Right-wing media sharply criticized the resignation of University of Missouri President Timothy M. Wolfe after a wave of protests over racial tensions erupted on the university's flagship campus. Several conservative media figures attacked the protesters, calling them "thugs" and a "mob," and claimed that Wolfe was "forced to resign" for the "crime of being a white male."
Leon Wolf, a contributor to Erick Erickson's RedState blog, wrote that the University of Missouri football players and students protesting racially charged incidents on campus are "cowardly liberal lazy douchebags" protesting for reasons he claims are "completely unrelated to racism," but are aimed at avoiding "practicing for a bad football team."
University of Missouri football players announced that they would stop participating in football activities "until the president of the university system [was] fired or [resigned]," following weeks of student demonstrations reacting to reported on-campus incidents including "racial slurs hurled at black students and feces smeared into the shape of a swastika on a wall in a residence hall." Student groups maintain that the university administration's response to these and other events have been inadequate and "sluggish," and the president resigned November 9, "urging everyone involved to 'use my resignation to heal and start talking again.'"
In a November 9 article, Wolf dismissed the protesters' claims of racist incidents on campus, alleging that the players "invented facially unbelievable accusations of widespread racism on campus" to "skip the last three weeks of pointless practices" for "a bad football team." He derided the students' demands as "laughably absurd," and called the protesting students "cowardly liberal lazy douchebags" and "willing suckers" engaging in a "lazy strike":
The sports media - who are uniformly worse at their jobs and more sickeningly liberal than their news media counterparts - have been breathlessly reporting on the fact that thirty black Mizzou football players are allegedly going on strike over racism on campus. This is being presented as an act of courage likely to foster social change, rather than as the act of lazy cowardice that it is.
Here are a few key points to illustrate why the story is not as the sports media would have you believe - these are not brave change agents, but lazy cowards.
At the end of the day, this isn't a courageous strike against racism. It's a lazy strike against practicing for a bad football team. The fact that the media isn't reporting it this way is evidence of the media's own laziness.
Upon news of university president Tim Wolfe's resignation, Leon Wolf updated the original post to say "Mizzou's President has apparently resigned, proving that some people think negotiating with terrorists is a good idea, even when those terrorists are 1-5 in the SEC." RedState editor Erick Erickson also wrote that "University of Missouri makes me laugh. The inmates have taken over the asylum."
Following on the heels of the trumped-up outcry over the Obama administration's regulations allowing women to have access to insurance coverage for contraception, conservative media figures are lauding a federal judge's decision allowing pharmacies to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B emergency contraception as well as a host of other important prescription drugs.
In 2007, in response to complaints from groups such as Legal Voice and Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy issued regulations to deal with pharmacies that refused to dispense lawfully prescribed medications such as Plan B and certain AIDS drugs. Pharmacies had also been accused of destroying or confiscating such prescriptions.
While preserving the right of individual pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that conflicted with their religious or moral views, the Board of Pharmacy determined that licensed drug stores had a responsibility to fill the prescriptions that patients and doctors had decided were appropriate or necessary. Thus, if a drug store employs a pharmacist who refuse to dispense certain prescription drugs, it must have another pharmacist available who will do so.
The decision to strike down the regulations could endanger women's health. As Legal Voice and Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest said in a statement:
"We respectfully and firmly disagree with the court's decision today," said Lisa M. Stone, Executive Director of Legal Voice, which co-represented seven individuals who intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of patients. "This ruling adds another brick in the ever-growing wall between women and their health care. What's more, it ignores well-established legal principles long ago articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Women's health care, contraceptive access and abortion rights are being debated across the United States, and the court's decision is yet another instance of a vocal minority injecting their beliefs between women and health care. Even as so many important discussions take place around health care, insurance, and access to health care, this ruling represents yet another interference in the doctor-patient relationship. A refusal to fill someone's prescription for personal reasons can have serious and damaging personal and public health consequences.
"This decision not only affects two pharmacists and one pharmacy, it is a blow to access to health care for all patients. When a pharmacist can refuse to serve a patient because he or she does not like the drug or the patient, where will it stop? The overarching priority in this state should be patient access to health care," said Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest.
But right-wing media personalities are celebrating the decision. National Review Online's Ed Whelan and Red State's Leon Wolf both celebrated the decision, with Wolf calling it a "blow against regulatory fascism." The ruling was also mentioned by Fox News' Gretchen Carlson. All three media personalities suggested the decision might call into question the constitutionality of the Obama administration's regulations giving women access to insurance coverage for birth control.
Not only are these media figures celebrating a judicial ruling that could be harmful for women's health, a closer look at the ruling in question shows that it is also likely headed for reversal on appeal and actually demonstrates how little merit there is to the argument that the Obama administration's contraception ruling is unconstitutional.
An examination of the legal issues in the case is below the fold.