Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Adele is one of the best selling artists of all time, and one of today’s most-loved pop culture figures. So, it’s understandable that Republican candidates dueling it out in Iowa would want to link themselves to the “Hello” and “Someone Like You” singer. However, Adele doesn’t appear to be too happy with her music being used by Republican candidates.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump recently used the Adele song “Rolling in the Deep” at a campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa. It’s a song that lends itself well to the fiery rhetoric used by the Trump campaign, with lines such as:

There’s a fire starting in my heart
Reaching a fever pitch
And it’s bringing me out the dark

Trump has also used the song “Skyfall,” at rallies–recognizable to many voters as the song Adele created for James Bond movie of the same name. He does appear to be a fan of the British singer/songwriter–Tina Fey has a very entertaining story about attempting to avoid talking to Trump at a recent Adele concert in New York.

But, Adele has officially stated that she doesn’t endorse Trump’s use of the song; her spokesperson told Billboard, “Adele has not given permission for her music to be used for any political campaigning.”

Then, there’s Mike Huckabee, who made an utterly cringe-worthy version of Adele’s “Hello.”

There are a lot of things that can be said about the video (including the fact that this awful version of the song has been stuck in my head since it was released last week). While Adele hasn’t made any specific statements about Huckabee’s use, the comment that she hasn’t agreed to let her music be used by any campaign probably applies to his video as well, although the fact that it could be considered a parody bring it into a slightly gray area.

Finally, Chris Christie also made an Adele homage to attack Marco Rubio, including a video set to the tune of “Hello,” as well as sending out this tweet:

Hello @marcorubio, it’s me. #tbtpic.twitter.com/RAo3HAkgb2

— Chris Christie (@ChrisChristie) January 7, 2016

The use of music in campaigns has always been controversial, but it’s still unclear whether or not Adele’s team will take any official action against the use of her songs or lyrics. So, for now, expect to see more pop culture-use by the contenders vying for victory in Iowa.

Read More: Campaign Music and Fair Use: What are the Rules?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Adele Apparently Not Happy with Candidates Using her Music appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. was taken into custody after attacking a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three people–two civilians and one police officer–were killed and nine others were wounded. News outlets are reporting that Dear told the police who arrested him “no more baby parts,” presumably in reference to the heavily edited videos about Planned Parenthood released this summer by the Center for Medical Progress, but there are still a lot of questions about his exact motives. But despite the fact that there’s still plenty of questions, that shouldn’t stop us from labeling Dear’s actions for what they were: domestic terrorism.

That’s not to say that plenty of writers, journalists, commentators, and politicians haven’t called it domestic terrorism. Many have turned to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism to make their case, which is compelling. It reads:

‘Domestic terrorism’ means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

But many others have stopped short of that designation, referring to Dear’s crimes as murder, or as Attorney General Loretta Lynch called it a, “crime against women receiving healthcare services at Planned Parenthood.” While “murder” and “crime” are correct, they whitewash the fact that Dear does appear to have had a political motive.

Because even if Dear does have serious mental health problems, he clearly went in with the intent of coercing either the government or Planned Parenthood in some way. I’m having a hard time buying the argument that he was just a crazy guy who randomly chose Planned Parenthood; that he wasn’t convinced by some political, social, or moral reason that his attack was justified. Perpetrators of attacks on this level, such as mass shooters, are rarely totally mentally stable, but that doesn’t keep them from being held accountable for their actions. Dear’s defense team could, of course, argue the insanity defense, but that is a very difficult burden to meet. In short, just because Dear may not have been all there doesn’t preclude him from being charged with domestic terrorism.

The DOJ is still looking into Dear’s actions and it looks likely that the agency will designate it as domestic terrorism. But the state of Colorado will be trying Dear first, and there’s no indication right now that it’s going to charge him with domestic terrorism. That’s a shame, and it’s wrong.

Now, some have called Dear a domestic terrorist, including presidential hopeful Governor Mike Huckabee. He stated:

What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there’s nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this.

That’s a good first step, and recognizes that disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and condemning Dear’s actions for what they were aren’t mutually exclusive. Hopefully more presidential hopefuls will join Huckabee in correctly pinning Dear’s crime as domestic terrorism.

So, why is it so important that Dear’s crime be labeled as domestic terrorism? There’s a lot of reasons, including the double standard that happens in our society when we attribute terrorism almost exclusively to those of Middle Eastern descent, yet often focus on the “mental illnesses” of white perpetrators of terror. Additionally, as Huckabee implies, it’s possible to view Dear’s attack as domestic terrorism, while still disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and abortion. But if nothing else, this needs to be labeled as domestic terrorism, because Dear deserves to be indicted and tried for the crimes he committed, and absolutely nothing less.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Call the Planned Parenthood Attack What it Was: Domestic Terrorism appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new weird feud in the political sphere. This time it’s between Governor Mike Huckabee–former and possibly future Republican Presidential hopeful–and people who like Beyoncé.

In his new book, Huckabee had a few things to say about Jay Z and Beyoncé’s performance at the 2014 Grammys. He stated:

My reaction: Why? Beyoncé is incredibly talented — gifted, in fact. She has an exceptional set of pipes and can actually sing. She is a terrific dancer — without the explicit moves best left for the privacy of her bedroom. Jay Z is a very shrewd businessman, but I wonder: Does it occur to him that he is arguably crossing the line from husband to pimp by exploiting his wife as a sex object?

Then, last week, Huckabee took his comments further and slammed the Obamas for letting Malia and Sasha listen to Beyoncé. In an interview about his new book, in which he calls Beyoncé’s music “mental poison,” he said:

I don’t understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything – how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school and making sure they’re kind of sheltered and shielded from so many things – and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable for either a preteen or a teen in some of the lyrical content and choreography of Beyoncé, who has sort of a regular key to the door [of the White House].

Then, Jimmy Carter weighed in, because apparently we now listen to his take on parenting? He said that he thinks President Obama is doing a good job parenting his two daughters. The fact that he got involved in this whole controversy seems more odd than anything else.

Back to Huckabee though. Some people have pointed out that he is being a little hypocritical given his close ties to constant provocateur Ted Nugent, whose lyrics are often a bit off-color.

Jon Stewart had Huckabee on his show, and the whole Beyoncé-hating thing came up; he actually illustrated the Nugent point quite well in addition.

The clip is below, but highlights include Huckabee basically saying that Beyoncé makes girls want to grow up and get on stripper poles. And in response to the Nugent juxtaposition, Huckabee claims that the song in question wasn’t as popular as Beyoncé’s, nor as widely and publicly performed, and that it was created for adults. While it’s fair that Nugent is less of a prominent figure, to be sure, that argument seems semantical at best. Huckabee has had him on his show and promoted him. It seems tough to argue that he’s such a niche performer that we can’t compare his lyrics to Beyoncé’s. At the end, Stewart’s main point appears to be that Huckabee doesn’t like Beyoncé because she’s not part of the culture that Huckabee is used to, whereas Nugent’s values line up more clearly with Huckabee’s own. Stewart stated: “You can’t single out a corrosive culture and ignore the one that you live in because you’re used to it.”

It really does seem like a case of Huckabee severely simplifying a lot of what Beyoncé’s music is about. While she has some more risqué lyrics, many are about love, power, and feminism. No one is a perfect role model, but she’s better than most.

Also, Huckabee should watch out. The Beygency (the very real group dedicated to taking down those who don’t love Beyoncé) could come after him.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Political Parties: Huckabee vs. Everyone Who Likes Beyoncé appeared first on Law Street.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance,  many women would not be able to gain access to birth control.  Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies).  Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.”  In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues.  And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.