Tim Murphy

Tim Murphy

Reporter

Tim Murphy is a reporter in MoJo's DC bureau. Last summer he logged 22,000 miles while blogging about his cross-country road trip for Mother Jones. His writing has been featured in Slate and the Washington Monthly. Email him with tips and insights at tmurphy [at] motherjones [dot] com.

Get my RSS |

Would You Like a Keepsake Photo With That Abortion?

| Mon Apr. 25, 2011 10:12 AM EDT

If there was a clear takeaway from the 2010 elections, it was this: No government bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor—unless you're a woman. Two identical bills in front of the Michigan state legislature would add more obstacles to women seeking abortions in the state; under the proposed legislation, doctors would be required to perform an ultrasound, ask the woman if she'd like to listen to the heartbeat, and—in a new twist—"offer to provide the patient with a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the fetus." Reports the Michigan Messenger:

All of this is to be done at least two hours before the abortion procedure and women would be required to sign a statement acknowledging that these offers had been made...

"We are all for maximum information being given to any woman seeking an abortion, or any other major operation, for that matter," said James Muffett, president of Citizens for Traditional Values which supports the legislation. "It seems quite suspect that abortion providers do not already do this. Maybe they know that there really is a living baby in the womb and if the mother saw that, she might change her mind."

As currently written there are no exemptions, which means that doctors would be required to offer a photograph of the ultrasound, even to women who have been the victims of rape or incest.

As we've previously reported, in recent months conservative lawmakers have unleashed a flood of anti-choice legislation—often with potentially radical consequences. In Nebraska, a law enforcement official testified that a proposed bill to legalize "justifiable homicide" in defense of the unborn could lead to violence. A similar bill in South Dakota would have permitted the use of lethal force to protect a fetus could have allowed the killing of abortion providers. In Texas, a proposed bill would have outlawed all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest. And at the national level, a Republican effort to redefine rape (part of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act") ultimately fizzled after a public outcry.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

BREAKING: Anti-Shariah Bill Sponsors Are Kind of Clueless

| Fri Apr. 22, 2011 11:44 AM EDT

On Wednesday, members of the North Carolina House debated HB 640, a bill to ban the use of Islamic Shariah law in state courts. This is nothing new: Since the beginning of 2009, two dozen states have considered such proposals, stemming from concerns that unless serious action is taken, American citizens will be forced to adhere to a draconian interpretation of Shariah. That's the argument, at least, but through each of these bills, there's been one nagging flaw—no one can explain, when pressed, why such legislation is necessary.

At this point, the drill is getting kind of familiar. How familiar? Well, here's Laura Leslie, of Raleigh's WRAL:

Rep. Verla Insko asked [State Rep. George] Cleveland twice for an example of a case that would show a need for the bill. "I do not have any specific examples off the top of my head," Cleveland finally replied.

Hey, that sounds similar to the scene on Tuesday when the Missouri House voted on a bill to ban Islamic law from state courts:

The Tennessee Mosque Lawsuit That Just Won't Die

| Thu Apr. 21, 2011 10:25 AM EDT

Remember that whole brouhaha last year about the folks who were suing to block the construction of an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee? To refresh your memory: The plaintiffs argued, in part, that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was not protected by the First Amendment, because Islam is a totalitarian ideology and not a religion (the Justice Department disagreed). The stakes were high. As the plaintiff's attorney Joe Brandon Jr. explained, construction of a new house of worship in central Tennessee was part of the Muslim Brotherhood's plan to, eventually, raise the "flag of Sharia" over the White House and subjugate the citizenry. A county judge found this argument unpersuasive, and ruled that construction could continue on the Islamic center.

Brandon, however, promised that very day that Murfreesboro had not seen the last of Joe Brandon Jr. And now, the mosque opponents are back in court, with a fresh set of complaints, 14 new plaintiffs, and a legal argument we'll diplomatically call "novel." Per the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal:

They contend that [plaintiff Kevin] Fisher has standing because he's an African American Christian who'd be discriminated against and subjugated as a second-class citizen under Shariah law and be denied his civil rights; [plaintiff Lisa] Moore has standing because she's a Jewish female who's targeted in a Muslim call to kill Jews in "jihad" in support of Palestine and as a woman whose rights would be subordinate to those of men in Shariah law; and [plaintiff Henry] Golczynski, who lost a son killed while serving in the U.S. Marines in a combat in Fallujah, Iraq, by insurgents pursuing jihad as dictated by Shariah law.

In other words, they're suing Muslims in central Tennessee for future crimes they might commit, because of past actions taken by Muslim insurgents in...Iraq. I see no way this can fail.

But wait, this story gets more interesting. The plaintiffs have also raised concerns about the presence of security cameras at the site of the Islamic center's construction site. Brandon alleged that the cameras violated his right to privacy, because they were able to film his car every time he drove by (one can only imagine the intrusion he endures every time he uses an ATM). The cameras were placed there by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which launched a hate-crime investigation last summer into a case of suspected arson at the mosque site.

Missouri Legislator Still Can't Explain Why He Wants to Ban Shariah

| Wed Apr. 20, 2011 9:45 AM EDT

About a month ago, we told you about a bill before Missouri's legislature to ban Islamic Shariah law from being enforced in state courts. The proposal, introduced by Republican state Rep. Paul Curtman, drew its language from the sample legislation drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based attorney who has previously called for Muslims to be deported. Since the beginning of 2009, two dozen states have considered proposals to ban Shariah, many of which have borrowed Yerushalmi's language.

Yesterday, the Missouri bill passed out of committee in the House, after a heated debate. Per KMOX:

"This bill will go to court and you are wasting your ink on this paper. Because this will not be upheld in court," [Democratic Rep. Jamilah] Nasheed said Tuesday. "You're wasting your time gentleman. You're wasting your time in this body."

Nasheed called on Curtman to provide a list of cases in which international law had been used in American courts but Curtman was unable to provide an example of such a case.

Why should that sound familiar? Because this exact same scenario unfolded in March, when Curtman held a press conference unveil the bill. Here was his response then when a reporter asked for examples:

"I don't have the specifics with me right now but if you go to—the web address kind of escapes my mind right now. Any Google search on international law used in the state courts in the U.S. is going to turn up some cases for you."

Tue Nov. 4, 2014 9:02 PM EST
Mon Jul. 21, 2014 2:33 PM EDT
Tue Jun. 10, 2014 8:26 PM EDT
Tue May. 6, 2014 9:03 PM EDT