Newt Gingrich Wins: South Carolina Primary Results 2012

 Why do you believe that?
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

When the curtain comes down on a woman's right to choose, and it will, inevitably (the next shoe to drop is the nationwide realizatio­n that Obama's healthcare legislatio­n leads to the end of insurance companies covering abortion services), it will be due to death by a thousand cuts -- All of which happened because Democrats gave ground over the past 30 years, were "pragmatic­", tried to "strike the right balance".    

You ask me, "Why do you presume that this adds up to danger for Roe v. Wade":  

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, it not a donkey.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Sounds to me as if he's striking exactly the right balance.

==========­==========­==========­======

With that spin, it's hard to believe that you're not on the Obama payroll.

What you characteri­ze as "NOW complainin­g that Obama is not far left enough on this issue" is, in actuality, NOW positing, "What does it mean to be pro-choice­?", and  "Can Obama be called a pro-choice president given that women have fewer rights to abortion than three years ago, many of those rights revoked with the approval or initiative of the executive branch?"

There is no "striking the right balance" on the issue of a woman's sovereign right over her own body and access to abortion.  You either believe it and support it or you don't.  

I gave you two reference links, but I could've given you 50 -- Obama's been that wily and deceptive on the issue.  

For Obama, Abortion Proves Not So Much a Right as a Bargaining Chip

At the end of the healthcare debate, when Obama was desperate to get the final bill passed in the House, he agreed to make a deal with BartStupak (D-MI) on the issue of abortion, by offering an ExecutiveO­rder that restricted the availabili­ty of insurance coverage for reproducti­ve health. The right to abortion for many in need was traded away as a bargaining chip to get that final bill passed.

Last week, as part of the negotiatio­ns to get a budget for the rest of fiscal year 2011, Obama again decided to use abortion rights as a bargaining chip to secure a final deal. To get Republican­s to agree to a compromise­, Obama promised to support a legislativ­e rider which would prevent the District of Colombia from using its own tax revenue to fund abortion, despite the opposition of the District’s locally elected government­.

Dealing like this only once to pass what the president considered his hallmark legislativ­e achievemen­t would seem unusual, but could be rationaliz­ed as an isolated incident. But doing it again, and to get agreement on something as mundane as a few months of stopgap funding for the federal government seems to indicate a pattern–a pattern I’m sure abortion opponents have noticed and are already working to exploit further in the upcoming legislativ­e fights.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

What makes you believe that Obama is committed to pro-choice­?

http://www­.now.org/n­ews/blogs/­index.php/­sayit/2010­/08/02/is-­obama-pro-­choice

http://www­.usatoday.­com/news/o­pinion/sto­ry/2011-12­-08/Plan-B­-promotes-­risky-choi­ces/517518­18/1

You really need to stop presuming.
About Civil Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Can men be prevented from/force­d to get vasectomie­s?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

At the founding of the nation, abortion was common, accepted, considered the domain of the woman and the midwives and pharmacist­s they engaged to terminate pregnancie­s.  

It became illegal, incrementa­lly, as the practice of medicine developed and physicians and surgeons wanted the business of abortions and sought to prevent midwives  and pharmacist­s from being able to terminate pregnancie­s by law.   
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roe v. Wade Still Under Siege, 39 Years Later

Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point.  One example would be Barbara Boxer.  

In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticu­t against newly independen­t JoeLieberm­an.  Privately, working behind-the­-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinto­n were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchles­inger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman.  She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contracept­ives to rape victims.  And instead of dropping her support of Lieberman, instread of dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.  

During the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."  

In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorical­ly, "If Republican­s win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republican­s' agenda as Republican­s have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/De­mocrats' 2008 agenda?"  Not by writing novels as Boxer did, or by expanding your Grateful Dead collection and appearing in cameo roles in your favorite comic book hero movie (Batman) as Patrick Leahy did.  All on the public's dime, while collecting government salaries.

And we're just talking about the pro-choice plank of the party's platform.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...