot of work to do. Here is just a small sampling of Fox News hosts and guests freely tossing the slings and arrows of “socialist” and “fascist” at Democrats and other liberal targets:

A debate over tone, though a small-scale one, does seem to be emerging on the right. Wallace, in pleading for a more agreeable tone, may have been responding to Rush Limbaugh — who attacked Wallace and Charles Krauthammer this week for praising Obama’s speech in Tuscon. “They were slobbering over it for the predictable reasons,” Limbaugh said. “It was smart, it was articulate, it was oratorical. It was, it was all the things the educated, ruling class wants their members to be and sound like.”

Fox News actually played the clip for Krauthammer yesterday, and Krauthammer joined Wallace in gently pushing back against Limbaugh’s vitriol: “As one of the three slobberers…I find it interesting that only the ruling class wants a president who is smart articulate and oratorical in delivering a funeral oration,” he said.

Arizona ‘death panel’? State Medicaid cuts poised to let some poor patients die

By Sahil Kapur

A law in Arizona that cuts Medicaid funding for certain transplant operations is likely to bring about the deaths of poor residents in need of such procedures.

Starting in October, a measure passed by the Republican-led state legislature began denying Medicaid funds for organ transplants such as bone-marrow, lung, heart and liver transplants, which can be very expensive and are often performed in life-threatening cases.

The New York Times reports that Arizona doctors deem it a "a death sentence for some low-income patients, who have little chance of survival without transplants and lack the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to pay for them."

Procuring Medicaid funds for such procedures can require poor patients to sit on a waiting list for lengthy periods of time, and the law is denying funding to those who have waited for years before its enactment.

"I appreciate the need for budget restraints," Dr. Andrew Yeager, director of the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at the Arizona Cancer Center, told the Times. “But when one looks at a potentially lifesaving treatment, admittedly expensive, and we have data to support efficacy, cuts like this are shortsighted and sad."

The law has brought about a wrenching twist of fate for Arizona patients who need a transplant but lack the money, especially those at the front of the waiting list and denied the option at the last minute.

Arizona physicians and transplant centers have unsuccessfully lobbied for temporary funding. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's office described it as a "literally as a last resort" option to bridge the state's budget shortfall.

But Democrats, such as State Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, weren't having any of it. “We made it very clear at the time of the vote that this was a death sentence,” she said. “This is not a luxury item. We’re not talking about cosmetic surgery.”

The law has been dubbed across the country by opponents as Arizona's "Death Panel" -- a reference to Sarah Palin's false yet influential claim last year that the Affordable Care Act permitted government officials to deny care to patients at their discretion.

The Associated Press chronicled the plight of Arizona patients on Medicaid who need organ transplants and must produce the money or face death.

"Something needs to be done," said Dr. Emmanuel Katsanis, a bone marrow transplant expert at the University of Arizona, according to the Times. “There’s no doubt that people aren’t going to make it because of this decision. What do you tell someone? You need a transplant but you have to raise the money?”

M.C.L Comments: The average right winger who reads this probably don't give a flying rat ass about what happen to those people who are desperate need of these transplants and other things the state cover because their lords and masters on right wing radio tells them these people are the reason their taxes are high and they shouldn't care. Remember right wingers never is guarantee and you could find yourself needing this help and like these people your state GOP tell you sorry you're own your own.

White House, DOJ Not Denying Clinton's Statement That AZ Lawsuit On The Way

BySam Stein

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's disclosure that the Department of Justice will be filing a suit against Arizona's tough new immigration law is not being denied by either the White House or the Department of Justice itself.

In what appeared to be an unscripted admission, Clinton told Ecuadoran television on Thursday that DoJ, under the direction of the president, "will be bringing a lawsuit against" the Arizona act, which has been sharply criticized in Latin America.

The statement, first reported by the site Right Scoop, was the first overt declaration on the Justice Department's course of action. In late April, President Obama first announced his support for an investigation into Arizona's law, which would grant local law enforcement officials broader powers to detain suspected illegal immigrants. Since then, there have been hearings involving Attorney General Eric Holder but little in the way of explicit action.

Asked about Clinton's remarks, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs urged the Huffington Post to send queries to the DoJ. The department's spokesman, Matt Miller, replied with the following: "The department continues to review the law."

The non-denials are not, of course, confirmations of Clinton's statement. But it's hard to imagine that the Secretary of State is operating off of a different script than the rest of the administration. A suit, of course, would ramp up the debate over immigration reform, suggesting that the White House believes that either the law represents an egregious legal overreach or just smart politics.

Texas teacher singles out Latino student during SB-1070 discussion, says Mexicans always ‘expect handouts.’

By Andrea Nill The San Antonio News reports that a Jefferson High School English teacher has been “removed from the classroom” for singling out a Latino student wearing a Mexican soccer jersey and publicly insulting him. According to the student, Augustine Ortiz, what began as a discussion about Arizona’s new immigration law (SB-1070) escalated to an anti-Latino, racist attack:

Ortiz, who was wearing a jersey from a Mexican soccer team, said the teacher told him to sit in the front row. She proceeded to single him out repeatedly, Ortiz said, pointing at him as she made comments like, “The Mexicans with their attitudes are the racist ones.” Continuing to point at Ortiz, she allegedly told the class that Mexicans always “expect handouts” and “soon it’s going to be the United States of Mexico,” according to Ortiz. [...]

Another student in the class that day, Reina Mondragon, 18, corroborated Ortiz’s story. “The kind of discussion that we had on Thursday, May 6, wasn’t like the discussions that we normally have,” she said, adding the teacher questioned why documents in the United States frequently are translated into Spanish and whether Mexicans should be allowed to own land in this country.

According to Ortiz, when he went to complain about the incident, the vice principal “brushed him off.” Once the school’s principal learned of the incident, administrators removed the teacher and launched an investigation. Ortiz also noted that the English teacher had actually been his favorite instructor. “She actually said we need to stand up for what we believe in,” he said. “And now I’m standing up for what I believe in.”

Boycott update: Arizona tourism association counts 23 canceled meetings at a total loss of $6-10 million.

By Andrea Nill Today, the Republican National Convention (RNC) site selection committee decided against holding the 2012 convention in Phoenix, AZ, instead choosing Tampa, FL. Although local and national RNC officials have denied that the outcome had anything to do with Arizona’s recently passed immigration law SB-1070, their decision is just another blow to the state’s ailing tourism industry. Since the passage of SB-1070, at least 23 events have been canceled, totaling a reported loss of between $6 and $10 million. The Washington Post reports: Hispanic civil rights groups are boycotting Arizona and urging others to do the same. Officials at the National Council of La Raza, one of the groups driving the boycott, had privately asked the RNC not to meet in Phoenix. The city risks losing as much as $90 million in hotel and convention business over the next five years because of the controversy, according to city estimates released Wednesday. The state’s hotel and lodging association has counted 23 canceled meetings for a loss of between $6 and $10 million. Major League Baseball has already come out against SB-1070, and if it decides to pull the 2011 All-Star game out of the state, Arizona could lose an additional $150 million. It couldn’t be happening at a worse time for Arizona’s tourism industry. Earlier this year, the Arizona legislature decided to cut the tourism budget back significantly, slashing the parks budget alone by $8.6 million. The Arizona Republic reports that Arizona tourism lobbyists simply didn’t see the Arizona tourism backlash coming when they decided to ignore SB-1070 as it moved through the state Congress. Arizona economist Jim Rounds further points out that “tourism was just getting back on its feet again.” The 2008 RNC convention in Minneapolis – St. Paul generated $170 million and created more than 2,500 jobs. Arizona currently faces a budget shortfall of at least $2 billion — one of the largest in the nation

Despite conservatives’ claims, 70 percent of Arizona’s Latinos oppose new anti-immigrant law.

By Andrea Nill

Over the past few weeks, right-wing proponents of Arizona’s draconian immigration law inexplicably claimed that the majority of Latinos in Arizona support the new anti-immigrant law. Some examples:

Marco Rubio: Polling has shown that Americans of Hispanic descent in Arizona support this bill just as strongly as the general population does.

J.D. Hayworth: Interestingly, a majority of Hispanics agree that this law should be enforced here in Arizona.

Bill O’Reilly: I’m not buying the fact that Hispanic-Americans en masse are against the law.

Watch a compilation of their remarks:

This morning, the nation’s largest Spanish-language newspaper , La Opinion, reported that 70 percent of Arizona Latinos “strongly oppose” SB-1070 and 11 percent “somewhat oppose” it. The study, conducted by Arizona State University, showed that only 12 percent of Arizona’s Latinos strongly support the law. Opposition to the law also isn’t limited to recent Latino immigrants who are potentially unable to vote. Approximately 82-67 percent of second, third, and fourth generation Latinos oppose SB-1070:

Baseball All-Star Adrian Gonzalez Says He May Boycott Next Year’s All-Star Game Over AZ Law

By Faiz Shakir Last week, the Major League Baseball Players Association issued a statement condemning the new anti-immigrant law in Arizona, urging its repeal or prompt modification. After initially remaining silent, many Latino baseball players and coaches are beginning to speak out.

To show support for the protest against Arizona’s legislation, Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said he would boycott the All-Star Game that is scheduled to take place next year in Phoenix. Now, that boycott effort has gained an influential endorsement: San Diego Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez. A dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S., Gonzalez is one of the game’s best hitters. He has been on the National League’s All-Star team for the past two seasons.

Gonzalez told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the Arizona law is “immoral” and a violation of human rights. “In a way, it goes against what this country was built on. This is discrimination. Are they going to pass out a picture saying ‘You should look like this and you’re fine, but if you don’t, do people have the right to question you?’ That’s profiling.” He went further in an interview with MLB Fanhouse, stating that he would go so far as to refuse playing in the All-Star Game next year if the law is in effect:

He told FanHouse that he will not attend next year’s All-Star Game in Phoenix if the law is in effect, and that he’d like for major league baseball to boycott spring training in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23.

“I’ll support the Players Association 100 percent,” said Gonzalez, who grew up in both Tijuana and a suburb south of San Diego. “If they leave it up to the players and the law is still there, I’ll probably not play in the All-Star Game. Because it’s a discriminating law.

“I know it can’t be done, but they should take spring training out of (Arizona) if it’s possible.”

All around the league, players are beginning to voice their concerns about the Arizona law. New York Mets catcher Rod Barajas said, “If a blond-haired, blue-eyed Canadian gets pulled over, do you think they are going to ask for their papers? No.” “I don’t know the details, but if I leave the park after a game and I get stopped, am I supposed to have papers with me?” Arizona Diamondbacks infielder Augie Ojeda wondered. “I don’t think that’s fair.”

Calling the Arizona law “racist stuff,” San Diego Padres catcher Yorvit Torrealba said he he’s not anxious to play in Arizona: “Why do I want to go play in a place where every time I go to a restaurant and they don’t understand what I’m trying to order, they’re going to ask me for ID first? That’s bull.” Padres’ closer Heath Bell said Arizona’s law is “mind-boggling.” Padres’ outfielder Scott Hairston added, “It just wasn’t necessary to pass a bill like that.” One player noted that fan reaction to the law will be an important factor:

“I’m not a political guy and I really don’t understand it, but I don’t blame people for protesting if it affects their lives,” third baseman Mark Reynolds said. “If no fans show up at one of our games, I’d better start paying attention.”

The Nation’s Dave Zirin writes, “There are rare historical moments when protest can shape athletes and athletes can in turn shape the confidence, size, and scope of protest. This could very well be one of those moments.” It has been done before in Arizona. In 1990, Arizona voters’ rejection of an MLK holiday set off a cascade of cancellations of conventions and other events. “The NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from the Phoenix suburb of Tempe. The NBA told the Phoenix Suns not to bother putting in a bid for the All-Star game.”

Update Arizona Diamondbacks Managing General Partner Ken Kendrick, who has supported Republican candidates and causes in the past, said he is personally against the new Arizona anti-immigrant law.

Major League Baseball Players Association calls for ‘repeal’ or prompt modification of Arizona law.

By Faiz Shakir

In a statement released today, the Major League Baseball Players Association has issued its opposition to the Arizona’s new anti-immigrant law:

“The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States. These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association. Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans. All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law.

“The impact of the bill signed into law in Arizona last Friday is not limited to the players on one team. The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October. In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks. And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona. All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.

“The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written. We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly. If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.

“My statement reflects the institutional position of the Union. It was arrived at after consultation with our members and after consideration of their various views on this controversial subject.”

Over a quarter of Major League Baseball players are Latino. Major League Baseball and the Arizona Diamondbacks have been pressured by progressive activists to take a stand against the bill. Some have already boycotted the Diamondbacks’ baseball games. Rep. José Serrano (D-NY) has even suggested that the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, scheduled to take place in Phoenix in 2011, should be moved to another location. Thus far, the teams’ front offices have resisted commenting on the law. There are “four managers, one general manager and an owner who are Latino.” This statement by the MLBPA today will likely increase pressure on team owners to comment on the law.

Update The Diamondbacks' public relations office issued a statement yesterday claiming it would be “unfair and unjust” for them to take a position:

Although D-backs' Managing General Partner Ken Kendrick has donated to Republican political candidates in the past, the organization has communicated to Arizona Boycott 2010 leader Tony Herrera that Kendrick personally opposes State Bill 1070. The team also explained that Kendrick is one of nearly 75 owners of the D-backs and none of his, nor do the other owners', personal contributions reflect organizational preferences. The D-backs have never supported State Bill 1070 and have never taken political stances. The D-backs represent all of our employees, players, owners and fans who all have different political affiliations. It would be unfair and unjust for the D-backs to take a position because it can't be reflective upon everybody's views.

Update Crooks and Liars’ John Amato posts video of the protest against the Arizona Diamondbacks at Chicago’s Wrigley Field.

Arizona Expands Its Discrimination: Teachers With Heavy Accents Can’t Teach English, Ethnic Studies Are Banned

By Amanda Terkel Arizona’s supporters of the state’s draconian new immigration law insist that it has nothing to do with race and isn’t meant to discriminate against certain ethnic communities. Their claims are undermined, however, by what else the state government is trying to do to target recent immigrants.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Arizona Department of Education “recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English”:

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators. [...]

“This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state,” said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.

But many schools in the state still have a significant number of teachers who are native Spanish speakers. At one school, state auditors complained that teachers pronounced “words such as violet as ‘biolet,’ think as ‘tink’ and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.” The principal at that school acknowledged that teachers “should speak grammatically correct English” but said they shouldn’t be punished for having an accent.

Teachers that aren’t up to par “may take classes or other steps to improve their English,” and if they still aren’t fluent enough for the state, they will be fired or reassigned.

Adding insult to injury, the Arizona legislature passed a bill yesterday outlawing ethnic studies programs:

HB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity “instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

It also would ban classes that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people.”

The measure is directed at the Tuscon Unified School District’s popular Mexican-American studies department, which school officials say provides only “historical information” — not “ethnic chauvanism” as the state school superintendent has alleged. One state lawmaker tried to show how ridiculous the legislation is by proposing that schools be barred from teaching about 9/11 because it would result in hatred toward Arab-Americans; the measure failed.

M.C.L Comment: Elect a black president and a segment of White America goes crazy.. They passed a law that allow cops to pick people up because they look "illegal" and now if a teacher don't speak prefect English they can be removed or outright fired.

Yet by all means Republicans keep on reaching out to people that already vote for you in the tea party while you push the fastest growing minority group to the Democrats.

Cantor Afraid To Say Whether He’s For Or Against AZ Immigration Law, Calls It ‘A False Choice’

By Ben Armbruster

Since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed an over-reaching and radical anti-immigration bill into law last week, various conservative media figures, pundits, and former officials have spoken out against it. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called it “un-American,” while Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio said he has “concerns.” However, Republican members of Congress have largely remained silent — with only a handful offering support, coming out against the law, or declining to pick one side or the other.

Yesterady on ABC News’ Top Line, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) chose the non-committal route. Top Line hosts Rick Klein and David Chalian asked Cantor where he stood on the law four times, but the Virginia Republican refused to go on record either way. At one point, Cantor tried to dismiss the questioning, calling it “a false choice,” without any real explanation as to why:

CHALIAN: How is that a false choice?!

CANTOR: Because no one is going to accept the lawlessness. First and foremost, we are a country of laws. Now are you asking whether I think that America is a country of opportunity? Absolutely. Are we a country built on immigrants? Absolutely.

CHALIAN: I’m asking you if you agree with Marco Rubio that the law goes too far. That’s what I’m asking.

CANTOR: Listen, I can tell you this, I am for making sure that America remains a country that stands of freedom and opportunity for everyone and that means we ought to concentrate on enforcing the law and making sure that we enhance legal immigration so that we can continue to grow and prosper so that we can get America back to work.

Watch it:

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, it appears that some Republicans are unwilling to alienate the right-wing base of their constituencies by coming out against the law. But at the same time, they are afraid to drive the GOP further away from Latinos. Cantor is trying to walk this fine line in a not-so-clever way.

Transcript:

KLEIN: Congressman a big debate going on right now over immigration reform and we know what’s going on in Arizona. I just want to ask you this has kind of split Republicans almost down the middle. Do you support what Arizona is doing, this new law that they passed?

CANTOR: Look, Arizona is a border state. You know, events on the ground gave rise to what that legislature in Arizona had to do because of the lawlessness that started to occur. And frankly what that speaks to is a federal government, an administration that has just not done its job. That’s where the focus needs to be. The people of Arizona again, they’re living in a border state. When you’ve got killing going on, trespassing on property, and lawlessness in our country, no wonder people are upset.

CHALIAN: Right but Congressman, you are a national Republican voice, are you in the Jeb Bush – Marco Rubio – Karl Rove camp that this law that Jan Brewer signed in Arizona, goes too far, is unenforcable, or lots of questions around how it will be enforced. Or are you in the McCain – Kyl – Brewer camp in support of the law? Which camp are you in?

CANTOR: I think that’s a false choice.

CHALIAN: How is that a false choice?!

CANTOR: Because no one is going to accept the lawlessness. First and foremost we are a country of laws. Now are you asking whether I think that America is a country of opportunity? Abosolutely. Are we a country built on immigrants? Absolutely.

CHALIAN: I’m asking you if you agree with Marco Rubio that the law goes too far. That’s what I’m asking.

CANTOR: Listen, I can tell you this, I am for making sure that America remains a country that stands of freedom and opportunity for everyone and that means we ought to concentrate on enforcing the law and making sure that we enhance legal immigration so that we can continue to grow and prosper so that we can get America back to work.

Behind the Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

by Greg Palast

[Phoenix, AZ.] Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.

I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.

What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.

What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.

In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.

Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected. That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.

Captives of Sheriff Joe's prison, Maricopa County, Arizona

So I asked Brewer's office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?

No, not one.

Which raises the question: were these disenfranchised voters the criminal, non-citizens Brewer tagged them, or just not-quite-white voters given the José Crow treatment, entrapped in document-chase trickery?

The answer was provided by a federal prosecutor who was sent on a crazy hunt all over the Western mesas looking for these illegal voters. "We took over 100 complaints, we investigated for almost 2 years, I didn’t find one prosecutable voter fraud case."

This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.

Iglesias' jurisdiction was next door, in New Mexico, but he told me that Rove and the Republican chieftains were working nationwide to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria with public busts of illegal voters, even though there were none.

"They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments," Iglesias told me. The former prosecutor, himself a Republican, paid the price when he stood up to this vicious attack on citizenship.

But Secretary of State Brewer followed the Rove plan to a T. The weapon she used to slice the Arizona voter rolls was a 2004 law, known as "Prop 200," which required proof of citizenship to register. It is important to see the Republicans' latest legislative horror show, sanctioning cops to stop residents and prove citizenship, as just one more step in the party's desperate plan to impede Mexican-Americans from marching to the ballot box.

[By the way, no one elected Brewer. Weirdly, Barack Obama placed her in office last year when, for reasons known only to the Devil and Rahm Emanuel, the President appointed Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano to his cabinet, which automatically moved Republican Brewer into the Governor's office.]

State Senator Russell Pearce, the Republican sponsor of the latest ID law, gave away his real intent, blocking the vote, when he said, "There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country."

How many? Pearce's PR flak told me, five million. All Democrats, too. Again, I asked Pearce's office to give me their the names and addresses from their phony registration forms. I'd happily make a citizens arrest of each one, on camera. Pearce didn't have five million names. He didn't have five. He didn't have one.

The horde of five million voters who swam the Rio Grande just to vote for Obama was calculated on a Republican website extrapolating from the number of Mexicans in a border town who refused jury service because they were not citizens. Not one, in fact, had registered to vote: they had registered to drive. They had obtained licenses as required by the law.

The illegal voters, "wetback" welfare moms, and alien job thieves are just GOP website wet-dreams, but their mythic PR power helps the party's electoral hacks chop away at voter rolls and civil rights with little more than a whimper from the Democrats.

Indeed, one reason, I discovered, that some Democrats are silent is that they are in on the game themselves. In New Mexico, Democratic Party bosses tossed away ballots of Pueblo Indians to cut native influence in party primaries.

But what’s wrong with requiring folks to prove they’re American if the want to vote and live in America? The answer: because the vast majority of perfectly legal voters and residents who lack ID sufficient for Ms. Brewer and Mr. Pearce are citizens of color, citizens of poverty.

According to a study by prof. Matt Barreto, of Washington State University, minority citizens are half as likely as whites to have the government ID. The numbers are dreadfully worse when income is factored in.

Just outside Phoenix, without Brewer's or Pearce's help, I did locate one of these evil un-American voters, that is, someone who could not prove her citizenship: 100-year-old Shirley Preiss. Her US birth certificate was nowhere to be found as it never existed.

In Phoenix, I stopped in at the Maricopa County prison where Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses the captives of his campaign to stop illegal immigration. Arpaio, who under the new Arizona law, will be empowered to choose his targets for citizenship testing, is already facing federal indictment for his racially-charged and legally suspect methods.

I admit, I was a little nervous, passing through the iron doors with a big sign, "NOTICE: ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING ANYONE IN THIS JAIL." I mean, Grandma Palast snuck into the USA via Windsor, Canada. We Palasts are illegal as they come, but Arpaio's sophisticated deportee-sniffer didn't stop this white boy from entering his sanctum.

But that's the point, isn't it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona -- after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? -- but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.

Arizona Sheriff Says He Won’t Enforce New ‘Racist’ Anti-Immigration Law

By Amanda Terkel

Last night on Fox News, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin criticized opponents of Arizona’s draconian new anti-immigration legislation, SB-1070, for making it into a “racial issue” by “perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law.” As usual, host Sean Hannity agreed with her, saying, “It does not encourage profiling. It specifically prohibits it.” Supporters of the law like to stress that police will be able to question people only during “lawful contact,” such as a traffic stop.

However, in Arizona, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who has been a cop for 52 years, says it will definitely lead to racial profiling. He told local TV station KGUN9 that the law is “racist,” “digusting,” and “unnecessary,” and he won’t enforce it. While the law may not explicitly mandate profiling, Dupnik said that there’s no way to enforce it without doing so; the “lawful contact” provision will become nothing but a “flimsy excuse” to target certain people:

The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn’t comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. “So we’re kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation. It’s just a stupid law.”

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. “If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they’re going to do it. They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.“

Watch it:

Another high-profile law enforcement official who has condemned what Arizona is doing is former Bush Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, who told the AP yesterday that “he’s uncomfortable with Arizona’s new immigration law, saying it allows police to question people without probable cause.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was also the governor of Arizona, said it shackles law enforcement officials by not allowing them to focus on the priorities in their own communities. There are also now significant concerns that immigrants will be less likely to cooperate with police in other matters. As one officer has said, “How do you police a community that will not talk to you?”

M.C.L comment:. What shocks me is that no high level Republican advised the governor to veto the bill or at least come up with a better explanation on why she's signing it. But I guess since the Hispanic population in Arizona are trending Democratic the Repubs decide what the hell, they're not going to vote for us anyway so F 'em.

Why Aren’t Tea Partiers Protesting Arizona’s Big Government Overreach On Immigration?

By Amanda Terkel Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), a Tea Party backer.

According to a new survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, white Tea Partiers tend to be “predisposed to intolerance,” pointing to a possible reason the movement has been reluctant to join with immigration reform activists:

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Also, if Tea Partiers really do feel like they’ve been taxed enough already, they should support immigration reform. As Andrea Nill has reported, “In January, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress found that legalizing undocumented immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue within three years. The study predicted that ultimately the benefits of immigration reform would go beyond pure tax revenue and would yield at least $1.5 trillion in cumulative U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years.”

Update In an op-ed today (via Steve Benen), Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse writes that she isn't "going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state":

What would Arizona's revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made "any lawful contact" and about whom they have "reasonable suspicion" that "the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?" Wasn't the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

Update On the Daily Caller, Matt Lewis argues that Brewer should have vetoed the anti-immigration bill. M.C.L Comment: I'll tell you why the Tea party klan are not upset with this bill is because it only impact people with brown skin. Once again the Tea Party have display their hypocrisy on issues they didn't protest during the Bush Administration and they're not protesting now when BIG government is actually interfering with the lives of people. Their whole movement is based on hating that n-word president nothing more and nothing less. Anytime I encountered a tea bagger on the net I ask the same question every time where were you when Bush and his Republican foot soldiers passed the Patriot Act, where were you when Bush suspended Haebas Corpus, where were you when Bush and the Republicans turned surplus into debt, where were you when 9 billion dollars of tax payers' money went missing in Iraq and where were you when Bush admitted he wiretap American citizens? And what I get back from them is always the same they either repeat the GOP talking point that was popular when that issue was going on or they act like they have short term memory. If President Obama was a white Republican president and still he accomplished the things he accomplished there would be no tea party events.

McCain On Arizona Law He Calls ‘A Good Tool’: I Don’t Know ‘Whether All Of It Is Legal Or Not’

By Matt Corley

On Friday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed a draconian immigration bill into law, which gives local police officers the power to detain anyone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. The law has raised serious concerns about racial profiling and potential violations of Americans’ civil rights.

Before the bill was signed, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hailed it as “a very important step forward.” His spokeswoman, however, clarified to reporters that McCain’s comments “did not represent an endorsement” of the bill. At town hall meetings in Arizona this weekend, McCain continued to straddle the issue, calling it a “good tool” for law enforcement, but also saying that he didn’t know “whether all of it is legal or not“:

Across town, about 80 people came to a McCain town hall where immigration also dominated the discussion.

Although McCain had sounded a note of support for the bill, calling it a “good tool” for law enforcement, he stopped short of fully endorsing the measure. “I haven’t had a chance to look at all the aspects, but I do understand why the Legislature would act,” he said. Even though it wasn’t clear to him “whether all of it is legal or not,” he said state lawmakers “acted out of frustration because the federal government didn’t do its job.”

McCain kept up the confusion over his position in interviews with local Arizona reporters. When KHUN’s Linda Garrett spoke with McCain, he wouldn’t answer “directly” when asked if he “personally” supported the legislation, calling it “a state decision.” “I’m sure there’s some controversial parts,” acknowledged McCain. But when he spoke with a gaggle of reporters at another town hall, McCain said he agrees “with the thrust of the bill.” Watch it:

Flanked by police officers at a town hall, McCain rejected fears that the bill will lead to racial profiling. “Passions are inflamed on both sides of this, as you know,” said McCain. “I do think that these honest, good, decent, hard-working public servants are not going to do anything to abuse someone’s rights.” (HT: Ben Smith)

Update Unlike her father, McCain's daughter, Meghan, has a clear position on the law. In her Daily Beast column, the younger McCain writes, "I do not support the bill that was signed by Governor Jan Brewer. I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents. Simply put, I think it is a bad law that is missing the bigger picture of what is really going on with illegal immigration." M.C.L Comment: Man selling your soul to the right wing makes a person go crazy.