Bart Stupak Has ("FAMILY") Secrets He Doesn't Want You Talking About

[kpete]

Bart Stupak Has Secrets He Doesn't Want You Talking About

.................

.....what if a person calling himself a Democrat was so viciously against the settled law known as Roe V Wade that he was willing to kill the single most important legislation of the Democratic party's past 30 years in history?

Oh, so that's not enough to question whether or not that person "seems like a Democrat"? Ok, what if that alleged Democrat kept a room on C-Street, the place where christian right zealot republicans go to hide out from the scandals they've brought down on themselves, and who even mentored other members coming to C Street, and then lied about even knowing anything about it?

"For example," Maddow noted on Thursday, "Bart Stupak famously was one of the conservative politicians who lived at C Street -- a $1.8 million town house on Capitol Hill that featured in the Mark Sanford sex scandal and the John Ensign sex scandal and the Chip Pickering sex scandal. The house is home to a number of members of Congress. It has been reported to be run by the secretive religious group known as the Family."

what if that so-called Democrat tried to cover up his involvement with "The Family", the secret religious zealot hate group that has permeated C Street, and has recently been made infamous as the religious group from the US that has a dark and evil brand of "Missionary Work" - in that they go into countries like Uganda and help them to set up death penalties for gays laws.

Unfortunately for Bart Stupak, the man who has vowed to pull a Jim Bunning and sit on Health Care Reform until it suffocates, he's already been outed as a member in good standing.


....................

Stupak has insisted, "There is no such thing as 'the Family.' ... I rent a room, that's really about it. ... There is no theocracy that I'm a part of." He has also declined to comment on author Jeff Sharlet's claim that he is "very involved" in the religious aspect of the Family and has mentored other members.

"But here's the rub," Maddow explained. "Everyone who has been living at C Street, including Bart Stupak, has been getting a sweetheart deal. ... These are rooms in this really swanky town house that come with meals, they come with maid service ... How much do you think that's worth on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., just blocks away from the Capitol building? How about $600 a month?"

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/6/843524/-Bart-Stupak-Has-Secrets-He-Doesnt-Want-You-Talking-About
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/report-stupak-the-family/
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/17/third-alleged-affair/

[tekisui]

1. Purge the Democratic Party of anti-choicers. They just

get in the way.

[James48]

17. I am a pro-life Democrat.

And a member of Democrats for Life.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

And yes, I am from Michigan, where we have several Pro-Life Democrats. Dale Kildee and Bart Stupak are both men who vote their own conscious when it comes to abortion issues.

Those who want to "purge" people out of the party because of their beliefs ought to look very hard on where the party would be, without those of us whom are pro-life.

Jimmy Carter was pro-life.

John F. Kennedy was pro-life.

Many American Democratic party members are Pro-Life.

[Hestia]

18. And you, sir, cannot have an abortion, so really, all men want to do is have power over women n/t

[TxVietVet]

45. Let's have an Amen with that....

AMEN.
:bounce:

[peace frog]

79. How about a

HALLELEUJAH. The goal of anti-choicers is to strip women of their own power to choose.

[terip64]

85. Amen!

[defendandprotect]

176. Amen --

[pundaint]

78. It is tough to consider the other side's position for both views of this problem. Some pro lifers

do not accept that the aborted fetus is part of the mother's body, only resident within it.

If you were standing on a landing, fully supported by a railing 10 floors up. and someone else grabbed your arm while falling, but not endangering you, would it be moral for you to remove his grip and let him drop to his death, because he could not live independently without your continued support?

On the other hand, can I affirmatively say when independent life begins except that it is sometime before actual birth? So I'm not certain enough to choose for you.

I'm also in enough doubt that I will not applaud or contribute to your abortion, unless it was a forced pregnancy, or truly life threatening.

That Women/Men argument however, is just shit, until you can clone yourselves.

[RainDog]

97. It doesn 't matter what you think unless it is your body

and until you and others like you get this, you will find that you have few friends in the democratic party - the part that votes, not the part that funds assholes to run for office.

Your determination of the idea of life does not fall within the law. If you want to change the law to undermine a woman's right to privacy, you are an enemy of women in this nation.

you may not want to see yourself in that light, but that is how you are perceived.

you may hold any opinion you want. you may not impose your religious opinion on me or my sisters in this nation.

you think that this




should have more rights than an adult female. that, to my mind, makes you a pretty sick fuck.

why don't you anti-women voters get your minds out of women's panties and deal with the living?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainDog]

101. what a totally bullshit worthy post

if a woman uses birth control and that birth control fails (this does happen) that women should be FORCED to give birth to please you?

get over your own self.

what a stupid fucking argument. are you 12 years old? do you think that every time a female has sex she should be forced to accept that she may give birth because of this?

what do you think about the morning-after pill or an IUD?

what about birth control pills?

let's break it down and find out when you think a woman has a right to privacy over her own body.

oh, and "ownership of the product?" used car salesmen for life talk.

[pundaint]

103. Brilliantly argued, you've convinced me with your rapier logic

[RainDog]

104. answer the questions. n/t

[pundaint]

106. NO, you haven't digested the ones so far, you're just being greedy for enlightenment now.

[RainDog]

107. in other words, you don't have the balls to tell the truth.

but you think you should be at the front of the line of the crotch sniffing brigade.

you're intellectually dishonest, in other words, since you refuse to answer the most basic and simple questions about issues of birth control.

[Starry Messenger]

109. "accepts a man's sperm"??

O mighty sperm giver, thank you for this gift!

Uh, birth control *does* fail...

[pundaint]

112. I didn't design the reproductive system, it is a biological fact. That egg doesn't become abortable

without some participation on the part of a man. As a species, these interactions are necessary. If you observe nature, the continuance of the species drives the behavior of all living things. It is a fact of existing here that both sides of that transaction have a vital interest an a real ownership share in that process. You mighty egg possessors may want to give that some thought.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

123. Which in no way addresses the issue of unwanted sperm

I'm sorry your half of the species can't create babies. I know that lack of control is difficult for some of you. Keep working on it though! They say practice makes perfect. :rofl:

[pundaint]

141. Which of your half of the species has created a baby with no involvement from the other half?

[Starry Messenger]

143. The part that uses donated sperm?

Not all sperm needs the fellow who donates it to be involved in the process other than to squirt into a cup.

[pundaint]

145. You mean that female sperm? There still is another involved. Do you imagine it wouldn't be

possible to take a donated egg, fertilize it and implant it in another mammal. It's been done with human ears and mice. The argument just isn't supportable without so much qualification as to render is irrelevant. There are plenty of women who cannot host a blastocyst to birth. Should their opinions be excluded from the debate as well.

Careful readers would know that my first two posts in this matter specified that I was pro choice, if not pro abortion.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pundaint]

148. There may be some confusion here, my first post, I believe was #67 - do you see an earlier one

that I've forgotten.

[LanternWaste]

173. And discerning readers will know much more than that...

"Careful readers would know that my first two post..."

And discerning readers will know much more than that...

[defendandprotect]

181. Pour it in a cup, put it into a vile, spill it on the ground . . you don't have to be there ...

Freeze it !!

Men have always understood this -- and that's why they're so angry at Nature!!

[defendandprotect]

180. They worked on it . . . read all about it in the Bible . . .Adam gave a rib . .. ??

But, unfortunately, for Adam there was this uppity little lady called Lilith who

was his first wife -- and she seemed to recall that she and Adam were created EQUALLY.

Lilith was moved out and Eve moved in -- Oops!!

So the Bible begins with a divorce!!



:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

179. Nature has given almost ALL responsibility for childbearing, childrearing to females . . .

and Nature is pro-choice --

though much of the material and information has been destroyed . . .

NATURE provided many ways through plants which are our medicines to terminate

conception and pregnancy -- to end fertility -- and to protect against conception.

[RainDog]

113. I think we've got a nutter.

ownership of product,

accept a man's sperm...

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[pundaint]

115. Is there anybody out there with arguments? Insults are so tedious.

[RainDog]

117. actually, I have laid out the arguments on this issue many times.

but you're not worthy of my time when you cannot even answer the most basic questions about your stance on this issue.

do you object to the morning after pill, iud and/or birth control pills?

do you understand that a zygote has no consciousness? that it is this big (.) when it has undergone hundreds of cell divisions? that you are claiming this period at the end of a sentence has precedence over the choice and life of an adult human?

what do you think about the Brazilian priests who, just last week, refused to condemn a 9 year old who was raped by her stepfather and ended up pregnant with twins? the church hierarchy called for those priests to be excommunicated because they sided with the child who wanted to abort the product of her stepfather rapist.

answer those questions - because if you can't, there's no reason to give any consideration to what you say.

but then there's the fact that, further down in this thread, you admit that you have a stereotyped view of women who seek abortions. you call them irresponsible and incompetent.

...with no knowledge of anyone's individual circumstances. that's bigotry on your part. as I noted further down, that's your own admission that you choose to perpetrate hateful stereotypes about women.

why would anyone think you're worth arguing with when you've already stated your position as anti-woman?

[katandmoon]

132. Can't get past the dick waving.

[pundaint]

142. Is that your argument?

[LooseWilly]

152. I have an argument...

The laws of genetics, as I've seen them manifest, tend to produce children who share attributes of their parents.

The opinions you choose to post suggest a reason why women should have the right to control whether or not they wish to bring to term the spawn of sperm donators that they come across... since not all males have the guts to express the obnoxious opinions that you are espousing before the act of coitus.

Just because a man lies before the act, shouldn't mean that a woman should be burdened with bringing to term a child who is liable to share the same sort of noxious controlling tendencies that you are displaying in this thread. If a sperm contributor turns out to be an asshat, then a woman should have the right to terminate the "birth contract" that you seem to be implicitly attributing to the act of sex, unilaterally.

In fact... your arguments are, in and of themselves, a basis for the justification of abortions, in this hetero male's opinion. If more women took the initiative to abort the children of blowhards such as yourself, then maybe the world would be a better place. Of course, that is just a personal opinion... and in no way meant as a personal insult. It's meant solely as an personal judgement of your values and the possibility of those values being passed on to a new generation.

Of course, if those males who held opinions similar to your own would just share them outright, rather than waiting until after coitus/pregnancies... then maybe abortions wouldn't be turned to as often. Rather, I suspect vibrator sales would increase... which might help the economy.

If you and your ilk would say this stuff to women up front... you could help spark an economic recovery. How patriotic would that be?

[pundaint]

167. So is "blowhard" your argument, or just a gratuitous insult?

Men do not have the exclusive franchise on lies.

I do not imagine that women amble about picking up the sperm of those they come across as described in your paragraph 2. I would be happy to respond to specifics if you could tell me which of my expressed opinions you find obnoxious.

Congratulations on being hetero, you seem very proud. (note to readers: this in no way means that I don't support all lifestyle choices regardless of sexual orientation - I am only mocking in this case a line of discourse that imagines one's sexuality strengthens the value of one's argument)

I need some help on that last line, it appears a long and convoluted line of reasoning has been replace by an ellipsis.

[Starry Messenger]

124. I'm getting a Dr. Strangelove vibe here

Some one has stolen his purity of essence. :D

[RainDog]

125. precious bodily fluids!

tho, since LoTR, hearing the word "preeeeecccccious" has even stranger connotations.

and, when confronted, the Onan-ers run.

[defendandprotect]

182. What's that song from Monty Python? "Every sperm is holy" . . .???

[katandmoon]

131. Bullfuckingshit. This is the single most repulsive statement I've ever read on DU.

[pundaint]

144. Which part, the part about agreeing to the process, or the part that it take two to procreate,

or the part that we're all in this together. Perhaps you were referring to the mischaracterizing of my opinions by those who either didn't read the words I actually posted, or just believed that I meant things I didn't write, or maybe they were venting about something unrelated, but just doing it in response to my opinions.

Offer/acceptance it's the way things are done between people with respect for each other. Acceptance implies both self-determination on the part of the accepter, and respect on the part of the offerer. I really don't see other interpretations within the realm of standard English.

Why the anger?

[LooseWilly]

150. Dude, as a male I'd ask you to STFU... if women took you're half assed opinions to heart...

then they'd stop sleeping with men who they have no intention of having children with.

I like to think of myself as such a man.

"... she has no right to exclusive ownership of the product," what the fuck are you talking about? You're talking about fetuses like they're the latest model Hyundai... and a joint investment implicit in any and all acts of sex. What kind of twisted man tries to turn the act of sex into a joint negotiation of the purchase of an automobile? Or a set of bedroom furniture? Or even a set of shoes?

Talk about selfishness!!... You're blowhard opinions are going to influence at least a half dozen women in the real world to think that having sex is an implicit business arrangement... necessitating a negotiation over the property rights of the "ownership of the product" that may or may not be in the offing... and the next thing you know... there's going to be an expectation that there should be forms to be signed, with a division of profits to be potentially derived, should the "product" become viable for an "IPO" (successful college graduate children of such a union should have the parental gifting rates negotiated in advance of, not only birth, but the act of sex itself...)

Your opinions sicken me and make me worry about how they reflect on my gender. Please sir, desist. You are a cancre on the good name of a gender that would excise those who espouse your noxious viewpoint were we given our druthers.

Now you leave me, as a heterosexual male who respects the rights of a woman to control of her own body, to attempt damage control over the toxicity that you are trying to spread into the public discourse.

Once again sir... please... STFU.

[pundaint]

168. Hey dude, I do not mean to denigrate fucking for sport or it's aerobic benefits.

I do advocate the use of appropriate equipment for sport however. Sport fuckers should use the protection required, it is the kind of responsibility for ones actions, that serious people exhibit.

In the interest of helping you get laid, i'll leave it there.

[defendandprotect]

178. Amazing, isn't it -- !! Thank you -- !!! Keep tellin' it -- !!

[old mark]

99. bullshit. It is ALL about power over others, as is religion. If you can't have

children and you are not in the situation you have NO FUCKING BUSINESS "making a decision" for others.
None. Ever.


mark

[pundaint]

102. When you can have children without a man's contribution and preserve the species your argument willl

still have little merit. Ever notice how the greatest anger is always present when man is arguing to behave counter to the humane way?

I laid out both sides of the argument, sided with choice, but said that your choice would not be mine. Even though I ceded the decision to your position, you are still pissed that I even have an opinion. Way to build a coalition for your side.

[defendandprotect]

183. Which sperm contributors are looking to FORCE women to bear children?

Yes, the Pope recently did that -- pleading with the Italian government to "make

Italian women have more children!"

Because he loves the little ones?

Maybe more than we would want to know -- !!!

But what he said was that the economy and capitalism need workers to grow on!!

[pundaint]

136. Did I assert the right make the decision anywhere? I read a lot of anger, but not much evidence of

reading what I said. My argument was mischaracterized by others, and I am excoriated for their errors. I have been insulted, and the rules of the site as to civility have been ignored. I am happy to defend my words. You may not agree with my reasoning, but if you read the whole thread from the beginning, you will not find from me.

Please identify the women who can procreate without men. Until then, women cannot make a baby either so they too would have NO FUCKING BUSINESS" making a decision" for others as you assert. If you and I buy a gold coin, it cannot be in both our pockets at the same time. If you have no pockets and I do, do I get total control of that coin once it's in my pocket? Well it takes two to create that blastocyst too.

[olegramps]

160. Is this a logical extension of your position?

Can a a rapist claim to have rights in determining if an abortion can be performed or is it solely the prerogative of the victimized female?

[pundaint]

162. That's not even a supportable question for those who have read the whole discussion.

[JerseygirlCT]

122. The fact that it IS a complex decision is exactly why it should be

made by only the person involved. And before birth, the fetus is not a person. The woman, whose body is necessary to support that fetus, is the only person, who should be trusted with that weighty decision.

Do you think you ought to be compelled to give up a kidney so someone else can live?

Pregnancy isn't all hearts and flowers. It's serious stuff, and the risks to the woman are far greater than the risks of an abortion. She lays something tangible on the line with her choice to continue a pregnancy.

[pundaint]

137. Would that be because we have lots of evidence that complex decisions are best decided from one

point of view? There are no fetus' created by only one involved person.

That said, read the post - I supported choice.

[JerseygirlCT]

166. Doesn't matter whether we like the decision -

I don't have to like what you have for dinner, do I? Or that tattoo you think is great?

The person who makes the decision is the person whose body is at stake. Your opinion is inconsequential to that decision.

It's not about "created", it's about pregnancy. When the man carries the baby through a pregnancy, then it will be his decision. For now, his contribution doesn't rate a vote in what happens with *her* body - unless she wants to include him.

[pundaint]

169. We disagree, but that was the starting point. That's cool, if the Truth here was obvious

we wouldn't have the abortion issue messing up so much of the unrelated parts of American government.

[RainDog]

174. doesn't quite rise to the level of logic

the truth may be obvious but there are those who do not want to accept it based upon things they were taught as children.

this is where creationism comes from. there is NO DOUBT that creationism is a lie. There is NO DOUBT that the earth is older than they believe, that humans did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus, or even that childbirth and pain are the gods' punishments for unlawful carnal knowledge.

however, a vast number of Americans have been brainwashed and/or have been uneducated and so they do not accept the fact of evolution. This doesn't make evolution wrong but it does make the statement that any action or opinion, when opposed vigorously enough, makes the opposition valid.

creationists have such a narrow view of god that their god's existence is threatened in the face of information that discredits their claim that the bible is literally true... even tho it is obvious that the bible is not literally true in hundreds of other ways, none of which have to do with evolution.

that information, however, does require acceptance of reality as it is known and practiced in the last 150 years, at the least.. more like the last 300 years.

any time a religious belief is the basis for an adamant opinion and that opinion is questioned, those believers must face the reality that their position is not valid to the majority of adults. This is disconcerting.

and issues pertaining to god are especially scary to people because of their fears of their own mortality.

[defendandprotect]

184. There is only ONE person carrying the fetus . . . and NATURE has ordained the female to do that...

[pundaint]

199. Did Nature also ordain men to be the leaders because on average they are stronger?

I don't hate you because I don't value your line of reasoning on this issue.

[defendandprotect]

203. Do you see proof that nature trusts women with childbearing . . .??

Now, show me proof that males are "leaders" --

rather, patriarchy has claimed dominance thru violence -- that's all.

I'm glad you don't "hate" me for debating you . . . but, then, why should you?

What would be going thru your mind to suggest hatred?


Violence and "strength" btw can be two different things --

When patriarchy uses its strength for warmaking and dominance, should it be admired?

Is that how Jesus used his "strength"?

[defendandprotect]

177. First, you're confusing an embryo or a fetus with an established life . . .

The female has an established life --

so does that "grabber" you've hypothesized --

The fetus isn't a "resident" -- it is dependent on the willingness of the host --

How much do you protest paying for our wars which have now killed 2 million innocent Muslims?

Actual, LIVING human beings?

I notice that you do concede to the CHOICE of the female in the issue of a rape --

The argument that males have no part in ruling on this issue is valid -- it is an excercise

in male oppression, much as we have seen over thousands of years.

Late term abortions are often a matter of "self-defense" -- which the religious right would

deny only the female!!

[pundaint]

200. In fact, the point of becoming a true independent life is my big area of uncertainty.

Neither a fetus nor a two-year old can exist independently. I cannot assert with moral certainty the point where, as a member of the human race, one's obligation to take reasonable actions to preserve another's existence begins.

Reading for comprehension would have informed you of my assertion of choice, period, until I have moral certainty in this area - and I don't expect that to happen.

[defendandprotect]

204. Do you really think that everyone here ....

isn't aware of your attempts to undermine CHOICE/abortion with nonsense questions?

Please!!

After birth, a child can be cared for by relatives, if necessary.

A Mother is not indispensible AFTER birth.

She is indispensible however BEFORE birth.

The division lies in BIRTH . . . and a birth certificate --

[pundaint]

206. So the meds wear off around 9 PM Eastern time, eh?

[defendandprotect]

207. Is it not clear to you . . .

that comments like that should that you can't debate the issue?

That you're bankrupt -- ?

Puerile --

[The Straight Story]

116. I feel the same about smoking in bars. Your body, your choice where to drink/work(nt)

[Demeter]

157. You Said It, Sister

Stupid is an embarrassment to the Democrats, not just to Michigan.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

25. hawkeye

:loveya:

[tekisui]

20. Ew, yuck.

You are anti-choice.

[Hawkeye-X]

22. Ok, let's counter your arguments

Did Jimmy Carter or JFK even push their pro-life views to the American People?

For JFK: no

There is no record of President Kennedy's written or spoken position on abortion. Sargent and Eunice were pro-lifers.

[Bluebear]

24. Simple. Then don't have an abortion....MISTER

[chill_wind]

66. Well replied.

:hi:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Wizard]

27. Pro Life or Anti Choice

does not take down the wall between Church and State. If you want the State to enforce religious law there are several jurisdictions where that happens, none of them within the borders of the United States.
Stupak is part of a religious cult in the Congress. Maybe it's time for Bart to take off his cheap disguise and expose his true self.

[midnight]

48. Perfect.

[verges]

28. Pro-life is nice. But 'll submit that you are also Anti-choice.

Which is not nice. Since Roe v. Wade (which was after JFK) the right to abortion has been the law of the land. NOTICE THAT i SAY "right to" not compulsory. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion against their will. Women should (and currently do) have the right to make their own medical decisions (with their doctor).

Now, ask yourself if it's more important to you whether you deny a woman a legal medical procedure in order to kill a major plank of the Democratic platform that has been fought for for over 50 years? If you're willing to do that, then perhaps you may want to reconsider your party affiliation. Because it seems that being Anti-choice is more important than Democratic Party beliefs.

[RainDog]

31. do you oppose other forms of birth control like the morning after pill and IUD?

I just wonder how much of an extremist you are.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alfredo]

36. I see no conflict. You can be pro life, but against trying to

give your religious beliefs force of law. I don't like abortion, but I am a man and would never deny a woman the choice. It's her body, her choice.
You can be against abortion (pro life) and pro choice.

The Republicans are using the pro life movement for their own goals. For them it is the affirmation of a right to privacy in Roe Vs Wade that ticks them off, it is not the "unborn."

[defendandprotect]

185. It's also about females controlling population . . . population growth or no growth . . .

Pope before this one went before the Italian government -- unprecedented --

to plead with them to "make Italian women have more babies" -- !!!

Did he offer women help --- aid, childcare -- what were the reasons?

Evidently the Pope was concerned about the growth of capitalism -- workers!!

[musette_sf]

41. "where the party would be" without you:

UNIFIED to pass a decent health care act.

There is a party for you. Actually, there are two parties for you to choose from, depending on your taste for tea.

But the Democratic Party is not one of them.

[defendandprotect]

186. Unfortunately, those who would deny females a choice are usually fanatically religious ...

and that being dragged into the "Democratic Party" has been costly for taxpayers

as we are now funding religion!! "faith based" organizations!!

Obama is increasing that funding --

We don't need religious fanatics in the Democratic Party!!

[liberation]

43. ... and that is very nice and all. You're free to have your beliefs, just keep them to yourself.

As others have pointed out the whole "pro-life" crap is so utterly disingenuous, that I no longer can take seriously the opinions of people who are way to concerned about what other people do with their bodies only at the decision making stage.

[eagertolearn]

44. Then i hope you follow what you believe in then let others have their choice in what to believe in.

I wish some of these pro lifers would help take care of all these kids born to people who would have had an abortion if there was a place to have one...and now they want to take away all choice and make it so no one can have an abortion? We need to fight for choice and you should addopt a kid who needs to try to live in this world without a parent!

[AwakeAtLast]

50. So are you against the death penalty?

Are you anti-war? Do you advocate to help unwed mothers and their babies, especially young mothers? If you can answer yes to these questions, then I will believe you.

[Bluebear]

82. :crickets:

[tnlefty]

51. Anti-woman democrats.

Got it.

[Zoeisright]

53. Mind your own fucking business.

You have NO right to tell another person what to do with her body. NONE. Get your big fucking nose out of other people's private lives.

You are NOT pro-life. You are anti-choice. And you're fucking nosy.

[AlbertCat]

54. I am a pro-life Democrat.

Everyone is "pro-life" you moron! Some of us just think you should have power over your own life.... and choice.

[WinkyDink]

57. Nobody is "FOR DEATH.". So what you REALLY are is ANTI-CHOICE. AKA: Anti-WOMEN'S AUTONOMY.

[pleah]

95. +1000

[jonathon]

58. Pro-life democrat...hmmmmmmmm, what does that mean?

Against abortion?

Want to criminalize the procedure?

Seeing as how criminalizing the procedure doesn't decrease abortion rates and only drives women into a dangerous underground of unqualifed providers and home remedies (coat hanger, anyone), I take it you think the trade off in women's health and lives is worth it?

The abortion rate doesn't change and you get to claim that you stand against the procedure. At the price of women's health and lives.

How very..."pro-life" of you...

The democratic party platform is pro-choice. I don't know where 'democrats' get off allowing people who compromise the rights of women as acceptable candidates for the party. It just goes to show the level of discrimination and dismissal women experience under this government.

[bjobotts]

59. Pro-life or pro petri dish cells, anti birth control,

[bjobotts]

60. Pro non viable fetus and no choice incest retard pregnancy.Your generalization is corrupted

[bjobotts]

61. Everyone but Cheney is "pro-life". No one is killing "babies".Stupid to say pro life-DUH

[bjobotts]

62. Pro choice means you want to have the right to decide if you want to "produce" a life.

[bjobotts]

64. Besides, there's already a law that says no federal funding for abortions.

[bjobotts]

65. Stupak is just trying to use HC bill to reverse R v W entirely.He's a sleaze to let 45k die yrly to

get his way. The bill has already passed with his language removed so screw him.

[fascisthunter]

63. and yet, it is not about who was pro-life, but about a women's body

and her control over that body. Only a fanatic would propose on dictating what any human being could or couldn't do to their own body. That embryo is part of it's mother, and until it's born, it is her decision, as heinous as you think that is.

Oh, and I'm pro-life because I'm anti-war.

[Golden Raisin]

69. No one is telling you or forcing you

to have an abortion. Oh wait James (I'm assuming with that name you are a man), you can't. Please don't presume to tell others they cannot. And by the way, people vote their conscience, a fact you should be conscious of.

[Enthusiast]

70. But Bart Stupak is a member of the "family"

therefor it is highly likely that he is a stealth Republican.

[Enthusiast]

71. Read

Cider House Rules by John Irving. Don't bother with the abbreviated movie.

[MichaelHarris]

72. So can we

go digging around in your medical history as well as the medical histories of your female family members? Roe V Wade is about privacy, you want to give some of that medical privacy up?

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Well, let Bart Stupak vote his conscience about abortion issues on an abortion bill.

This is about comprehensive health care, NOT abortion. There is no federal funding of abortion in it. Any spending that takes place under it is subject to the Hyde Amendment.

This is Bart Stupak's moment of glory to trash Roe v. Wade at the expense of millions getting the health care they deserve. It's total bullshit and he can take his bleeding conscience back to Michigan where you and he can have a great big pity party about the mean old Democrats who are mad as hell about the FUCKING EMBARASSMENT you've made of this entire issue.

[polmaven]

121. Don't you just LOVE

the "pro-life" label being used to justify the continued deaths of thousands of Americans every year because they lack access to health insurance? What a crock!

[vssmith]

81. It is one thing to be pro-life but quite another to be a member of "The Family."

[sellitman]

84. You can call yourself a Dem but .....

Your views are otherwise. Just like Stupak.

Women should have control over their own bodies, not Politicians.

[lefty2000]

86. Do No Harm

I am for life and against pain and suffering.

Forcing women to bear children against their will only increase the pain and suffering in the world. What compelling reason justifies this? Religious arguments don't count. There probably is no god, if there is, we don't know what he wants.

Respect women and honor the choices they make in their unique area of competence.

[DainBramaged]

87. Pro-Life is anti-woman, period

take your misogynistic views and put them where the sun doesn't shine. And go run and hide and don't respond to anyone here coward.

[Moochy]

93. Pro Life Democrats

Are Fifth Column Democrats who share many other regressive views with the right.

[RainDog]

96. Pro-life Democrats are not anti-choice democrats

Pro-life democrats support equal rights for females and the right to make determinations about their own lives without the interference of religions that do not speak for them.

Pro-life democrats support universal health care as a human right.

Pro-life democrats support changes in energy policy to make killing children in other countries a poor excuse for reining in the excesses of the rich and powerful.

Those who claim they are "democrats for life" are crotch sniffers. We recognize them for what they are.

[James48]

126. You don't "get it".

The Stupak Amendment does't ban abortion.

Those of us who are pro-life Democrats- and there are a lot of us- simply want to ensure federal money is not used to fund abortion.

Now, if you want federal money for funding abortion- you are certainly welcome to go do your OWN bill, and try and get that through.

The point is....that we are THIS CLOSE to getting a Health Care bill done, and you- the ones who are fighting against simple Stupak language, are the ones trying to kill the bill.

Let me ask you- Which is more important to America?

Getting a bill that covers 30 million more Americans, and does a great deal of good in fixing things-

-or-

Having the bill die, because you are bickering about adding coverage for abortion, which cannot in any way garner enough support to pass either house?


If this bill fails- it's on you. Not us.

[Starry Messenger]

128. Why do you hate women in poverty and their families?

Aren't they Americans?

[LooseWilly]

154. Stupaks amendment language makes it impossible to get health care coverage for abortions.

It's not just federal funding for abortions themselves, but inclusion in any co-op for a health care program that would be in jeopardy with the Stupak Language. In other words, if a health care plan included abortion coverage... it would be barred from inclusion in the newly created plan exchanges... which means that, even if there were no subsidies being paid, a woman couldn't get a plan that includes abortion coverage at the beneficial rates that come with availability of a large pool of customers... but rather they'd have to go to a small pool, high cost plan.

Essentially it would bar any woman who wanted a plan that covers abortion from receiving any benefits of any reform, whether or not she was receiving a subsidy.

Separate and unequal. Unconstitutional in schools... but Stupak would make it law for health care for women.

If that's the requirement for passage of this half-assed health care reform... and it fails... it's on YOU, not us. This is an onerous contingency, and the entire bill SHOULD fail if this is required. Let the Middle Class... and the Government... go bankrupt with the current system if this is the only alternative that the powers that be, and the abortion foes amongst them, are willing to accept.

"Pro-life" Democrats are, essentially, anti-women... and I think you all should just come to terms with that reality. Dispense with the PR, and admit it to yourselves. "Anti-Women Democrats" you should start calling yourselves... be honest already. Embrace your sexism.

[Demeter]

158. No, I Think We Get It, All Right

Point number one: this bill is NOT health care. It's a scam to funnel taxpayer funds into insurance companies.

Point number two: even if it were universal single payer, it's unconstitutional to deny women equal access to health care. And a therapeutic abortion saves lives. Abortion is a legal choice, and until this is made uncontestably clear in all law, then we will not go along with any stealth subversion of law and human rights for women.

[NOLALady]

130. I am also a pro life Democrat

who believes that women should be able to make choices about their bodies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

163. It is very easy to be against a choice that you will never have to make. nt

[defendandprotect]

175. There's a difference . . . Jimmy Carter wasn't trying to impose his belief on others . . .

Carter was "pro-life" evidently personally --

but he was "pro-choice" as a president supporting the law of the land -- Roe vs Wade --

Nor do I presume that he would have ever imposed his personal beliefs on any member of

his family in regard to abortion -- i.e., denying anyone's right to abortion and to

decide for themselves on the issue.

Stupak and The Family are trying to do just that -

As the Vatican is also trying to do -

Just as many Catholic women as any other women have abortions --

7,000 Catholic women in Ireland go to UK every year to have abortions --- costly!

The Vatican is seeking to regain control over its own church members -- and to inflict

it's teachings on non-members -- by influencing our people's government.

[Dinger]

2. That fucker Isn't A Democrat

I think there are some Democrats that really ARE republicans, acting on behalf of republicans. They can "play nice" (appear more like Democrats) when the repukes are in control, but when Democrats are in control, they tend to expose themselves because they get desperate. I don't even think there's such a thing as a rino, but when it comes to dinos, . . . .


edited to add this: :tinfoilhat:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Half the Senate Dems are R's. As are a third of the House.

No foil necessary.

[Dude_CalmDown]

7. It's not a bad strategy for them.

They get to play a Democrat and have a relatively (relatively only because of how spineless so many other democrats have been for the last how many years) democratic voting record when the repukes are in control because their vote really won't matter. It's just a throw away vote to keep your D credentials. Then when Democrats have a chance of actually doing something, throw a hissy fit, pretend you have all these convictions that are easily traceable to money, wingnuttia or insanity and throw a big fat wrench into everything they try to accomplish.

The only thing I have against this theory is when you go to make a list of which ones could really be a republican in disguise, you can't satisfy the one requirement of them even making an attempt to appear to be Democrats. They've been an asshat from day one.

[Dinger]

11. Point Well Taken (nt)

[UTUSN]

3. K&R big #5!1 n/t

[ClayZ]

5. Google Seven Mountians Theology

The plan began in 1974.

AKA
Dominionism

[PufPuf23]

6. Maddow and Sharlet have pulled back the shades for

many to see.

Corruption is corruption especially under a cover of "Faith".

[ThomWV]

8. To me it sounds like tax evasion. That subsidized rent is nothing more than cash payment.

One presumes he earns the money, but even if he does not, the subsidy itself is payment of a sort that I presume must be treated as income. Let us say that the rent value of the room and attendant services is $2,000 per month just to keep it cheap. He pays $600 per month, so you've got $1,400 per month of subsidy that should be taxable.

12 months per year at $1,400 per month comes to $16,800 per year, and he has lived there for how long? Since the 90's we are told, so let's call it 15 years. That would come to about $150,000 of undeclared 'in kind' income, wouldn't it? You'd think the IRS and ethics Committee would be interested.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. You'd think, wouldn't you? I do hope this is looked into. And soon. nt

[Ikonoklast]

94. Already done.

They have to pay.

That building has been determined not to be a 'church' by the IRS.

[JerseygirlCT]

118. Ethics committee?

I'd like to see them all held to their violations

[beac]

9. Anyone else care to join me in calling Stupak's office Monday and asking for an explanation?

[phone]

I am looking forward to ruining the day of whichever staffer is unlucky enough to take my call.

[napi21]

12. I can tell you what they're going to say. Bart was on TV

yesterday I think, explaining his reasons. He said he's a very devout Catholic and deeply opposed to abortions of any kind for any reason, and he doesn't believe te Hyde ammendment goes far enough.

[Hawkeye-X]

21. You can be a devout Catholic for all I care

Just keep your religion out of our sex lives.

Thanks!

[dmr]

38. JFK: " I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish;

where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
- More at link -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

[napi21]

10. FWIW...Stupak iis not mentioned in the book :The Family".

I have the book here and there's an index in the back that references al thhe people mentioned in the book, but Stupak isn't there.

I bought the book out of curiosity. I made it through the introducction, but it's a very difficult read, so I've been just using it for reference now.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. According to this NPR page, Stupak is mentioned in Chapter 1

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516
Maybe there's no further discussion of him and therefore no one thought to put the name in the index.

[verges]

29. I thought the book read like lightning!

I couldn't put it down!

[Lint Head]

14. Stupak is a mole and a disrupter. He is only a Democrat so he

he can stop progressive agendas. This is done the same way the FBI or CIA infiltrate subversive organizations. It's common.

[musette_sf]

42. + 1

as are several posters to this thread

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Actually, Stupak is a crank about this one issue only.

He's a deep blue Democrat otherwise. Check out his voting record.

[Starry Messenger]

111. This "one issue" tends to involve a lot of other issues inside of it

People like him really make life difficult for poor families when they obstruct abortion procedures and/or abortion funding.

[defendandprotect]

187. Poor women have no "choice" if they can't afford an abortion . . .

we should be funding them, IMO --

[Odin2005]

15. This Christo-Fascist needs to be thrown out of the party.

[femrap]

16. Nail his republican dick

to the wall. Smear him good!

[annabanana]

23. I don't want any part of a Theocracy... And I would think

that all good Americans would agree with me.

[mod mom]

30. + 1 rec'd

[Sienna86]

32. Am I the only one who thinks of this...

Perhaps The Family encouraged these extra-marital relationships so they would have something to use against these politicians if they ever wanted to go rogue?

[MadMaddie]

47. That's part of it

But they believe that women should not be working but barefoot and pregnant and waiting on a mans every whim.

They were also involved in the push in an African country to kill gays.

[PassingFair]

56. They think they are like King David...

sniffing around for Bathshebas and redemption.

:puke:

Ordinary morality is NOT for them.

[RainDog]

39. +2010

[Enthusiast]

75. Good educated Americans

would agree with you. The others don't realize the danger because they don't know history.

[Echo In Light]

80. Absolutely

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

35. Filed under "things I don't care about".

On the basis of weird associations, there is not a single member of Congress worthy of support. I'll judge things by the relevant facts and not conspiratorial musings.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. The people one lives with are more than 'associations'

and when one is getting a heavily subsidized luxury living space complete with board and service, it is clear that he is getting something, and you don't get anything for nothing. He's taking 'considerations' of thousands upon thousands of dollars a month from this set up. He's raking it in. Living the life, a kept man. Very unseemly for a member of Congress. At the very least.

[Maraya1969]

37. Tweet this if you can. The more people know the better. And it needs to be known

fast.

[humbled_opinion]

40. People Think!

Imagine all the social ills that Sarah Palin and her group of religous zealots will be able to cure once they control your Health Care.

Only fools think that giving government the control to decide you heatlh care is a good idea because Democrats will not be in charge forever, never give your freedom away to the government, because what might seem like a good idea when Democrats are in charge has the potential to become a nightmare when Repukes get the majority back, think, think, think....

They are using this issue to wedge Democrats, then they gain public support and use that to smash Democrats over the head all the while Democrats are trying to Help people and when they get their power back again they will use it.

or we can remain ignorant your choice.

[Enthusiast]

76. The government already

has control over medicare and medicaid. I don't see the problem. Having private control is demonstrably worse and far more expensive.

[humbled_opinion]

92. You missed my entire point.

you act as if there is going to be no changes at all, i.e. government already controls much of the healthcare industry and you use medicare and state medicaid.

When the government can decide what/who all insurance can and cannot cover through dictate then you have opened pandora's box. It sounds all good while Democrats remain in control but think about how this is going to be when a President that wants to use that kind of power to control an agenda of curing what they perceive as social ills.

Do you think the Repukes said Death Panels just to say it? Its projection of course Democrats would never employ a strategy that bean counts health care but historically repukes have twisted programs to do just that and all the while blame Democrats for implementing the program in the first place.

PROJECTION what they accuse is what they will do and we all fall in line like sheep.

[Enthusiast]

127. While there is very little

chance of a government program, either a public option or single payer you are completely wrong. Medicare for all is the program we all want. Unless, that is, you are a spokesman for the private insurance industry.

"Do you think the Repukes said Death Panels just to say it?" No, they said it because that is what their corporate masters told them to say. Really, you are trying to sell Republican talking points here? Apparently you are a Republican. I don't know a Democrat that has such un-Democratic ideas.

[humbled_opinion]

129. I am not trying to sell anything

I am simply stating the obvious, no matter what program ultimately gets implemented it is going to cost Democrats political capital it already has or do you deny that? and they haven't even implemented anything yet. Bottom line is Government control will change hands and all I am saying is your utopia under one party's control may become your Hell under the others.

Whatever happens is inevitable I don't imagine any of us have any real control on the outcome. Seen it done too many times in the past here is a nice example for you.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA Democrats voted for NAFTA Republicans get to dodge ownership of this foul legislation by claiming it was all done by Democrats. What Democrat in their right mind would send American jobs overseas to other countries?

[Enthusiast]

159. This is as ridiculous

as your earlier post.

"Bill Clinton signed NAFTA Democrats voted for NAFTA Republicans get to dodge ownership of this foul legislation by claiming it was all done by Democrats. What Democrat in their right mind would send American jobs overseas to other countries?"

Democrats voted for NAFTA Republicans to dodge ownership of this foul legislation? Absurd.

[Faygo Kid]

49. Love the UP. Great place. Bad Congressman.

I have met Stupak. He has another agenda than representing his constituents, so many of whom need access to health care. He is a Family guy, no doubt about it.

[tnlefty]

52. Well, I like Peter Griffin (Family Guy) even though he is a goof...

I despise Bart Stupak and his cohorts.

[pundaint]

67. Abortion stinks. To call it the single most important piece of legislation from the Democrats would

be a pretty significant condemnation of the Party. We have given up a great deal politically for it. It has been used as a wedge to usher in fascists, and torturers in the name of Jesus. If it were possible to trade abortion for NAFTA, FCC rules changes, and this century's wars, I would do it in an instant.

That said, I do support choice. But it is bad business, it is almost entirely preventable, and it is no reason for Party pride.

[Enthusiast]

77. Yup, like the gun control issue,

it kills the Democratic Party. Millions of voters hold their nose and vote Republican only because they are anti-abortion. Not that I am against choice.

[defendandprotect]

189. I wonder if they do . . . or if it has all been computer steals back to late-1960's . . .???

That's when the computers began to come in --

I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey!

Who is voting against abortion rights? Everyone wants it --

Just as many Catholic women as any other women have abortions --

7,000 Irish women go to UK every year for abortions!

That's about as extreme as you can get -- so who is voting against Dems for

protecting Roe vs Wade? I don't get it --

and when you add in Catholic Latinos/Latinas . . . the support for it grows!!

[Bluebear]

83. 'trade abortion for NAFTA, FCC rules changes, and this century's wars, I would do it in an instant.'

You're also a guy, I notice.

[RainDog]

90. it's fucking incredible, isn't it?

maybe this guy should agree to chemical castration for NAFTA.

how about it? willing to have your dick cut off for your favorite right wing talking point too?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainDog]

105. ah, here it comes.

the hate women argument.

women are too irresponsible or incompetent to use birth control.

sooooo... that makes them competent to raise a child to adulthood.

yes, someone here is an asshole.

because, basically, you just agreed that you would be willing to give up civil rights for women.

I've posted on this subject before and frankly the arguments put forth by the anti-women side are pitiful when they have to deal with reality.

and your reality is that you think women should be punished if they get pregnant. why isn't it the man's fault if a woman gets pregnant, since you think men have as much right to have a say over a women's body?

[pundaint]

108. Your characterization of my argument is false, and intellectually dishonest.

[RainDog]

110. really? let's quote your argument and tell me where I missed the "nuance."

what's left are pregnancies caused by women, who since it's their bodies, are in charge - are too incompetent too irresponsible to use birth control.

what did I miss there?

your argument is that women's rights can be tossed because you think that any woman who needs an abortion is incompetent or irresponsible... but that same incompetent and irresponsible person should be forced to raise a child that person is, obviously, not competent to do.

your argument comes down to one point: a stereotype about woman that demonstrates your hatred of women.

you may not like to hear the truth about yourself but we hear you loud and clear.

you are an enemy of women. bet you're a blast on a date.

[pundaint]

119. You have too much anger for civil discussion right now. Enjoy your day.

[RainDog]

120. LOL. YOU CANNOT PRESENT A VALID ARGUMENT

that's the truth. in the light of reality, anti-women assholes run away.

buhbye.

[musette_sf]

134. + 1

Ain't it the truth....

[pundaint]

147. My first post on this thread #67 "I do suuport choice" the next one #78 "I'm not certain enough to

choose for you." It is right there for those who can pause the insults long enough to bother to read before attacking.

I do see hatred displayed, but it's not in my writing.

[juno jones]

133. There it is.

The old 'she was asking for it' routine.

Birth control fails, sometimes dramatically.

I know I ain't the only woman who has had to fish out a broken condom while the guy looked stupid and apologized.

And my first was concieved despite the almost religious observance of the pill.

But you just keep telling yourself that women who 'accept' your sperm have it coming to them.

That attitude should get you plenty of quality relationships.

[pundaint]

135. What is wrong with "accepts." Accept is what one does if an offer is made to another, who finds it

agreeable and consents to go forward. Is there a problem with having women consent in your minds? If you would prefer a different word to communicate an offer and agreement to it, please specify and I'll see if it works in my lexicon.

Read the whole chain. Which side in this discussion has attempted to communicate and which side has employed insults and aggression?. If you have not read the entire chain please do. This began with a simple post recognizing that there are positions with merit on both sides, and that this issue is not black and white. I said that I don't have the answer to the issue, and without that certainty I am on the side of Choice. For that I was called an asshole, and the attacks continued from that.

I reject every mischaracterization of my assertions arguments and attitudes about woman generally, they are unwarranted, and unjustified.

[LooseWilly]

155. Your description of the "act" connotes something like a contract negotiation.

"Accepts" being equivalent, in your perceived lexicon as being tantamount to a signed contract.

The unspoken truth is that your depiction of the "event" is tantamount to holding a woman responsible for making the choice to have sex with a man who may or may not be an asshat... and despite any misrepresentations the man in question might have made in advance (the possibilities of which you conveniently dispense with) you would hold a woman responsible for any and all consequences, and in the process attempt to rob her of a variety of alternatives legally available to her, on the basis of some sort of neurotic value judgements that you personally hold, you would attempt to force her into a limited set of choices that fit your own personal, semi-psychotic, values.

And then you deign to dismiss those who toss some, well deserved in my opinion, epithets in your direction... as being unreasonable?

You have mischaracterized the entire grounds of this discussion on a number of occasions... apparently in the assumption that the rest of us were too dim to realize that you were doing so. Your misrepresentative style of discourse may go over well in grade schools... but you really must learn to employ some sort of evidence to back up your assertions when you engage adults in a discussion in the future...

Please, when addressing my critiques, provide some sort of evidence to support your opinions... or else be prepared for an onslaught of mine own personal opinions justified by nothing much in particular in reaction to your own personal opinions, also justified by nothing much in particular... and brace yourself for prosaic carnage.

Judging by the prose skills you've demonstrated thus far, however, this may be a challenge you'd do well to just walk away from, with your head drooping in shame.

[pundaint]

164. Read the first two posts. Hell, read them all. I have delivered my reasons, in return

there has been ad hominem attacks, accusations of assertions and motivations based on wholly on the imagination of some angry people. Some of my attackers, when refuted, deleted their posts rather than apologize, or be recognized for their angry and wrong posts.

I am criticized for using language selected to make clear the equality of self-determinism on both sides of a voluntary sexual liaison, and the words I used, which were accurate, have been attacked with no preferred, or more appropriate ones suggested.

I get that many are angry, there are angry people on both sides of this issue, and you can stew in your anger, or you can discuss.

I learned last month that starting posts with bullshit was contrary to DU's rules of engagement. I didn't need to learn that calling a person an asshole is not discussion. Your defense of those tactics does, in truth, lessen my appreciation of any other argument you may make.

My positions were stated in my first two posts if you have an issue there make a critique. I don't intend to respond to fantasies sprung from wild misperceptions. This has been quite an enlightenment. If those who, unlike me, do not support choice are addressed with the enmity exhibited here, I can understand their intractability.

[pundaint]

140. Yes, I agree with you on both of your points.

[defendandprotect]

190. They're discounting the political violence/assassinations by the right wing . . .

if it wasn't those particular issues -- they would have gotten it one way or

another -- that's the right wing.

They didn't knock out JFK and our "people's" government and decide to leave the

Democratic Party standing to hold them accountable and reverse their agenda!!

:)

[RainDog]

89. of course you would trade women's rights. it's none of your business.

And for that reason I'm glad you don't get to set policy.

Apparently you anti-privacy assholes do not realize that your comments display a basic hatred of women.

Would you also have the nerve to say... yeah, civil rights is a bad business because it cost Democrats the racist south for a generation, just as LBJ predicted it would.

would you give up civil rights for African-Americans for some other legislation too?

I don't think anti-choicers belong in the democratic party in the same way that racists do not belong in the democratic party.

[pundaint]

139. If abortions except for rape and mortal risk to the mother were illegal, and the FCC

fairness doctrine, equivalent tariffs to protect America's industrial capacity and jobs, and all the people killed this century in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and far flung black ops locations were still alive, and America was still a country that had a balanced budget, and didn't torture people - would you trade abortion rights for corporate ownership of all the media, tens of millions of American jobs permanently lost with the attendant disruption to families, millions of lives, trillions of dollars, and the reality of putting the continued viability of the whole country for those abortions? It's a totally impossible hypothetical, and all this anger is vented because I say that I wouldn't make that trade.

Now tell me, how many people get to call me an asshole because they attribute to me assertions I didn't make, or because I chose to state a position and defend it.

The quality of many of the responses to my posts would hardly qualify as discussion, I have been insulted, attacked, misrepresented, and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. I read this as a Discussion forum, perhaps some were looking for the Ranting and Abuse forum.

Read the posts before you attack. You may find at the top my stated support of Choice.

[RainDog]

149. what you don't get is a few things. the issue is settled for the majority of people here

There is no valid argument to be made for those of us who view this issue very differently than you do.

As I've stated here before...

Pro-Choice is about economics and equal rights and science over religion.

Pro-choice is not simply about upholding Roe v Wade.

Those who think it is such a narrow issue will never be able to persuade women otherwise who realize what is at stake.

Pro-choice is an EXISTENTIAL issue. An issue of being. Do women have a right to privacy and from intrusion into their very existence by religious groups to which they do not subscribe.

that's what it's about.

Abortion would not be a political issue if it weren't for the religious right and most particularly because of the Catholic Church. This religion may not intrude upon women and their medical decisions, no matter what they or anyone else thinks. They are NOT a voice of morality to me and many other people I know. The opposite is the view of people I know. These people have NO MORAL AUTHORITY in the eyes of many of us.

Nothing that they teach about their views of sexuality, conception, or even life has any bearing on the way that people I know view reality. In other words, there is no valid argument from their side for us. None.

A woman may choose to use birth control before she has sex. The male has nothing to say about this issue. A man may not force a female to forego birth control because he thinks he has a stake in a sexual act that includes a "right" to force a female to give birth.

You state that "abortion stinks." I disagree. Abortion is a sometimes necessary procedure. I see it in this way because I do not think the majority of women are irresponsible, tho certainly some are. Even so, you or others who do not like the option of abortion have no say in this other person's life.

I also say it is a sometimes necessary procedure because abortions will not go away just because you don't like them. Before they were medically safe, abortions were part of life. The difference with Roe v Wade is that those who have an abortion do not have to risk their lives to placate people who don't like to face reality. The reality is that women have abortions because there are situations in which they cannot have a child.

I prefer to save the life of an actual living person than cater to an irrational set of religious tenets.

You make the argument that women who have abortions are irresponsible, as tho you think that gives you the right to decide whether or not that woman may have an abortion. It doesn't give you that right at all. If a man is irresponsible and has sex and a woman gets pregnant, then should he be able to force a female to abort because he does not want to be a father? No. Why? Because a man cannot force a woman to deny her own rights for his perceived rights.

It is a truth that women have uteri and thus gestate and give birth. As a male, you don't get to decide what that woman does with her body, even if you don't like it. That's because adults are considered sovereign over their own bodies. You cannot make someone donate a kidney. You cannot make someone take his or her child to the doctor to get medical treatment because that's the way you would do it.

You do not have that right.

Most abortions are performed in the first trimester. According to Roe v. Wade, abortion law is divided according to semester. The first trimester abortion, whether you like it or not, is a form of birth control as well.

It is not the best form. But sometimes it is a needed form.

You do not get to have any say over this matter with a woman. If you want to have a child, you can have a child with someone else or hire someone to carry a child or adopt one. But you may not force a female to give birth. Simple as that.

From you: If it were possible to trade abortion for NAFTA, FCC rules changes, and this century's wars, I would do it in an instant.

That said, I do support choice. But it is bad business, it is almost entirely preventable, and it is no reason for Party pride.

That you would trade a woman's right to privacy in medical decisions, to me, is no different than saying you would overthrow civil rights. And you never did respond... if you think such things are so minor - would you agree to castrate yourself for NAFTA? If not, why not? It's such a little thing compared.

For you to turn around and claim this is an unrealistic scenario doesn't negate the fact that you made the argument. You expressed an opinion that indicates you do not understand this issue from the point of view of those who are actually impacted by your scenario.

I agree with you that abortions could be decreased - by having rational health care policy, rational sex education for teenagers, birth control available to those over 16 without parental consent - we know from other nations that those policies reduce unplanned pregnancy.

So you need to go talk to the anti-choicers and anti-birth control crowd. Around here, the general agreement is that abstinence ed. is entirely insufficient, denies reality and creates unnecessary suffering on the part of young people.

Abortion is sometimes the response to this unrealistic view of sexuality. But abortion is also because of birth control failures. Or because a women is in an abusive relationship and cannot emotionally sustain a pregnancy in that situation. Or a woman finds she is pregnant and jobless and cannot support a child. Or a woman has a pre-existing illness that makes childbirth/motherhood unrealistic. Those are just a few scenarios, but all of them are valid reasons to have an abortion in the first trimester.

A woman who has an abortion in the first trimester has an experience like a doctor doing a pelvic exam with a speculum. It is not anything like giving birth. nothing.

I think that the propaganda from the anti-choicers has so perverted this issue that people develop inaccurate scenarios that feed into emotionalism.

So that's why you encountered so much anger and dismissal. People are sick of hearing men, most especially, tell women how they have to live their lives. The law is set.

Anyone (not you in particular) who calls himself a "democrat for life" is an enemy of women if they seek to force women to live in a society in which they are forced to give birth. simple as that.

there is no compromise because, as I noted before, this issue is about a woman's right to make choices for her own life without the input of any religious group or anyone influence by the propaganda of any religious group.

[pundaint]

151. I stand by my hypothetical and my opinion that this issue has done significant and possible mortal

damage to the country. There is a package of benefits I would withdraw my support of choice for. It's a pretty big package, and would improve the lot of women in America in general, more than the damage of losing abortion rights in my opinion. I also do not have the metaphysical certitude to be comfortable with either side of this issue. I do have that certitude about murder, personal ownership of one's head, and slavery, so I am willing to vote to impose my positions in those areas on others. In other areas it will continue to be a tradeoff of competing value propositions. I continue to hope that my goal is the best outcome for all concerned.

[RainDog]

153. if this issue has done mortal damage to this country

it is because of those who think they may tell women what choices they make regarding their reproductive rights.

THEY are the problem.

In the same way that the southern racists were the problem for the democratic party when it decided that it would be the party to enforce rights for people other than whites.

they had "scientific" and religious arguments to support their position, too.

For me this issue is so central to the existence of a female that I would stop voting for any democratic candidate who did not support pro-choice. I would never give money to the party, never canvass, phone bank and I would probably not vote at all or vote third party - because if the democrats are willing to throw away women's reproductive rights then that party does not represent me - or the majority of Americans who remain pro-choice. (the poll touted by the anti-choicers not too long ago failed to note the survey, while demonstrating their propaganda had had an impact, still indicated that the majority of Americans, not simply democrats, support choice.)

So I think your belief that this has cost the party is wrong.

What has cost the party is not governing according to their stated ideology. This would result in a move to the left by republicans because they cannot draw voters when they align with racists, teabaggers, militia, the kkk... Obama won because liberals and progressives turned out in numbers across the united states. These same voters are pissed at him for pandering to the right while ignoring those who put him in office.

Maybe the reason you are willing to have certitude about slavery is because you recognize the injustice of forcing someone to forego their sovereignty for another's comfort. I'm sorry you can't see women as part of this same equation. But maybe you'll find a way to acknowledge that women have a right to choose whether or not to give birth, especially when society is set up as it is.

but in truth - the reality of human life is that infanticide has always been a part of the human experience - before it was possible to terminate a pregnancy long before viability. people farmed their children out to wet nurses who starved the babies to death. children were abandoned in the woods. children were smothered by their parents. prior to current abortion procedure, women took herbal medications to abort.

on the other hand, El Salvador has made abortion illegal. doctors are required to report on patients they think may have had an abortion. I wonder how many women avoid medical treatment because of this? Women are put in jail and separated from their actual children if they have an abortion - oh wait - I should qualify that. POOR women have these experiences. Rich women, as always get the medical procedures they want. While their husbands write policy to punish poor women. just like stupak.

Those who support women's autonomy will continue to fight those who would seek to force them to abide by religious views they do not share. They will not win on this issue.

[pundaint]

170. Yeah both of the sides who are "right" think the other side is the problem.

I just think it's an unresolved problem and personal freedom pertains absent resolution.

[RainDog]

171. if you can solve the problem of humanness, more power to you

life is about tough choices.

for women as well as men.

however, if someone has the guts to admit that there has NEVER been a time in all of recorded human history in any culture in which there were not ways to prevent or abort pregnancy, maybe the rational and humane thing to do is to see ways to minimize the impact of these things.

if the anti-choicers really want to have an impact on abortion they should put their time and money behind female education. Education levels for females is one of the best indicators of how democratic a society is. Equal rights for women is one of the best indicators of how democratic a society is. The higher the level of education and possibility for education, the more likely a female will be to wait to be sexually active... on average, of course, which means all sorts of variables.

Paternal societies, on the other hand, are the most abusive for all people in that culture and thus less indicative of a healthy political philosophy based upon the greatest good for the greatest number... which is basically the entire premise behind our nation's existence.

Our nation's history has been a record of stupid people recognizing over time that others are just as human as they are. That is what has made people hopeful that democracies can solve their problems. To keep poor women out of that equation to placate a religious group in with vote pandering on health care seems, to me, to be the very opposite of the trajectory of this nation in its best moments.

[pundaint]

172. And if we all can interact with humanness, more power to us.

And we need it for the real fight of the day - people vs. corporations.

[defendandprotect]

194. How long was slavery an "unresolved problem" -- this entails female equality . . .

this is not simply about reproductive freedom -- it is about female equality!

[defendandprotect]

193. ...and what damage has patriarchy done to planet, nature, women ....and others...

I think we should have a few regrets for the violence of patriarchy --

and the violence of organized patriarchal religion which was required to establish

those systems!

And capitalism itself is a brutal system -- intended to move the wealth and natural resources

of a nation from the many to the few -- and succeeding quite handily!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

192. You know, we could have saved ourselves a Civil War if he had simply abandoned . . .

the Southern states and eventually the freeing of the slaves . . .

How would that strike you?

Meanwhile, had the Founders not made their filthy bargain and compromised with the slave states,

we would not have had a Civil War!!

Presume that you are male and also presume that you aren't getting a lot of input on this

issue from women in your life -- mother, sisters, nices, aunts -- must be someone close to

you who could make this clearer to you?

[defendandprotect]

191. So you would oppress all women to rid yourself of right wing agenda?

Do you realize how unrealistic that is --

The only way the right wing can rise -- and this is true also of organized patriarchal

religion -- is thru violence. That's how we have ended up with male-domination.

Roe vs Wade bears on female equality -- without reproductive freedom women are oppressed.

Assassiantions permitted the right wing take-over of our "people's" government . . .

not their rants on issues. Their control of MSM -- aided by CIA and Pentagon -- enables

their "Noise Machine" of propaganda.

And, yes, female equality continues to be a very serious issue to patriarchy --

[Hekate]

197. Those are straw men. In real life, one does not get to make such tradeoffs. Before Roe...

... what you described was the freaking status quo: "abortions except for rape and mortal risk to the mother were illegal."

Yessir, THAT was the status quo the SCOTUS changed, because actual public opinion and actual behavior dictated otherwise. The illegality of abortion does NOT make it go away, ever; it only drives it underground and makes it dangerous.

The problem with the "rape and incest" loophole is that the living, breathing, victims of these crimes often don't report -- especially incest victims, who are almost entirely children.

One of my most formative experiences just before Roe vs Wade happened when I was in college, waiting at the Kaiser clinic to have a bum knee looked at. In walked a weary looking woman, alongside her was a little girl, maybe 12 years old, who came up to her shoulder. That child was 8 months pregnant if she was a day. I just bet you anything she didn't hop out of bed after being raped by uncle or daddy and run to tell the cops. I have a strong suspicion she kept her frightened little mouth shut like she was told to do, until her mom noticed the baby bump in the second trimester.

The other problem with the "rape and incest" loophole is that you need to explain to me why you are not being as consistent as the pope: if every zygote is so holy, why would the byproduct of rape or incest be any less holy?

The problem with the "health" loophole is that women with status and connections can readily get a doctor or a panel (oh yeah, in the past a woman who wanted an abortion actually had to go explain herself to a bunch of people who sat in judgment on her) to agree with her. Poor women with no status -- SOL.

Sir, I have actually read your numerous obnoxious posts in this thread, so don't bother telling me I have not. I have followed your so-called logic, but my life-experiences have led me to very different conclusions than yours. My screen name reflects my 6 decades on this Earth, having passed through and beyond the motherhood of Demeter, the ravishment of Persephone, and all the rest of it. Some pieces of the myth, nor of life, are not men's to enact.

There is a place for religious expression in this debate, and I would like to point out to you that there are many religions in this world that do not have much of a problem with abortion, especially when men don't trouble their pretty little heads about "women's matters" like menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing.

In this country, where the Christian religious right has made a culture-war over the matter, all the other religions and denominations have perforce had to come up with some sort of policy -- those would be the more liberal ones, and they don't make a lot of noise about it, they tend to simply let women choose what their behavior will be in a tough matter, and try to provide guidance and consolation whatever they decide. I have studied the matter, and I can tell you that many Christian sects, branches of Buddhism, and both Reform and Conservative Jews, are pro-choice.

In religious terms, that would be because an adult woman is a moral agent, with powers of comprehension and action in this world far above that of a child or an idiot, and an ability to live with and grow through painful experiences.

I seriously doubt you will read this... still, it had to be said.

Hekate

[pundaint]

198. I read it, so that's one fantasy exploded. I wont be responding to insulting correspondents on this

thread, beyond this.

[defendandprotect]

188. Well, so is every other issue GOP has wielded -- how many do you want to give up on?

Roe vs Wade involves female equality -- that's the real issue --

reproductive freedom is necessary for that freedom --

The problem isn't that the GOP has pushed . . . the problem is that the right wing

has used political violence to get what they want -- that's the only way the right

can rise.

And the "Democratic Party" has responded very softly, if at all --

Because they are pre-OWNED and pre-BRIBED by the same people who own the GOP!

And that's been truer every day during the past decades.

[pundaint]

201. You argue two opposing sides. Above you add the non-sequitur of 2 million Muslim lives lost in a

kitchen sink rant, and down here you reject my hypothetical willingness to trade abortion rights for those 2 Million Muslim lives plus Kurds, Christians and a whole lot more, with the added pot sweeteners of preserving America's manufacturing capacity, and freedom of the airwaves as some proof of a desire to subjugate women.

Let me clarify: IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL USED TO MAKE A POINT, IT IS NOT A PLAN, NOR ADVOCACY FOR ANY ACTION.

The point intended was 4-part.

1 - There is reasoning behind both sides of the Abortion issue

2 - We are paying a price as a nation for the way we are handling it

3 - There are things more important than Choice in America, the continued viability of the country prime among them

4 - I support Choice, as I do not possess the moral certainty to deny it.

Along the way I have said that in my opinion.

- was that abortion was bad business, and I don't want to fund it

- it is best to prevent unwanted pregnancies

- women do not own the exclusive rights to the continuation of the species


There you go, those are my points and opinions. The rest was an attempt to explain those points and positions. I used hypotheticals, strawmen, allegories, and other rhetorical devices.

My impressions as I leave this post is that some joined in the middle and did not read everything before commenting, as I do myself on other posts from time to time, some believe men are not allowed to have reproduction opinions at all, some feel that their opinion on the Choice/Abortion issue is so right that it is a moral failing to have a different opinion, some feel that their moral superiority entitles them to decidedly uncivil discourse.

Toham kum rah, y'all. Peace out!

[defendandprotect]

202. Compromising with the right wing wouldn't have saved 2 million Muslims . . .

nor get you health care -- that's the nature of the fascist beast you don't understand!

How many of our candidates - including Gore -- were supported their entire careers by the

oil industry? Do you think that it was impossible that Gore might have been pushed to

invade Iraq? We've been attacking them for 25 years! Most presidents have, at the least,

bombed them!! Do you recall the PNAC and its desire for another "Pearl Harbor"?

Are you suggesting that we don't recognize here that your main concern is abortion and

protesting it?


:rofl:


As for this inane thinking . . .

The point intended was 4-part.

1 - There is reasoning behind both sides of the Abortion issue
2 - We are paying a price as a nation for the way we are handling it
3 - There are things more important than Choice in America, the continued viability of the country prime among them
4 - I support Choice, as I do not possess the moral certainty to deny it.
Along the way I have said that in my opinion.
- was that abortion was bad business, and I don't want to fund it
- it is best to prevent unwanted pregnancies
- women do not own the exclusive rights to the continuation of the species


#1 --

The reasoning behind the anti-choice side of the debate is based on controlling reproduction

by controlling females. And it is based in the thinking of organized patriarchal religion --

i.e., male-supremacy.

#2 --

We are paying a price as a nation for the way we are handling the corporate-MIC --

Does the corporate-MIC not have anything to do with the death of 2 Million Muslims?

Our national debt? Our two wars of aggression?

We're also paying a price for never having nationalized the oil industry --

The 1960 Democratic Platform which JFK ran on called for the nationalizing of the oil industry!

#3 --

From the highest perspective, more important issues are Patriarchy, organized patriarchal

religion, capitalism and the exploitve and violent nature of those systems . . .

These are fascist systems.

The remedy is "Equality for All" -- Patriarchy is a "bird with one wing."

Global Warming, Pollution of the Planet, Attacks on animal-life, Exploitation of other human

beings according to various myths of "inferiority" ALL stem from those systems.

While you're thinking that over, recognize that Great Britain has protected abortion and has

national health care -- yet they still sent troops to kill in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .

despite the wishes of their citizens.

There are no such simplistic trade offs nor compromises as you suggest which can be made with

fascists.


# 4 --

I don't know of any women who want to have abortions? Do you?

Obviously, women would rather be doing something else.

Who would suggest that women get some kind of kick out of abortion?

Though evidently the right wing mindlessness evidently ventures in those directions

from time to time.

Guns are a "bad business" --

Wars are a "bad business" --

Lack of Health Care in America is a "bad business" --

Insurance ocmpanies and pharmaceutical companies are a "bad business" ---

Capitalism is a "ridiculous King-of-the-Hill System" and a "bad business" --

30% Cesareans in America are a "bad business" --

MIC is a "bad business" --

Liar Loans and Pay Day Loans are a "bad business" --

Foreclosures on homes are a "bad business" --

Funding "faith-based" religious organization is a "bad business" --

Pedophile Rings in the Vatican over centuries/millennia is a "bad business" --

A Vatican which continues to oppose democracy and Equality for all and fails to

acknowledge the full personhood of females as it acknowledges the full personhood of males

is a "bad business" --

I don't want to fund any of that --

but I do think that poor women should also have the same right as any other woman to

decide whether or not to have a child -- and to not be forced to bear a child because she

can't afford an abortion.


"Preventing pregnancies" is not something that Patriarchy and Organized patriarchal religion

want to do . . . for this reason: About 2/3rd of all pregnancies are accidents.

If we had 100% successful, user-friendly birth control, those pregnacies would disappear.

One half of those pregnancies go forward to term -- !!!


Additionally, to suggest that abortions happen because people aren't trying to "PREVENT"

unwanted pregnacies is naive. Too often, males do not want to use condoms. Too often the

means of birth control fails.

Are you looking for an unwanted pregnancy in your life? No? Well, why would you think

anyone else would be? That's an insulting way of thinking about others. You're responsible

.... but everyone else isn't?

As for this . . .

- women do not own the exclusive rights to the continuation of the species

But they do --

And that's why you see patriarchy's war on NATURE and FEMALES --

and why RAPE is such a common tool of patriarchy, and a recognized tool of war!!

Look to the Bible and its attempt to suggest that Adam "created" Eve . . . . from a rib!

Remember Lilith? Adam's first wife who knew that she was created equally?

Look to "Frankenstein" for a clue to this -- Mary Shelley made it quite clear.

What males resent most is that they cannot create life!

Every attempt has been made by males to create an artificial womb --

to create life in some way -- cloning being but one example.

They have also tried to find the "trigger" which switches the female to a male --

All life begins as female --

Well, they did find it, however, the males they produced couldn't reproduce.

On and on it goes --

So -- you're misunderstanding the primary poblem -- it is patriarchy and its violence.

Patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another.

It is the beast and the source of all our problems --





It's also naive to think that we have had honest elections ---
For one CIA money -- which they took even from the KKK -- has been used to keep right-wing
candidates/elected officials in play over decades.

Secondly, the very issue of the computers makes pretty much all of our elections back to
the late 1960's questionable. There's been a article up here at DU re the 2004 election
which you should read. So, like 2000, it would be only presumption that any Republican
actually won any election. Further, we have had decades of right wing political violence
which has obviously changed not only the elections and the candidates, but our destiny in
permitting fascism to cross our threshold.

There's much more to be said on the computer/election issues -- but that's all for now.

[David Zephyr]

68. Proud to be the 93rd Rec.

K&R.

[pleah]

88. K&R

[Kber]

91. This asshat really needs to go

[upi402]

138. "There is no such thing as 'the Family.' ..."

and snakes talk
the animals walked off a boat
woman was made from a rib
the earth is 6K years old


I think someone was put on the potty backwards. This guy probably has some very twisted behavior.:popcorn:

[RandomThoughts]

156. Are you sure there is no such thing as the family?

I clearly remember Robert fighting against an extreme group called the family ran by the guy from Dr Strange Love.

I don't agree with all his views, and don't disagree with all views of the family, but I think they have been around for years.

The Omega Man
http://stagevu.com/video/hikqdvjsdcip



Note: in societal thought context, a virus can be a metaphor for an idea. Which is how I interpret most of the movies with viruses in them.

[olegramps]

161. The issue isn't limited to being pro-life.

The people who are in the forefront, especially the The Catholic hierarchy along with many fundamentalists, not only oppose abortion but also oppose contraception. Their views are so restrictive that rape, incest or the threat to the mother life are not even considered to be justifiable conditions. These are the same people that oppose comprehensive sex education and availability of contraceptive devices to vulnerable minors. They have in their history even go to the extent that they oppose any discussion of the subject of contraception between a doctor and patient.

What I have experience in my life time, I am in my late seventies, has been a period in which the subject of sexuality was never breached to a period of awaken enlightenment. Thank God that their were people such and Kinsey who had the fortitude to cast off the darkness that engulfed the entire subject. It doesn't seem to me that the Republicans who embrace the pro-life faction are very pro-life when it comes to the needs of millions of their fellow citizens who are struggling to even have enough to eat. Also it is of note to mention their unilateral glorification of war which they, with the rare exception, choose not to participate in. It was of interest to me to take note of the how the Catholic seminary enrollment went up dramatically during WWII when even teenagers were eager to defend their country.

[defendandprotect]

195. It's also about female equality which the Catholic church is against .. .

in fact, they're against democracy and the very concept of "all are equal" --

This is still about oppression of females -- their war on women -- and their desire

to retain control over reproduction which they once had.

On the other hand, just as many Catholic women as any others have abortions --

Membes support Choice. And, when Latinos/Latinas are added in -- the numbers are even higher!

And they want government run health care to include abortion!


Irish Catholic women are traveling to UK for abortions -- 7,000 a year!!


GOP has a corporate agenda based on capitalism/corporatism and the usual exploitation --

that means, everyone but the elite white male is to be exploited!!




:)

[SimonPhoenix]

165. Abortion should be a non-debatable right. So should the 2nd amendment

Nt.

[Hekate]

196. By the time Rachel was done I'd started thinking of Stupak as a mole. He took an oath of solidarity

... to The Family, which requires loyalty to that group above everything else (as exposed in Jeff Sharlett's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, and detailed in interviews with Rachel Maddow). Fealty to The Family, not the Constitution, not the nation.

A mole? A spy? Why not, with that kind of thinking? What would a D or an R after you name mean, after all, when you think the "greater good" is being served by your deception?

Christ on a Trailer Hitch.

Hekate

[RainDog]

205. Stupak certainly doesn't care about women's rights in this nation

He demonstrated that.

I hope everyone who is disgusted with him will give some money to his primary challenger.

GET HIM OUT.

[defendandprotect]

208. It's also obvious that Stupak and "anti-choice" lost long ago...and it is only with

heavy backing from the religious right -- and I include the RCC in that --

and right wing wealthy that has furthered this cause, otherwise this would be long gone.

Stupak is even being subsidized down to his living situation!!!

Again, the concent of anti-choice is bankrupt and only kept going by fanatics with money!