Donald Trump is against women's access to contraception until he changes his mind again

Echo news reported in The Detroit News by Christine Fernando:

Trump says he is open to restrictions on contraception but his campaign says he misspoke 😩😕

Former guy Donald Trump said he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly,” comments that he later said were misinterpreted.

The comments, made during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station, suggested that a future Trump administration might consider imposing mandates or supporting state restrictions on such highly personal decisions as whether women can have access to birth control. During an interview with KDKA News, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded, according to a video of the interview that was briefly posted online before it was supposed to air, then taken down.

The likely Republican presidential nominee was pressed in a follow-up question if that meant he may want to support some restrictions on contraception.

“Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policy than others," Trump responded, before repeating that he would be releasing “a very comprehensive policy” on the issue.  (Clear as mud❓💩)

Trump previously said he would release a policy about use of the abortion pills in a Time magazine interview published three weeks ago, though he has yet to do so. This is the first time Trump has suggested he would have a policy on contraception 💥since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a national right to abortion two years ago, touching off political battles about aspects of reproductive rights, including contraception and in vitro fertilization.

Responding later to media reports of his interview, Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social that he “has never and will never” advocate for restricting birth control and other contraceptives. Even so, the Biden campaign was quick to seize on the interview.

“Women across the country are already suffering from Donald Trump’s post-Roe nightmare, and if he wins a second term, it’s clear he wants to go even further by restricting access to birth control and emergency contraceptives," Biden-Harris spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a statement.

Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate have long pressed Trump on the crucial question of whether he would allow women to access the abortion pill mifepristone via the mail. He has yet to make clear his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone and other abortion medications.

When asked during an April 12th interview with Time magazine for his views on the Comstock Act and the mailing of abortion pills, the former president promised to make a statement on the issue in the next 14 days, saying “I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue.”

During an April 27th follow-up interview, Trump said he would announce his stance “over the next week or two.” It’s now been three weeks since the interviews were published on April 30th and over five weeks since the GOP front-runner told the magazine he would release a statement.

When asked by The Associated Press for an update on when the announcement would be made, campaign officials reiterated a statement that reaffirms Trump's strategy of deferring to individual states on abortion. They did not give an updated timeline for a policy statement on medication abortion.

“President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion,” the statement said.

Biden campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said Trump’s allies have already “outlined exactly how they plan to eliminate abortion access nationwide with or without Congress.”

“We know Trump’s playbook because we’ve seen it,” she said in a statement. “Trump overturned Roe, brags about it constantly, and is proud of the horrific reality where women’s lives are at risk, doctors are threatened with jail time, and IVF and birth control access are under attack.”

Trump has often relied on the tactic of promising an announcement on a major policy stance in “two weeks” but not delivering, including on issues such as minimum wage, tax policy and infrastructure.

Abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion groups alike have expressed frustration with the delay.

“I imagine the events in New York City have been very distracting, but we are watching for an announcement,” said Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for the anti-abortion group Students for Life, referring to the former president's hush money trial.

Hamrick said the group has been speaking with Trump’s team about what can be done to restrict abortion at a federal level.

Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, pointed to the GOP’s Project 2025, playbook – a blueprint for ways to reshape the federal government in the event of a Republican presidential win in 2024. The Comstock Act is not explicitly mentioned in the plan, but it calls for reversing FDA approval of mifepristone and restricting “mail order abortions.”

“Trump will say whatever he wants, but what really matters is what he did – and that’s to facilitate ending the constitutional right to abortion and set state abortion bans into motion,” she said.

At least 22 states require abortion medication to be delivered in person either by prohibiting mail delivery or requiring medication to be taken in a doctor’s office, though such laws have been temporarily blocked from going into effect in Kentucky, Montana and Ohio amid legal battles, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Michelle L. Price in New York contributed to this report.

Trump rallies are evidence of his bizarrre cult attraction fueled by delusional ideation

Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley gets a broken ⏰clock award for this comment: Nikki Haley argues Donald Trump is always followed by ‘chaos’ before a large South Carolina crowd (AP report). Donald Trump Is His Own Chaos Whisperer

Chaos on steroids❗ Reported in The New York Times by Katherine Miller*- So, Trump opened his Allentown Pennsylvania rally by presenting a delusional fake news lead. He told theMAGA cult crowd that Israel was under attack, adding that “it would not have happened if we were in office — they know that, we know that, everyone knows that.” Onstage, at rallies over the last year, Trump has done these alt-universe loops in which if the election hadn’t been taken from him, nothing bad would have befallen the world — no embarrassing Afghanistan withdrawal, no Hamas attack on Israel, no Russian invasion of Ukraine, no inflation. Sometimes, with the way Trump talks, he can subtly lock more and more people into his inability to process his 2020, defeat. He does this by pairing his personal misfortune with that of the entire globe. (IOW Trump is detached from reality. Moreover, IMO, he should be receiving psychiatric medical care!)

But, in Allentown on Saturday night, these hypotheticals ended someplace else. When talking about the world being ablaze, Trump told the crowd about something Viktor Orban, the illiberal prime minister of Hungary, had said: “Bring Donald Trump back as president and it’ll all stop.” (👀Frank L. Baum wrote a classic story about delusional behavior like "Bring Trump Back😟😓".....like "follow the yellow brick road....OMG❗)  

As Trump put it, “He said something else, and I wouldn’t say it, I wouldn’t really like the word. ‘China was afraid of Donald Trump, Russia was afraid of Donald Trump, everybody was afraid of Donald Trump’ — I don’t want to say that. I want to say they respected me.”
Quantifying chaos is hard to do, but the last eight years have been some of the most chaotic in decades in American politics. And for the last year, Trump talked a lot about ending all this chaos simply through his resumption of the presidency — a kind of leviathan, superman thing. 

Delusional Trumpzi ideation! 

Before the rally, the Trump campaign played a movie-trailer-esque video that warned of nuclear annihilation. 

There is a theory advanced by some Republicans that Trump’s chaos and unpredictability deter others’ impulsive behavior — that other leaders could not quite read how the United States might respond, so the anxiety provoked by that uncertainty stalled out otherwise bigger and more drastic shifts in the world. After she left the administration, Nikki Haley, a former ambassador to the United Nations, framed her and Trump’s approaches to diplomats in the manner of a good-cop-bad-cop routine. “He would, like, ratchet up the rhetoric,” she said in 2018, “and then I would go back to the ambassadors and say, ‘You know, he is pretty upset. I can’t promise you what he is going to do. I’ll tell you, if we do these sanctions, it will keep him from going too far.’”

Trump himself will allude to his own chaos as preventive. Onstage, he sometimes claims he prevented Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine earlier on the strength of personal negotiation in which  Trump threatened a wild action. “‘Vladimir, don’t do it, don’t do it — if you do it, this is what’s going to happen.’ Someday I’ll tell you what I said,” Mr. Trump said at an Iowa rally on October 7. “He said, ‘No way you’ll do that.’ I said, ‘I will. I will; I’ll do it.’ And he didn’t believe me.” (This symptom is like the psychiatric patient who hears voices! There is medication available to treat these delusions.)

Then, in a possibly telling insight into how Trump views politics, he added: “But, he believed me 10 percent! That’s all you needed!” He said the same was true of Xi Jinping and Taiwan — Mr. Xi had believed him 10 percent and “that’s enough.” The idea of Trump injecting just enough creeping doubt or pain into the equation of how a person perceives what he’s saying explains a lot about American political chaos over the last eight years.

When you press on different parts of Trump’s reasoning, you find problems. For one thing, talking to Tucker Carlson last year, Mr. Orban framed his praise the opposite way from what Trump said in Pennsylvania: “The best foreign policy of the recent several decades belongs to him. He did not initiate any new war. He treated nicely the North Koreans and Russia, even the Chinese, you know. He did the policy that was the best one for the Middle East, the Abraham Accords.” And there are real crosscurrents even at Trump rallies: At the Pennsylvania event he opened by saying, “God bless Israel.” But at one point Trump supporters also chanted “Genocide Joe” — the chant about the president’s handling of Israel’s war in Gaza and the thousands of Palestinians who’ve died — to which Trump said, “They’re not wrong.”

Since the pandemic began, in particular, it can feel as though we live in a more precarious, interlocking world, where one bad development can threaten even worse ones, like a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. Trump talks a lot about what wouldn’t have happened, but a lot may still happen next year, regardless of whether he or President Biden is elected. (Hey Trumpzi cult❓  Praise Isreal or call their actions Genocide❗ Chaos on steroids.)

Politics involves the art of perception, particularly during campaigns. And Trump (has a Fascist instinct). He knows how perception works — how to build up themes and crush opponents. Those skills have reshaped American politics. But not everything works like that.

One thing he barely talked about on Saturday night was abortion. “Sometimes with Great Events come difficulties,” he posted recently about how he helped end Roe v. Wade, just before announcing that he would leave the issue to the states, rather than pursuing a federal ban. But leaving abortion to the states also doesn’t resolve the issue — one state supreme court can essentially end in vitro fertilization programs, and another can ban abortion in the space of a month.

Indeed, Trump clearly wants this to go away, for people to not talk about it, for voters to just kind of land on a middle ground, quietly. But people have strong beliefs about what abortion law should look like, beliefs that exist outside of Trump, in part because — like war or the pandemic — abortion policy is not one of perception. Abortion is banned or permitted in real life. (Women risk death if they are unable to receive abortion care in emergent pregnancy situations.)

Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in The New York Times Opinion

Ron DeSantis has not improved the quality of life in Florida

This opinion letter was published in TCPalm, Stuart Florida news:

OMG! No! President Ron DeSantis? Let's hope not❗

Ron DeSantis should in no way become president of our great country.

ROYAL PALM BEACH, Fla. — Florida homeowners are still getting sticker shock from their property insurance premiums in 2022.  The average yearly cost to keep a property insurance policy in this state is nearly double what it is in the rest of the country.

What this man D.Santis (or whatever he says his name is) has done to us in Florida, I can only imagine what he'll do as president!

Giving the insurance companies higher rates shows he doesn't care about the middle class. And what about letting the government decide when a woman can have an abortion?

At one time, I thought he was a good man, but I would not vote for him if he was the last man on planet Earth.

Roy Pelella, Stuart, Florida

Gun violence must end! Children are more important than AR-15s. Enough is enough!

Something must be done to prevent gun violence.

An echo opinion letter published in TribLive (Tribune Live), in Pennsylvania.  

I wish something could be done about gun violence, but I think nothing will ever get done. 

I deeply feel sorry and sad for the three children and three adults killed at the school in Nashville. We all mourn with every one of the seemingly endless litany of mass shootings.

There is nothing anyone can say or do to appease the losses especially when more children are murdered in preventable gun violence shootings.

It seems this is what happens when politicians preach hate, lies and fear instead of uniting a country. President Biden wants a simple ban on assault weapons.

Do you actually think some politicians want to solve any problems that make them millions in political donations from the National Rifle Association? 

After a human is born, then look at what happens? The "peaceful January 6th protest"- (HELLO❓) ❗❗❗

On January. 6, 2021, the Trumpzi-ism cult resulted in a violent mob and people getting killed. 

Abortion is another moneymaker for politicians who take donations from right wing religious zealots. 

Nothing gets done as the extremist excuses pile up.

Jokes are made by politicians about another politician’s spouse getting beat with a hammer. There’s a social media post of Donald J. Trump holding a baseball bat next to a picture of New York’s district attorney. Al Capone swung a bat to some of his disloyal criminals. The problem is, some people think this behavior is OK. 

And some right wing politicians are a joke. But the right wing extremist movement must be taken seriously and all the cult political enablers can be voted out of office.

George O. Curry in White, Pennsylvania

Women's bodies are on the 2022 midterm ballot

"We do have a powerful tool to respond to these threats — the ability to vote. The November midterm elections grant us an opportunity to defend our freedom of self-governance by electing sexual and reproductive health advocates who unapologetically champion abortion rights."

Echo opinion by Wendy Stark and Dipal Shah, published in the New York Daily News:

To say that we are in a moment of deep crisis in this country is an understatement. Today, a third of American women are unable to access the health care they need to control their own bodies. 

Unbelievably, the ripple effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to override Roe v. Wade are countless and unnerving, leaving a patchwork of abortion access throughout the country.

For people like Nancy Davis, a mother from Louisiana, outlawing abortion care is as cruel as it is dangerous.

In fact, Louisiana’s draconian anti-abortion law would have forced Davis to suffer through her pregnancy only to lose her child days later, or in Davis’ words: “I had to carry my baby to bury my baby.” Further, the effects may be felt locally as well. With politicians eyeing a federal ban on abortion, even New Yorkers could be in jeopardy of losing what we have taken for granted: the freedom to make informed decisions about our bodies, families and futures.

We do have a powerful tool to respond to these threats — the ability to vote. The November 2022, midterm elections grant us an opportunity to defend our freedom of self-governance by electing sexual and reproductive health advocates who unapologetically champion abortion rights. Bodily autonomy is on the ballot this November, and we have a fundamental role in the outcome. This is not a drill.

New York is an abortion-access state thanks to voters who in 2018, placed a pro-reproductive health majority in full control of the Legislature. Because of this, in a post-Roe era, Davis was eventually able to get the care she desperately needed at Planned Parenthood of Greater New York. There are thousands of stories like hers, with Americans looking to New York as a haven for abortion access.

In the absence of Roe v. Wade, New York has a responsibility to not only defend our rights but also advance equitable access to reproductive health care for those in abortion-hostile states. This requires us to once again harness our collective voting power to ensure true champions of our fundamental human rights are elected to office at every level of government. As people travel to New York to access critical reproductive care, what happens here in New York’s November elections will impact lives throughout the country.

Punitive abortion bans disempower large portions of our populace while further criminalizing marginalized communities already over-represented in the criminal legal system. New York must inoculate against this vitriol by enacting into law longstanding pending bills that guarantee higher protection to our communities — bills such as the NY Equal Rights Amendment, the Reproductive Freedom and Equity Program and a comprehensive sex education bill. This year’s local elections are our state’s chance to become a true beacon of progressive ideology.

There’s no denying that the Supreme Court’s reckless and cruel decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has drastically changed the world as we knew it. But while it may seem like the Supreme Court gave politicians more authority over our health care decisions, the power over our own bodily autonomy lies in the hands of you, the voter. Let’s make this Election Day another one for the history books — one where we put this country and New York State back on a path of greater liberty, freedom, and sexual and reproductive justice for all.

Wendy Stark is president and CEO and Dipal Shah is executive director of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York Action Fund.

Georgia deserves qualified political candidates- NOT hypocrites

Echo opinion reported by Weston Blasi, in Market Watch:

Georgia’s lieutenant governor, Geoff Duncan, says the Republican Party is growing tired of Hershel Walker as a candidate. “I think every Republican knew that there was baggage out there,” Duncan, a fellow Republican, said of Walker in a CNN interview on Wednesday. “But the weight of that baggage is starting to feel a little closer to unbearable at this point.”

Walker, who famously said he supports a “no exception” abortion ban, has denied he paid for the woman to have an abortion. Additional reporting from the Daily Beast indicated the same woman who claims Walker paid for her to get an abortion in 2009 shares a child with Walker, while Walker has also denied this further assertion.

“And if we’re being intellectually honest, Herschel Walker won the primary because he scored a bunch of touchdowns back in the ’80s, and he was Donald Trump’s friend,” Duncan continued. “And now we’ve moved forward several months on the calendar and that’s no longer a recipe to win.”

Duncan did not specify what “baggage” he was referring to, and did not respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment on this story, but Walker has been accused of stalking and domestic violence, his campaign falsely claimed he graduated from the University of Georgia (he left school early), and he has faced criticism over peculiar comments about climate change.

An Insider/Fox 5 poll showed that Walker’s opponent, Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock, is leading the Senate race. Warnock, in that poll, has 47% support compared with Walker’s 44%.

Past polling on this race is consistent with a close race, and MarketWatch’s Victor Reklaitis has outlined how Georgia’s Senate race in 2022 could sway which party controls the chamber after the November midterms. And the Senate balance of power may not be known until December if neither candidate wins over 50% of the vote, triggering a runoff under state law.

 Democrats have a slight edge to control the Senate,

"Roe Roe Roe Your Vote" : Vote Blue in 2022

Governor Janet Mills is running for re-election and former Republican Governor Paul LePage is challenging her successful leadership. For sure, LePage is "out of his political league" when he stumbles while trying to answer questions about his position on abortion.

Echo report published in The Washington Post by Amy B. Wang:

During his two terms as Maine governor, Republican Paul LePage attended antiabortion rallies, argued that “we should not have abortion” and said in 2018, that if the Supreme Court were to make a case for overturning Roe v. Wade, “let’s do it.”

But on a gubernatorial debate stage Tuesday night, in Lewiston, Maine, LePage was much more circumspect about his views on reproductive rights, struggling to respond directly when asked what he would do if the Maine legislature introduced additional restrictions to abortion in the state. Multiple times, he avoided answering questions directly, protesting that it was a hypothetical issue or that he did not understand the question.

LePage misused donated funds meant to protect families from domestic violence


LePage’s awkward performance, during the debate, highlights the position many antiabortion Republicans are in, four months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that for nearly a half-century guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States. The decision has galvanized Democratic voters — and put some GOP candidates on the defensive — in a midterm election cycle that would typically favor the party not in power.

On Tuesday night, a moderator first asked whether Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) would support removing the “viability” restriction in Maine’s current abortion law, which allows abortion until the point “when the life of the fetus may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life support.” After that, an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Mills, who has served as Maine’s governor since 2019, said she had no plans to change the state law, which she said reflected Roe v. Wade.

“I believe a woman’s right to choose is just that: It’s a woman’s right, not a politician’s and most certainly not Mr. LePage’s or anybody sitting in public office,” Mills said. “As long as I’m governor, the right to reproductive health care will never be considered dispensable. My veto pen will stand in the way of any effort to undermine, roll back or outright eliminate the right to safe and legal abortion in Maine.”

“I have never wavered in that position, never equivocated, never flip-flopped,” she added pointedly.

As the moderator began asking LePage the same question, he jumped in on his own.

“I served eight years as the governor of Maine. Never once did I attempt, ever, to do — even talk about the abortion bill, because I believe in — the bill that’s in place right now is a good bill,” said LePage, who was governor of Maine from 2011 to 2019. “I believe in protecting the mother’s life for rape … and incest. I also believe in the viability.”

The moderator pointed out that the question had actually been different. What would he do as governor if the state legislature were to bring a bill to him that added additional restrictions, such as reducing the viability period to 15 weeks or requiring parental consent before a minor could receive an abortion?
“I support the current law as it is,” LePage said.

“And if they brought those bills to you, you would not sign them?” the moderator asked.

“That is correct,” LePage said.

Mills interrupted: “Well, would you let it go into law without your signature?” she asked.

“I don’t know …” Le Page started.

(Yeah! Good  catch for Janet!  #RoeRoeRoeYourVote!)

“That’s the alternative,” Mills said. “You know that. You were governor. You know what the options are. Would you allow it to go into law without your signature?”

A visibly flustered LePage dropped his pen on the ground and then leaned over to pick it up as he shot back at Mills: “Would you allow a baby to take a breath? Would you allow the baby to take a breath …”

Mills paused and repeated her questions more slowly. “Would you let a restrictive law go into effect without your signature? Would you block a restriction on abortion?”

“Would I block? Or would-?” LePage said. “This is what I would do. The law that’s in place right now, I have the same exact place you have. And I would honor the law as it is. You’re talking about a hypothetical.”

“Oh, we’re not,” Mills replied, smiling and shaking her head.

“If you’re saying, we’re gonna take the restriction away, making it illegal for the viability?” LePage continued. “No, I would not sign that. I would veto that. The viability is in law now.”

After a brief pause, the moderator pointed out that LePage still had not answered the question. Would he veto additional restrictions that came to him? LePage asked for examples. The moderator provided them once again.

“If you’re talking about would I veto a bill that would change the viability, I would go to the medical professionals to tell me,” LePage said, shrugging. “I don’t know what you mean by 15 weeks or 28 weeks. Because I don’t know. I mean, I’m not sure I understand the question.”

“I was Donald Trump before Donald Trump became popular,” LePage joked after throwing his endorsement behind tRrump. (Can Mr. LePage spell "delusional"?)

Then, there was another pause.

“I understand the question,” Mills said flatly. “I would not let such law become effective. My veto can and will stand in the way of any restrictions on the right to abortion.”

“When you say restriction — I’m, I’m trying to understand the question,” LePage said.

A different moderator asked the question one last time.

“So, Governor LePage, if the legislature came to you and said we want to change Maine’s law, and instead of viability which currently stands at 28 weeks, now Maine’s law is going to say no abortions after 15 weeks — would you veto that?” she asked.

“Yes,” LePage said at last.

Abortion is a key issue in many races this November, with polls showing that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade remains unpopular. While Republicans generally have praised the ruling overturning Roe, many have preferred not to focus on the issue ahead of the midterms. But avoiding the topic became more difficult for GOP candidates after Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) introduced a bill last month that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide.

The debate was held at Lewiston Maine's Franco Center and was hosted by Maine Public, the Portland Press Herald and the Lewiston Sun Journal.

Governor Janet Mills Executive Order to protect women's health

Executive Order 4: An Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services in Maine:

WHEREAS, for more than twenty-nine years the State of Maine has provided a guarantee of reproductive rights independent of any protection provided by the United States Constitution, and the laws of Maine have long ensured that access to reproductive health care services remains readily available in the State;

Governor of Maine Janet Mills

WHEREAS, these rights have been recognized and expanded over time in Maine jurisprudence, law, and policy, acknowledging women's autonomy, liberty and essential role in our social, civic and economic life;

WHEREAS, Maine was only the fifth state to affirmatively protect legal abortion in state law;

WHEREAS, in 1993, ensuring that abortion remained legal was a bipartisan priority as lawmakers of both parties championed the Reproductive Privacy Act ensuring that abortion services would remain in effect even if Roe v. Wade were overturned;

WHEREAS, the Reproductive Privacy Act and other measures reaffirm that it is the public policy of Maine to protect a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy before viability in consultation with a provider, or after viability when necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman;

WHEREAS, Maine law ensures health coverage for reproductive health care by requiring state­ regulated public and private health insurers to cover family planning services, abortion services, and pregnancy-related services as permitted by federal law;

WHEREAS, Maine recognizes and supports the full spectrum of reproductive health care by requiring state-regulated public and private health insurers to cover broad options for contraception and by extending MaineCare coverage of postpartum care for a full year;

WHEREAS, Maine recognizes that the right to reproductive health care should not depend on the ability to pay and thus provides state funding to ensure that abortion services are available to low-income individuals;

WHEREAS, Maine has promoted equity in access to reproductive health care and the right to choose a provider by expanding those who can perform surgical and non-surgical abortion to include a licensed physician or physician assistant, or a licensed advanced practice registered nurse, and by expanding access to telehealth and mail-order pharmacy;

WHEREAS, citizens of certain other states that have adopted laws that severely limit or prohibit access to reproductive health care services may travel to Maine to seek such services from Maine health care providers;

WHEREAS, certain other States have also adopted and may continue to expand laws that purport to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions on health care professionals who provide, and on persons who seek and obtain, reproductive health care services in Maine as permitted by our laws;

WHEREAS, health care professionals lawfully providing and persons assisting with, seeking and obtaining reproductive health services in Maine in compliance with Maine policy should be protected from civil and criminal enforcement actions brought under conflicting laws of other states;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Janet T. Mills, Governor of the State of Maine, pursuant to the authority granted by Me. Const. Art. V, Pt. First, Secs. 1 and 12, do hereby Order and direct the following:

I. No Assistance from Executive Agencies. Except as required by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, no executive agency and no employee, appointee, officer, or other person acting on behalf of any executive agency may provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding initiated in or by another state that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanction upon a person or entity for: The provision, securing, or receiving of, or any inquiry concerning reproductive health care services that are legal in this State; or
Any assistance given to any person or entity that relates to the provision, securing, receiving of, or any inquiry concerning reproductive health care services that are legal in this State.

This restriction shall not apply to any investigation or proceeding involving conduct that would be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional sanction under the laws of Maine if committed in this State. Notwithstanding the general prohibition of this section, agencies and individuals acting on their behalf may provide information or assistance in connection with such an investigation or proceeding in response to the written request of a person who is the subject of such an investigation or proceeding.

II. Facilitating Access to Reproductive Health Care Services. Members of the Cabinet shall: Conduct a review of laws and regulations their Departments are responsible for administering to identify barriers to reproductive health services;
Exercise discretionary authority under the law to remove or minimize such barriers, including through the development of new policies or guidance;
Ensure that accurate information on access to reproductive health services is widely available to the public;
Communicate with Maine health care professionals about Maine policy and how other states' policies may affect their work;
Consider the need for legislation or other measures to remove or minimize barriers to reproductive health services that Maine law may currently present;
Take such other lawful actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote the purposes of this Order.

III. Interstate Extradition. I intend to exercise my discretion as Governor within the law to decline requests for the arrest or surrender of any person charged with a criminal violation of a law of another state where the violation alleged involves the provision of, assistance with, securing of, or receipt of reproductive health services, unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution of the crime charged would also constitute a criminal offense under Maine law.

IV. Definitions. For the purposes of this order, the term "reproductive health care services" includes all medical, surgical, counseling, or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including, but not limited to, services relating to pregnancy, contraception, or the termination of a pregnancy.




Janet T. Mills
Governor of Maine

Justice Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court because he lied under oath!

Brett Kavanaugh is a serial liar. Echo opinion published in the Los Angeles Times written by Jackie Calmes. 

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those facts, too. Pictured with side by side with Christine Margaret Blasey Ford, American professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.  Ford’s allegation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her some 36 years ago, a charge he vigorously denies.

It’s jarring to write that about anyone, let alone a life-tenured justice on the Supreme Court. Yet years of evidence throughout Kavanaugh’s career show it’s a fact.

And that fact, together with recent years’ confirmation controversies and Clarence Thomas’ ethical lapses, is central to understanding why public confidence in the court has dropped precipitously. And that was before the last week’s string of unpopular, precedent-defying decisions against abortion, gun controls and the wall between church and state.

Worse for Kavanaugh, the criticism of his credibility is bipartisan. In the latest blow, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a fellow Republican whose vote was decisive when the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh four years ago, has doubled-down on her contention that he “misled” her when he reassured her that, if confirmed, he would not support overturning the court’s half-century-old abortion rights precedent, Roe vs. Wade.

The ever-cautious Senator Susan Collins would never say “lie.” Yet the New York Times obtained proof of just that, clearly from the senator’s office, publishing “contemporaneous notes” kept by those who sat in on Collins’ private meeting with then-nominee Kavanaugh in 2018. According to the notes, Collins pressed him hard about Roe.

Kavanaugh told her: “Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law. I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.”

“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he said, and then added, “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge.”

Now, hearing that, wouldn’t you believe that Kavanaugh would vote to uphold Roe?

The credulous Collins did, or claimed to. People in both parties, however, those who are pro-abortion rights and anti-, did not believe him. Nor did I. That had much to do with Kavanaugh's record as a mendacious political operative.

Kavanaugh’s credibility was widely in doubt long before the he-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault that convulsed the country during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings and nearly killed his nomination. He denied the credible accusations of an assault in high school from Christine Blasey Ford and two reported attacks at Yale, one alleged by classmate Debbie Ramirez and another that Senate Republicans bottled up, for which there was a reputable eyewitness. And Kavanaugh also denied that he ever was a blackout drunk, though numerous Yale classmates came forward to attest, under oath, that he was.

In Washington after law school, Kavanaugh quickly became familiar to Democrats as the partisan protégé of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s. Investigators’ documents from that time, now at the National Archives, show Kavanaugh sought evidence that Clinton aide Vince Foster was murdered — pandering to conspiracists on the right — years after he told colleagues that he believed Foster had committed suicide, just as prior investigations had concluded. Kavanaugh also was widely suspected of leaking anti-Clinton information from a grand jury, though he denied it.

When his next boss, then-President George W. Bush, nominated Kavanaugh to the prestigious D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003, Democratic senators blocked his confirmation for three years, until 2006. They were convinced he lied to them during the confirmation process by denying involvement in several White House controversies: policies allowing warrantless surveillance after Sept. 11,  and the torture of terrorism suspects, and the selection and promotion of Bush’s most right-wing judicial nominees. (Maine Writer.....ahhhh! I finally have a better understanding about the reason why Kavanaugh was supported by Bush.) 

Kavanaugh also denied any complicity in a Senate scandal — “Memogate” — involving a Republican aide who’d surreptitiously copied thousands of Democrats’ emails from 2001 through 2003 and shared them with Bush advisors.

Democrats had no proof to the contrary in the mid-aughts, but at the time of Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 2018, they got some. Republicans, then the Senate majority, grudgingly released Bush White House emails that contradicted Kavanaugh on his role in the controversies he’d been asked about in the prior decade.

Most damning were the Memogate emails: Many of the emails forwarding Democrats’ purloined messages listed Kavanaugh as a recipient, often the only one. Yet in 2004, when Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer asked Kavanaugh whether he‘d received “memos from internal files of any Democratic members,” Kavanaugh under oath said, “No.” Another time, he testified, “I’m not aware of the memos.”

Confronted with contrary evidence in 2018, Kavanaugh conceded receiving the emails but said he’d figured the Republican Senate aide got them from Democrats in the normal give-and-take among staffers.

As if.😑

What Democratic aide would provide a Republican staffer with the specific questions that Democratic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy planned to ask a Republican judicial nominee at a hearing? Or a 4,000-word Democratic strategy memo? Or an email containing damaging information about a Republican nominee marked for Democrats only? (On the last one, Kavanaugh replied to the Republican aide within minutes, giving him rebuttal talking points for GOP senators.)

Still Kavanaugh testified that the messages never raised “red flags” about their provenance. “Judge, I was born at night,” an exasperated Leahy snapped, “but not last night.”

After Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sent scores of ethics complaints about him from lawyers, law professors and others to an appeals court council for review. Most were about his alleged lying under oath. The council soon dismissed them as moot: While the allegations were “serious,” the council said, justices aren’t subject to judicial ethics rules.

And that helps explain how liars end up on the nation’s highest court, for life, to determine how the rest of us live our lives.

@jackiekcalmes

Supreme Court rulings Roe v. Wade now endorsing religious policies

This echo opinion raises the spectre of the elephant in the abortion policy room.  In fact, religious zealots forced the Supreme Court wrong minded decision to revoke Roe v. Wade, a decision that protected women from being victimized by illegal abortions.  This "pro-life" anti-abortion momentum has been funded, motivated by, advocated for and now will be enforced by Christian religious groups:

Decision makes a mockery of court- Echo opinion letter published in The Columbus Dispatch:

The Supreme Court’s recent overturn of Roe v. Wade is one of, if not the worst, decisions made by the Supreme Court in modern history. Not only does it make a women in 2022, have less control over their bodies then they did in the 70s, which is almost incomprehensible, but it’s also exposed the grievous faults and clear problems in the United States, especially with its longest institutions and ideals. 

In other words, the Supreme Court, designed to be non-partisan in interpreting law, has overrun the court with American “Christianity”, leading to an erosion of the core American ideal of separation of church and state. I respect all religious beliefs and think religion is great, but this goes beyond just religion. 

And, make no mistake, this issue is not a Democratic or Republican issue, but an American one.

This court decision makes a mockery of the independence of the Supreme Court and directly enforces religion upon millions of Americans. The nine justices who swore an oath to non-partisanship have essentially stomped on the Constitution. It seems as if the people who claim they love America the most are actually the ones celebrating the downfall of a cornerstone of American freedom.

Charles K. Quinn, Columbus, Ohio

US Supreme Court is inconsistent in applying the "equal protection" principle!

Echo opinion from Fort Myers, published in The News-Press

Other 'rights' may be eroded!

Protect women's health!

The decision by the Supreme Court to purposefully do significant harm to women may portend further decisions that continue to erode other "rights" we have become accustomed too. 

Although the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is under no threat from this court, keep in mind that its members will someday change and that the rights Roe v. Wade conferred on women were in force for longer than the right for an individual to carry an AR-15. 

Obviously, Justice Alito gives more protection to men - where is the "equal protection principle"?

Among the several bizarre reasons Justice Alito gave for his decision is the fact that the Constitution does not specifically contain the word "abortion" (there was no need as abortion was readily available and accepted as a sometimes necessary medical procedure; even Ben Franklin invented and promoted an abortion inducing potion). Well, the Second Amendment says a well regulated militia can bear arms but does not specifically say individual citizens can. A future Supreme Court may point that out.

Wilburn P. Reed, Fort Myers, Florida

Catholics and Evangelicals have little in common except ~ perhaps, loss of followers

The Guardian view on US religion: the Christian right is breaking up

Editorial ~ echo from The Guardian

MaineWriter: Roman Catholics that aligned with Evangelicals did so to develop political mass for the purpose of opposing abortion.  This political convenience is breaking up under Donald Trump's failed leadership, because Roman Catholics are decidedly in support of caring for refugees, asylum seekers and immigration reform allowing those who are in the US to seek a path to citizenship.  

The Guardian reports: The alliance between fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholics cannot survive the humiliations of evangelical support for Donald Trump

One of the most interesting and important developments in the American culture wars, which is to say in American politics and self-understanding, is playing out inside the major Christian groupings there: evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. 

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest fundamentalist grouping, has been roiled by the discovery of a sermon in which Paige Patterson, one of its leaders, boasts that he counselled an abused woman to stay with her husband even when she came to him with two black eyes. Almost 3,000 Southern Baptist women signed a letter demanding that the 75-year-old Mr Patterson lose his job as head of a seminary.

For the last 30 years, the alliance between Catholics and white evangelicals has been an enormously powerful force on the right of American politics.

Although the Alliance was not based upon religious doctrine, it was based around a common opposition to abortion – a cause to which evangelicals came relatively late – and a wider suspicion of feminism. Apart from that, the two groups have little in common demographically, culturally and even economically. The economic model of American evangelical Christianity has been fantastically successful, based around marketing, merchandising and vigorous competition between preachers for congregations. 

Nevertheless, when you adopt the methods of the entertainment industry, you will also imbibe some of its values. 

One result has been the growth of megachurches where the American flag is far more conspicuous than the cross; another is the growth of the “prosperity gospel”, which teaches that the rewards God wants for his followers are to be obtained in this world. The big names of that world, such as Paula White, the thrice-married woman who counsels Donald Trump, were reality stars before the Kardashians, showing off their wealth as evidence that God blessed them.

At the same time, the organised Catholic church has been ageing and shrinking. It has maintained a degree of intellectual prestige and self-confidence, but congregations have melted away, so that former Catholics could now form the third-largest religious grouping in the US. 

The scandal-battered clergy is split into liberal and conservative parties, both believing that they are more Catholic than the pope. 

Only an influx of Hispanic immigrants maintains the church on the ground. But this threatens any alliance with the white evangelical movement. That has become increasingly racist in the last 30 years.

Evangelicals have set their face against immigration, as it has against homosexuality and climate change. Donald Trump is forgiven all his lies and adulteries, because he so clearly stands for white supremacy. But when Trump loses power, the fundamentalists will, too. Their literally patriarchal attitudes to women have already lost the younger generation. Conservatives used to warn that liberals who married the spirit of the age would be left as widows. It is a historic irony that this will be the fate of American conservative Christianity.

Bible Belt and Pro-Life Hypocrisy

Brazilian Roman Catholic Bishop Dom Helder Camara, who said: "When I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why so many people are poor they call me a communist."

“If you are not sharing God’s concern for the poor, it raises huge questions about whether you are a Christian at all,” Ronald Sider says about pastors who say nothing about the uninsured poor.

Finally, humanitarian coverage about how Christians should be calling for health care coverage for the poor.  

Bible Belt Christians have been obsessed with the abortion issue, but they haven't seemed to understand how health care is as pro-life an issue as protecting the lives of the unborn. There's virtually no difference between protecting unborn babies from death by abortion, and supporting the right for every person to access quality and affordable health care.  Christians should oppose abortion and support access to health care for all people.

In fact, it's hypocritical to oppose all abortions without also advocating for universal health care and visa versa.

Now CNN Reports:  John Blake reports

(CNN) – The Rev. Timothy McDonald gripped the pulpit with both hands, locked eyes with the shouting worshippers, and decided to speak the unspeakable.

The bespectacled Baptist minister was not confessing to a scandalous love affair or the theft of church funds. He brought up another taboo: the millions of poor Americans who won’t get health insurance beginning in January because their states refused to accept Obamacare.

McDonald cited a New Testament passage in which Jesus gathered the 5,000 and fed them with five loaves and two fishes. Members of his congregation bolted to their feet and yelled, “C’mon preacher” and “Yessir” as his voice rose in righteous anger.

“What I like about our God is that he doesn’t throw people away,” McDonald told First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta during a recent Sunday service. “There will be health care for every American. Don’t you worry when they try to cast you aside. Just say I’m a leftover for God and leftovers just taste better the next day!”

McDonald’s congregation cheered, but his is a voice crying in the wilderness. He’s willing to condemn state leaders whose refusal to accept Obamacare has left nearly 5 million poor Americans without health coverage. But few of the most famous pastors in the Bible Belt will join him. 

Joel Osteen? Bishop T.D. Jakes, and other prominent pastors throughout the South?

Like McDonald, they preach in states where crosses and church steeples dot the skyline yet the poor can’t get the health insurance they would receive if they lived elsewhere. All declined to comment.

When people talk about the Affordable Care Act, most focus on the troubled launch of its website. But another complication of the law has received less attention: a “coverage gap” that will leave nearly 5 million poor Americans without health care, according to a Kaiser Health Foundation study.

Learn more from Kaiser about the coverage gap in states that refused Obamacare

The coverage gap was created when 25 states refused to accept the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. The people who fall into this gap make too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to qualify for Obamacare subsidies in their state insurance exchanges. If they lived elsewhere, they would probably get insurance. But because they live in a state that refused the new health care law, they likely will remain among the nation’s uninsured poor after Obamacare coverage kicks in come January.

The coverage gap has been treated as a political issue, but there is a religious irony to the gap that has been ignored.

Most of the people who fall into the coverage gap live in the Bible Belt, a 14-state region in the South stretching from North Carolina to Texas and Florida. The Bible Belt is the most overtly Christian region in the country, filled with megachurches and pastors who are treated like celebrities. All but two Bible Belt states have refused to accept the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

Should Bible Belt pastors say anything publicly about the millions of poor people in their communities stranded by the coverage gap? Is it anti-Christian for state leaders to turn down help for the people Jesus called “the least of these"? Or should pastors say nothing publicly about such issues because they are strictly political?

 CNN's Sanjay Gupta explains who falls into the coverage gap

Who speaks for the poor in the coverage gap?

When these questions were sent to many of the most popular pastors in the Bible Belt, they hit a wall of silence. Virtually no prominent pastor wanted to talk about the uninsured poor in their midst.

Joel Osteen, pastor of the largest church in the nation, declined to be interviewed about the subject. So did Bishop T.D. Jakes. Their megachurches are both in Texas, the state with the nation’s highest number of people without health insurance.

Max Lucado, the best-selling Christian author who is a minister at a church in Texas, declined to speak; Charles Stanley, the Southern Baptist pastor in Georgia whose In Touch Ministries reaches millions around the globe, declined to speak; Ed Young Sr. and Ed Young Jr., a father and son in Texas who pastor two of the fastest-growing churches in the nation, also declined to speak.

Bishop T.D. Jakes declined to talk about the millions of poor people stranded in the “coverage gap."

The list goes on.
The silence is not hard to understand. Obamacare is a polarizing political issue in the Bible Belt. A pastor who publicly weighs in on the subject could divide his or her congregation or risk their job. And some prominent pastors like Osteen are popular in part because they  do not alienate fans by taking political stands.
The Rev. Phil Wages, senior pastor Winterville First Baptist Church in Georgia and a blogger, was one of the few Bible Belt ministers willing to speak on the subject.
He says he won’t preach about the coverage gap created by the state’s rejection of the Medicaid expansion because he has what he calls theological differences with the thrust of the new health care law.
Wages says the Bible teaches that the care of orphans, widows and the sick are given to the church, not to the government. Early Christians were the first to create hospitals, orphanages and hospices.
“I have an issue with the government coming in to get money through me - through taxes - to take care of people, when my argument is that I should be free to give to charities or to my church in order to take care of the sick and destitute,” he says.
Wages says he has no doubt that lack of health insurance is a monumental problem, and that many people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. Yet there is no New Testament example of Jesus trying to shape public policy on behalf of the poor.
“I do not see any biblical precedent where Jesus ever went to Herod or Pilate and said you should be taking care of the poor,” Wages says. “Jesus told his disciples to take care of the poor and the apostles said the same thing to the early church.”

Wages’ position is impractical and unbiblical, says Ronald Sider, a longtime advocate for the poor and author of “The Scandal of Evangelical Politics."
Churches and charities don’t have enough resources to take care of an estimated 48 million Americans who don’t have health care. The Bible is filled with examples of God's fury over economic oppression of the poor, which Christians should regard as scandalous, he says.

“If you are not sharing God’s concern for the poor, it raises huge questions about whether you are a Christian at all,” he says about pastors who say nothing about the uninsured poor.
“As God’s spokespersons, you ought to be talking about God’s concern for the poor as much as God. In the richest nation in world history, it’s contradictory to have millions without health insurance.”
“It absolutely stinks”
The coverage gap may inspire a religious debate, but for its victims the issue is raw and personal.
A recent New York Times article about the coverage gap revealed that many of its victims are the working poor: cooks, cashiers, sales clerks and waitresses.
“These are people who are working people but they haven’t been able to afford health insurance or their employers don’t offer it and they’re stuck,” says Andy Miller, editor of Georgia Health News, a nonprofit news organization that covers health news in the state. “A lot of these folks have chronic health conditions.”
They are people like Shelley “Myra” Mitchell, a single mom with four children who makes $9 an hour working at a Chick-fil-A in Georgia. She makes $18,000 a year – too much for Georgia’s existing Medicaid program, but not enough to qualify for subsidies to sign up for Obamacare’s insurance marketplace in Georgia.
Mitchell’s voice grew edgy with frustration when asked to describe her health needs. She rang up about $20,000 in emergency room bills because she has no health insurance. She can’t afford to get pap smears, go to the dentist or get surgery for a two-year-old hernia. She can’t take medication for her depression and anxiety because she can’t afford it.
She thought she could get help under Obamacare but recently learned she can’t because Georgia did not accept the law’s Medicaid expansion.
“It stinks,” she says. “I’ve been dealing with this hernia for two years now, and I can’t get anyone to help me because I don’t have health insurance. It absolutely stinks.”
Why pastors should stay silent about the coverage gap
Mitchell’s plight may stink. But at what point should a pastor go public on such a complex issue, and what could he or she actually say?
Two prominent evangelical pastors openly wrestled with those questions.
Andy Stanley is one of the most popular evangelical pastors in the nation. He is the senior pastor of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia, a megachurch with at least 33,000 members. He is also the author of the forthcoming book “How to be Rich,” which urges Christians to be "rich in good deeds" instead of wealth. His church recently announced that it donated $5.2 million to Atlanta charities and provided another 34,000 volunteer hours.

Joel Osteen has the largest church in America. He also declined to speak about the coverage gap.

Stanley says the coverage gap disturbs him. The church cannot handle the needs of millions of uninsured people alone and should quit taking shots at government involvement, he says. But he adds that it’s not anti-Christian for political leaders in states like Georgia to turn down the Medicaid expansion for the poor.
“If you really want to know how concerned someone is for the poor ask them what percentage of their personal money they give to organizations that help the poor,” he says. “Ask them how much time they give to organizations that help the poor.”
Stanley says it would be difficult for any pastor to talk about the Medicaid expansion without addressing the entire law.
“I tried to imagine a scenario where I urged people to write our governor encouraging him to reconsider his decision regarding the expansion of Medicaid for the poor,” he says. “As I imagined that, I got the feeling that by the time I finished explaining the issue, people’s eyes would be glazed over.”
Pastors who don't preach one way or the other on Medicaid expansion aren't callous or apathetic, says Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. They may be suspicious of a bigger government and skeptical of whether this move will solve the problem.
“The Bible calls on Christians to answer the cries of the poor,” he says. “All Christians must do that. The question of the Medicaid expansion is a question of how we do that. I don’t hear many people arguing that we shouldn’t care about the plight of the poor when it comes to medical care. The question is a genuine debate about the role of the state.”
Moore says some people have a “utopian view” of what state power can accomplish.
“Government programs sometimes encourage dependency, unintentionally break down family structures, and become unsustainable financially,” Moore says.
Bob Coy, pastor of Calvary Chapel megachurch in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, wondered aloud about what he could, and should, say.
Florida, which has the second highest number of people without health insurance behind Texas, has not accepted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
Coy says he hasn’t spoken publicly about poor people missing health coverage in Florida. But he has called the governor to get more information.
“I’m not an activist guy. I don’t tell the government what to do. I am a church guy. I teach the Bible.”
That doesn’t mean he doesn’t care for the poor, though, Coy says. He grew up in a poor family that couldn’t afford to go to the dentist. His church also spends a large percentage of its budget on serving the poor.
Coy says he is suspicious of large-scale programs that are publicly funded because they are often abused.
“One side of our society is saying, 'We need this,' while on the other side is saying, 'This isn’t fair and isn’t going to work.’ So how should a pastor, who has a heart to help people, respond?”
Why pastors should speak out
The Rev. Shane Stanford’s answer to Coy is simple: Talk about justice for the poor like Jesus did.
Stanford is the senior pastor of Christ United Methodist Church in Memphis and author of “Five Stones: Conquering Your Giants.”
He is also HIV-positive. He was born a hemophiliac and contracted the virus when he was 16 during treatment for his illness.
Stanford says he publicly speaks out about the millions of Americans stranded without health coverage because he knows how it feels. Once, after heart surgery, he was getting a transfusion when a nurse came into the room and pulled the needle out of his arm because she said he had maxed out his health insurance coverage.
He says standing up for people in the coverage gap is a matter of justice.
“Sometimes pastors have to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.”
Stanford ignores fellow pastors who counsel him to be silent about his state and others that refused to accept the Medicaid expansion.
“They say you have to be careful talking about political issues,” he says. “When I look at their lives, part of me thinks they never had that needle yanked out of their arm.”
Conservative pastors who urge their colleagues to avoid politics are hypocrites, says James Cone, a prominent theologian who has spent much of his career writing books condemning white churches for what he says is their indifference to social justice.
“When their own interests are involved, they are very much involved in politics,” Cone says. “Same-sex marriage and abortion – they have no trouble politically opposing them.”
Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, says a nation is defined by how it treats its most vulnerable members. But there is an entrenched hostility to poor people in America that goes unchallenged by some white, conservative Christians, he says.
“When poor people get food stamps, they get mad,” Cone says. “When the rich and corporations get tax breaks and pay no taxes, they don’t say anything.”
McDonald, the pastor who spoke out on behalf of poor people from his Atlanta church, says Jesus provided universal health care. The Gospels are filled with accounts of Jesus healing marginalized people.
“He did it for free,” McDonald says of Jesus’ healing. “The reason the crowds gathered around Jesus primarily was for healing. People want wholeness.”
Perhaps the gap between Bible Belt pastors who say nothing about the uninsured poor and those who do is also rooted in history. 
Conservative Christians have traditionally emphasized providing charity to the poor - soup kitchens, donations to impoverished people in undeveloped countries - while progressive Christians have blended charity with calls for public policy changes that help the poor.
The distinction between both approaches was distilled by a memorable quote from the late Brazilian Roman Catholic Bishop Dom Helder Camara, who said: "When I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why so many people are poor they call me a communist."
That may be changing as a new generation of evangelicals rise in the Bible Belt and elsewhere. One minister who speaks to them is the Rev. Timothy Keller, a conservative Christian author who pastors a megachurch in New York.
Keller is the author of “Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just,” a popular book that argues that evangelicals should do more than preach personal salvation; they must “speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves.” He is a role model for many younger evangelicals.
“God loves and defends those with the least economic and social power, and so should we. That is what it means to ‘do justice.’ ’’
CNN.com recently contacted Keller to see if he would talk about "Generous Justice" and how it might apply to health care and the poor. Did he think pastors in Bible Belt states should say anything publicly on behalf of poor people being denied basic medical insurance? His publicist said she would contact Keller with the request.
Several days later, she returned with Keller’s answer.
He had no comment.