Anyone care to weigh in on the status of choice...

[bliss_eternal]

....senators in your state? Since we just had an election?

I'm thrilled to say it looks like Barbara Boxer is going to still be the senator for California (thank goddess!). Carly Fiorna wanted to criminalize abortion. :puke:

Jerry Brown is back as our Governor...goodbye, gov. musclehead :hi: buh-bye! no more of his dumb, special elections and attempts to make us vote for parental notification, yet again.

Anyone else?

[jmm]

1. I can't wait until 2012 so we can get rid of Scott Brown.

He says he supports choice but his actions when he was in the state legislature-

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2010/senate_race/senate_candidate_issues/AbortionUSSenateraceMassachusettselectionIssuesAbortion/

show he has no problems whittling away women's rights.



This topic reminds me of an article I read awhile ago. I may have my criticisms of how the health care reforms were handled in this state in 2006 but despite the fearmongering of some there's no real evidence that federal funding of abortion would increase the rates.

Abortion Rates and Universal Health Care

Massachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.

[bliss_eternal]

2. I can see why you're concerned...

...about him. That was a depressing read. Especially:

...Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, picked up the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion.

“We’re behind him,’’ said John Rowe, chairman of the group’s federal political action committee. “The pro-life vote is very important at this point. It can make a big difference.’’

The group did not support Brown in 2004, when, during his campaign for state Senate, he noted his support for Roe v. Wade. But Rowe said he believes that Brown’s position has evolved. “We always welcome people coming over to our side,’’ he said.


Read more: http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx#ixzz14M8VHvlC

Pro-life, my ass. :grr::mad::rant:

I sincerely agree with your stance on federal funding for abortion. I think the argument that it will increase abortions, is only viable to the assholes that think we, as women, just get abortions incessantly, because we're all whores. People who know the truth---that with appropriate education, availability (and access) to birth control, women can avoid abortion altogether. Numbers went way down, during the Clinton administration--which funded sex education, and preventive access for women, teens, etc.

But ultimately, we all know, it's not really about "life", saving the fetus, or any of the other bs they spew. It's all about controlling and hating women.