Maybe the women in this backwoods state will finally get pissed enough to help run these republicans out of here. People just got a hint of what a dumbass Rick Perry is. He's just the tip of the iceburg.

I wonder how much money this will cost the tax payers in Texas to fend off challenges for this stupid bill.

So, if you are a tax payer who is pro-choice, your money cannot go to any of your causes? But if you are a tax payer who is pro-life, your money goes directly to your causes? That's fair, right? What a bunch of idiots. Tax dollars goes in a pot and that includes pro-choice and pro-life monies. Republicans love the constitution until it runs counter to their beliefs, but I am sure they will say this was an activist judge and their base will go along their merry way thinking that they are under siege by those leg opening libbies. *roll my eyes at the fake outrage*

So, if you are a tax payer who is pro-choice, your money cannot go to any of your causes? But if you are a tax payer who is pro-life, your money goes directly to your causes? That's fair, right? What a bunch of idiots. Tax dollars goes in a pot and that includes pro-choice and pro-life monies. Republicans love the constitution until it runs counter to their beliefs, but I am sure they will say this was an activist judge and their base will go along their merry way thinking that they are under siege by those leg opening libbies. *roll my eyes at the fake outrage*

Yup, it's how the Catholic Church is getting away contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight for an amendment banned same-sex marriage in MN.

Time to tax these "religious" entities.

It is absurd that Texas wastes there time and money with stupid laws like this that they know will never stand up to a constitutional challenge. If they spent half as much effort actually trying to improve things the state would be a lot better off.

I happen to be a pro-choice Republican, although I personally choose-life.

But the whole issue here, and everyone seems to be missing it, is not whether you are pro-whatever, but whether tax dollars should be supplied to a private charity that uses its moneys to facilitate recreational sex. Sex on the pill is for fun, plain and simple, and why would tax dollars be spent for supplying fun? We don't ask the gov't to pay for our movie tickets when we can't afford to go- we just don't go... If you can't afford to prevent pregnancy, don't have sex. It's really rather simple.

Now, on the other hand, condoms, as a disease preventive should be made available to anyone, but that's a medicare issue - not a private charity.

Jenn,

How fun is a Pap smear? Planned Parenthood offers those, too. Why is family planning a recreation? How solid is a marriage if abstinence is the primary means of birth control? I am mostly pro-life, whatever that means. I am deeply saddened by every abortion that happens. I would much rather that women have all the birth control that they need to keep abortion as the absolute last resort.

um, if you don't want the disease, don't have sex. It's really rather simple. yeeesh.

Jenn S, you are just incredibly wrong. Are you sure you're not a man pretending to post as a woman? "birth control" pills are also used to treat all KINDS of medical issues. Birth control pills are hormone pills and they treat things like endometriosis and several other issues women regularly deal with. There are tons of women using planned parenthood for basic exams including mammograms, pap smears and a host of other things. So... you don't think these women should have access to basic health care?

Texas officials have said that if the state is forced to include Planned Parenthood, they likely will shut down the program that serves basic health care and contraception to 130,000 poor women.

Ah, so this way they can target two of their favorites: Poor people and women.

Sex on the pill is for fun, plain and simple, and why would tax dollars be spent for supplying fun?

You are seriously undereducated. There are many health-related reasons women take birth control--not just for "recreational sex". Also, married women regularly use the pill. Are married people allowed to have sex for fun, or does the end product have to be a baby every single time? I hope you believe in the former--otherwise you must lead a miserable life.

If you can't afford to prevent pregnancy, don't have sex. It's really rather simple.

When are you going to learn that you cannot regulate behavior? Nothing is that simple. Nothing. Abstinence has been proven time and time and time again to be the most ineffective way of educating people about responsible sexual behavior. You are never going to stop people from having sex. Like it or not, it's a basic biological urge that not everyone controls as well as you would like. The best you can do to drive down the costs of healthcare, welfare, etc for unintended pregnancies is prevention.

It really is too bad that we don't get to choose where every single tax dollar goes, isn't it? I, for example, am appalled that my tax dollars have gone to fund wars and bailout corrupt corporations to name just a few money-sucks, but on the other hand--affordable healthcare for women is something that I am OK with having my tax dollars fund. You win some, you lose some... that's life.

Jenn S

Seriously, you are going to compare womens healthcare to movie tickets? PP doesn't just provide birthcontrol and abortions. They also give basic health screenings, cancer screenings, etc. If the state is going to give tax payer money to other clinics that provide these same services, then it is discrimanitory not to give it to PP as well. Their solution is that if PP gets funding then they will just cut funding to ALL clinics that provide these services. If I can't have it my way then nobody gets anything. Brilliant! Baffons.

sad did you ever stop to think that maybe she also thinks that breast and cervical cancers are fun also--I mean come on now. She probably has medical coverage but why should low income have the same services that she does?? And by the way Jenn, what makes you think that condoms are only used for "medical issues" as you put it? How many kids have you adopted and are fostering now?

Jenn,

If the money is given to a charity who are we to dictate what the charity spends the funds on. I give to lots of charities and the key word is give, as long as they work for the betterment of people or animals.

And people like Jenn are the problem with today's conservative movement. They only see Planned Parenthood and think about sex. Planned Parenthood does so much more, but it doesn't matter...they are a sex shop in the eyes of most conservatives and they cannot have that, so no funding for them. To hell with people who cannot afford or carry enough insurance for other preventative care procedures.

If they spent half as much effort actually trying to improve things, the state would be a lot better off.

Actually, JS, the state is doing quite well, especially compared to a lot of blue states that are going bankrupt funding feel good programs with government revenue.

Jenn thinks women get raped for fun sometimes.

Texas is a welfare state, spider. They take in more government money than they pay in taxes. Blue states bankroll those ten gallon idiots.

Jenn,

I'm sure telling teenagers not to have sex will work very effectively, just as it has since the beginning of time. Your solution isn't simple, it is simple minded. I suppose your solution to war is to tell everyone to stop fighting (especially with government bullets).

Unwanted pregnancy is not a recreational issue. It affects the health of the mother. It affects the health of the child. It affects the health of the society. I guess you assume that everyone has the same lack of passion you do. If I had sex that was just like going to the movies, I'd think about giving it up too. Meanwhile, back here on Earth, we need to deal with poor women's health issues: birth control being one of them.

So is it like "The Sound of Music" or "Forrest Gump" for you?

One day humans will be able to control genetics and everyone will be created and raised to "birth" in a laboratory. Then this will no longer be an issue. Until then....

JS in SD

It is absurd that Texas wastes there time and money with stupid laws like this that they know will never stand up to a constitutional challenge. If they spent half as much effort actually trying to improve things the state would be a lot better off.

And the screwed up thing we don't even get to vote on it! Our primary is next month I've seen the ballot, believe me this is no where on it!

btw JS another spot on post, I love reading your posts around the vine, good job!

Eat Rolos

Jenn thinks women get raped for fun sometimes.

Well actually..... Depends on your fetish I guess, though role playing and real are two very different things.

Debbie-246220

Jenn S, you are just incredibly wrong. Are you sure you're not a man pretending to post as a woman? "birth control" pills are also used to treat all KINDS of medical issues. Birth control pills are hormone pills and they treat things like endometriosis and several other issues women regularly deal with. There are tons of women using planned parenthood for basic exams including mammograms, pap smears and a host of other things. So... you don't think these women should have access to basic health care?

THIS. My daughter is on the pill, has been for two years, she's still a virgin (yes I know this to be fact) she's on it to regulate her period so that she doesn't end up in the ER every month to get Demerol or morphine because she's in so much pain she can't stand up.

several posters object to providing birth control pills to women who are engaging in sexual relations ''just for fun'' and ask why their tax dollars should be spent for others having fun. this is incredibly short sighted. if these women are attempting to avoid pregnancy because they can't handle another or any child it is a responsible thing to do. the unwanted baby may end up being supported for years by the taxpayers if the mother is unable to provide support. many women are forced to have sex by abusive men and at least are trying not to inflict the abuse on a baby. i personally applaud these women for making a choice to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and if they are ''having fun ''--well that is none of my business.

stexasdave, in Texas, there are pro-life Democrats as well as Republicans.

Amen to that

Jenn - You're a piece of work!

If you can't go to the movies it's because you don't have the money. And, 'not going' didn't remove the desire. So, based on your analogy, we would have to basically remove the sex organs from anyone and everyone until such time that someone deems them responsible enough to make a baby.

If the entire world is that damned simple to you - then ya really shouldn't jump on your computer and blather on with such complete ignorance. But, then - you don't even know it.

Looks like jenn cut and run.

the state is doing quite well, especially compared to a lot of blue states

spider, they used FEDERAL money to balance their budget, along with cuts to the poor and middle class. Nice, huh? What a role model state for republicans.

So let me get this straight; according to all the posts in response to my post:

A) The gov't should provide medically necessary services to those less fortunate - um, I thought it did in the form of Healthcare such as medicaid and Medicare...

B) According to to Provided, the gov't should fund programs that the voters don't approve of? Um, no- that's the whole purpose of voting...

c)Abstinance doesn't work. I don't even think I need to address this one.

The only things anyone of you said that made any sense, or was even germain to the topic at hand is that Charities should be able to spend where they like- yes- I agree, UNLESS that money is coming from gov't proffers. In which case, the Gov't (ie the duly elected officials of the region) should have the right to dictate some terms, or get your funding elsewhere.

To Spider; yup - agree with you completely :-)

(PS - I you can't afford birth control and figure out how to have, um, physical fun without intercourse than you are not only poor but an idiot. I can think of a hundred ways to "get off" without risking getting pregnant or catching an STD...)

Eat Rolos

Texas is a welfare state, spider. They take in more government money than they pay in taxes. Blue states bankroll those ten gallon idiots.

We get back .94 for every dollar we pay in.

"Texas...Like a whole other country"...say like Saudi Arabia maybe...

Texas is a welfare state, spider. They take in more government money than they pay in taxes.

Uh, no it is not. Lots of red states are, but not Texas. It gets back about 94 cents of every federal tax dollar, at least as of 2006.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

That said, I couldn't be more pleased by this ruling. The women of this state need access to pap smears, breast cancer screenings, care for UTI's and yeast infections, and all the other services Planned Parenthood provides at low cost. Jenn S. is just plain wrong about what Planned Parenthood means to most of its patients.

There's no better way for the GOP to lose their stranglehold on the South and rural America then to continue with this fight against women's healthcare. Keep up the good work guys! You are quickly becoming a party for wealthy white men only.

Jenn,

You are a twisted individual. I am certainly glad that you are NOT a role model for my grand daughters.

@ Jenn S-2267056

UNLESS that money is coming from gov't proffers. In which case, the Gov't (ie the duly elected officials of the region) should have the right to dictate some terms, or get your funding elsewhere.

I would suggest the exact same thing, but in reverse. As a church going man I believe the church should not ask for government funding for social (help groups, day care,and children's organizations etc..), medical (Catholic, Jewish and other private hospitals using medicare and other govt. programs) or any other of their programs unless they pay taxes. PERIOD. The Church and Government policies were meant to be separate from this country's inception.

If the Church wants to dictate policy, let them pay up to dictate policy like everybody else....

If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else[George Carlin, from the album "What Am I Doing In New Jersey?"]

Jenn S-2267056

c)Abstinance doesn't work. I don't even think I need to address this one.

I'm actually one of those who believe in abstinence only classes, I believe it's MY job to teach my daughter about everything else. I realize that there are bad/irresponsible parents out there.

They've gotten rid of drivers ed in most schools but they still want to teach our children about sex?

especially compared to a lot of blue states that are going bankrupt funding feel good programs with government revenue.

What a foolish statement! The women who are served by PP are poor. Contraception to them is going to be far cheaper for the tax payers than maternity care, delivery and welfare is the woman has a baby!

And when did cancer screenings and health care for poor women become a "feel good program?"

Jenn-the only use for viagra is to enable a man to have sex. Paying for it is far closer to healthcare paying for sex than contraception as contraception has many medicl benefits. Plus, paying for contraception is far cheaper in the long run than women having babies-there is no financial savings for viagra-yet no one says it should not be paid for-and everyone is critical of contraception...

A federal judge on Monday blocked a Texas rule that would have excluded Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's women's health program.

The rule forbids state agencies from providing funds to an organization affiliated with abortion providers. It was set to go into effect on Tuesday.

The truth is ALL WOMEN would be for Planned Parenthood if they would separate their services into healthcare for women and a SEPARATE building for abortions. Case Closed!

But the Democrats keep using Planned Parenthood as saying it is an attack on women. No one is attacking women here. THE GOP IS AGAINST PLANNED PARENTHOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE USING GOVT. FUNDS TO ABORT CHILDREN. I wish Democrats would stop lying in order to get their way.

This is what Democrats won't accept. They know that if they separate the services, all the hostility would be gone, and people will finally get to choose their own actions. Case Closed!

And please don't tell me that abortions are necessary to the healthcare of women. Afterall, unlike birth control pills it doesn't really have another purpose.

Jenn:

So the government is still responsible for providing "the little blue pill" to our male counterparts, because? Oh, that's right, only MEN can have sex for fun.

You're pathetic and your logic is illogical. Glad I don't live in Texas. You know, the state that kills it's prisoners more than any other state or industrialized nation ON EARTH. So much for pro-life.

When your state quits taking tax money from Texas being distributed by the U.S. government then you can complain. If not, shut your damn mouth.

Jenn S, I'm sorry, but your class-based ignorance is showing. Surprise, surprise, but there is a huge gap in medicare and medicaid as the safety net for the working poor. Belive me, it is entirely possible to be working full time - even above minimum wage - and make too much for medicaid assistance, but far too little to actually cover living expenses, let alone medical care. I worked full time at my first post-graduation job in my not-for-profit field, made just over minimum wage, got no medical benefits, and had to live with family to keep my head above the financial waters while covering things like my car payment (needed it to get to work), auto insurance, student loans, uncovered medical expenses (you still get sick, even if you don't have insurance, and you still have to pay for care) and things like that. I did not qualify for medicaid. So claiming that these programs should be enough to cover those in need is either stupidity or ignorance. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it is the latter. And, by the way, that job, as awful as it was, was a vital stepping stone to where I am now. I did the whole "do what you've got to do, sacrifice what you have to sacrifice to reach your goals" thing. I'm no slacker. But I was, for a time, part of the working poor. Perhaps that has given me a perspective you have never had the opportunity to experience.

And, Unhappy, you are dead wrong and perpetuating a seriously flawed myth put forward to trick the simple minded. No tax money can be used for abortions - even at Planned Parenthood. Period. This has already been the case for a long time. You are covered. That doesn't mean other private funding can't be ear-marked for it, of course, but your precious tax dollars are very carefullt accounted for separately per the law. Give up the lie yourself.

@Jenn S-2267056

So a woman who is married and has seven kids she and her husband already can't afford should deny her husband sex until she goes through menopause so that she doesn't accidently get pregnant? Then, when he leaves her because she is practicing abstinence, she can join the ranks of the single mothers.

Why do you think that only single women receive government supplemented services?

I agree with you Jenn. Lack of responsibility is in effecyt here. Are birth control pills the only medication that controls those diseases? Funny how you all are bashing her for a difference of opinion while calling conservatives nasty and hateful.I am very against abortion personally, but am not going to critisize someone if that is their choice. Just remember, it is YOUR CHOICE!!! And, being YOUR CHOICE, it should be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to pay for it. Just my humble opinion.

Texas Governor Rick Perry and some Republican lawmakers have said they would rather eliminate the women's healthcare program entirely than direct money to Planned Parenthood clinics.

One thing's for sure. You can bet ol' Mitt will be on board with this when he's campaigning in the Lone Star state. When he's in the Keystone state, he'll be against it. And this is why you guys don't stand a chance in hell of winning in November. But hey, keep it up. I like it.

Don't mess with Texas women?... because they got an injunction?... a child can get an injuction for further information.

Women in Texas must not win too much stuff if they call that a win.

PMSNBC can't even publish a correct statement in the title, it should "for now".

hey brian 1422255 - how many abortions have you had? Ask any woman that's had to go through with it and they'll most likely tell you it's one of the hardest decisions they probably will ever have to make. And fyi, Planned Parenthood counsels young girls so they may not have to go through that experience. Of course, that's helping someone and not part of the selfish Republican/Tea Party agenda.

Jen - As a woman, I have to say, your posts are some of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

I wish we lived in a world where abortion wasn't necessary. But, quite frankly, I would rather murder an embryo then have an unwanted child grow up to murder full-grown people.

I vote either:

1.) Very strict preventative laws to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

or

2.) keep abortion legal.

Just my opinion.

Pro-Life? Really?

Don't any of you know that there are WAY more dead people than live people?

.....and

We are all going to be dead a LOT longer than we will ever be alive.

...so

Dead is more of our natural state.

ostatekitty: um, if you don't want the disease, don't have sex. It's really rather simple. yeeesh.

You can have disease without having sex - women get endometriosis, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and many other diseases without having sex. But what about MARRIED women who get disease from their HUSBANDS but don't have good healthcare? Not all of the women who go to PP are single.

Jenn S-2267056 I happen to be a pro-choice Republican, although I personally choose-life.

But the whole issue here, and everyone seems to be missing it, is not whether you are pro-whatever, but whether tax dollars should be supplied to a private charity that uses its moneys to facilitate recreational sex. Sex on the pill is for fun, plain and simple, and why would tax dollars be spent for supplying fun? We don't ask the gov't to pay for our movie tickets when we can't afford to go- we just don't go... If you can't afford to prevent pregnancy, don't have sex. It's really rather simple.

Now, on the other hand, condoms, as a disease preventive should be made available to anyone, but that's a medicare issue - not a private charity.

So you're saying that condoms - male birth control - are ok for government money to be used for, but birth control pills - female birth control - are not? That condoms - male birth control - are a disease preventive and birth control pills - female birth control - are not? You've obviously never had hormonal replacement therapy (birth control pills), or used birth control pills for controlling other things. I know of virgins who are on the pill who intend to stay virgins (including some Catholic NUNS) but they take the pills because of hormonal issues like excessive cramps, endometriosis, PMS with wild mood swings. They do not use the pill for birth control because they don't NEED birth control because they are not having sex. Do you just want them packaged with a different name? Great, we can do that. Love the double standards there. I think that men should be required to be radically castrated if they are convicted of ANY sex offense but that's not going to happen either.

@Jenn

A) Private and public insurers should provide birth control much like they do blue penis pills.... especially when there is a underlying health risk... Not having at all would cause a explosion of population, welfare babies, and abortions... you can't fix this problem by just telling people to have sex... like you said abstinence doesn't work,... which is why Texas has one of the highest teen pregnacy rates in the country.... and you want to tell adults not to have sex?... regulate peoples behavior but prevention is out of the question?

B) Sorry you don't speak for all voters... just because you don't approve doesn't mean other voters don't...

C) When anyone gives money to a program or charity they don't get to dictate @!$%#... you don't like it you stop giving them money and fund your own program... which Texas can't do so they rather end Women's health program all together... lets see how many voters "approve" of that.... certainly goes to the point... if u don't believe abortion is right don't get one.

Are you seriously going to call people stupid for not getting off in ways that you get off?

I don't see any religious pro-lifers standing up calling for the segregation of funding when it comes to funding faith-based programs. Apparently it's acceptable to fund Lutheran Social Services, or Catholic Charities if they are providing seemingly "secular" social counseling , but unacceptable to fund Planned Parenthood for providing non-abortion health care.

Smokeysmom, Come up here to Detroit where none of that applies. What applies in some places looks really stupid in others. To walk down the street here, without a weapon is suicide. If your a woman and go out for a walk your chances of getting raped if not killed are great. Women here go to planned parenthood to get birth control to sell. I know its amazing what people will do, if you do not have enough energy or time to go get free birthcontrol I dont know what to tell you. I asked a woman why and she told me if she shows up buzzed they wont see her. Really! So she spends her Bridge card money to buy something thats free.

JS in SD:

You wrote:

"It is absurd that Texas wastes there time and money with stupid laws like this that they know will never stand up to a constitutional challenge."

Don't take that to the bank, my friend. The make-up of the current court has a slightly rightward tilt at the moment. If President Obama is not re-elected, the Justices who will be retiring are left of center, and the make-up of the court will take a serious rightward tilt that will remain for many years.

It is imperative that Republicans be thrown out of legislatures across the country. They are extremely dangerous. What the hell is the matter with women who cannot understand that Republican legal initiatives are bludgeoning them back to the stone age? And what the hell is the matter with men that they stand by while these damned witch-burners trample their mothers, their wives, and their sisters?

Oh, but there is no war on women's health issues. The dems are just making that up for political advantage. <snark>

Wake up all you women out there!!!

David walker wrote "And what the hell is the matter with men that they stand by while these damned witch-burners trample their mothers, their wives, and their sisters?". Mother, Step-mother, 6 sisters, 3 step-sisters, wife, 3 daughters, 1 granddaughter. I'll stand up.

Abortion...one service Texas should supply free to all takers at the border.

Jenn, forgetting the other health benefits to women provided by birth control pills ("the pill"), what's so bad about "sex for fun"? Many in the medical field would agree that a satisfying sex life is beneficial to one's health and relationship (as in marriage). If Medicaid can pay for Viagra, why not "the pill"? Other than for sex, what purpose does viagra, cialis, and otyher ED medicines serve? And, what difference if the money is from Medicaid or some other Federal grant - it all comes out of the same pot.

UNHAPPY....."This is what Democrats won't accept. They know that if they separate the services, all the hostility would be gone, and people will finally get to choose their own actions. Case Closed!"

Why should anyone separate anything? Abortion is a legal medical procedure. It's not up to the GOP to decide anything for me or any other woman - SCOTUS has already ruled. Why can't you accept that?

REPUBLICANS

I have asked before, and I will ask again... for the one hundredth time.

If you are against welfare, why do you want to ban abortions and cut funding to contraceptives to lower income families when that will directly INCREASE the number of people on welfare? Why do you push for policies that will INCREASE the welfare population, and thus increase the amount of money spent on welfare, when you are against welfare?

Your policies contradict each other... it makes no sense.

Can one Republican answer this question? Anyone... anyone at all?

Planned Parenthood does separate the services to a large degree, in keeping with the law that says federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions. In my home state, only 4 of the 28 Planned Parenthood health centers offer abortion services.

Defunding Planned Parenthood won't do a thing to decrease abortions. If anything, it will increase demand for abortion by decreasing access to contraception.

ahhh republicans..

too stupid to realize the Hyde Amendment ALREADY prevents their tax dollars to be used for abortion, in spite of being told this over and over and over.. hate women, hate the poor, yet claim to be doing gods works and to love jesus, supposedly hate government intervention, but all about it when it comes to forced ultrasounds and other intrusive medical proceedures for women, OBSESSED with everybody elses sex and sexual choices.. i could go on, but why...

IndieParty

Your policies contradict each other... it makes no sense.

Can one Republican answer this question? Anyone... anyone at all?

Well Indie...obviously the answer is that all Republicans are NOT against women's rights as is being rather stupidly reapeated on this thread. Is it a bit more clear now?

Any church that wants to play politics should loose their tax exempt status. I'm not Catholic so I really don't care what the Catholic church's views are on birth control let them preach to their followers they are the only ones who have to listen to their views. Does the policy of women who don't want children to abstain from sex also apply to men. There is only one use for viagra therefore it should not be allowed, by the same logic, to men who's wives are past child bearing or for single men because if the only reason for sex is too create a child then they don't qualify for it's use. These narrow minded people need to get their heads out of their butts and tune into the real world.

The Republican WAR ON WOMEN never ends!

Some interesting dialog. I hope all women understand that this is about power of MEN, old, white, gray haired men. I will never understand why any woman follows them. There is such much to be said about this subject, bottom line though....regardless what political affiliation you have, your allegiance should be with other women. By now every woman should understand that Planned Parenthood provides vital services. You and I may not use them, but what about your daughter, grandaughter, niece, etc. Nothing guarantees that they'll always be self sufficient. But that's still not what this is all about, it's about forcing women into something men have decided. I am actually livid that any woman's issue is decided by men and written into law. When was the last time women could make a choice over mens lives? How about that blue pill? Men rule....don't let them take away the very last thing we have....control over our bodies. And even that is not true, they rape us, physically, mentally and emotionally. It has to STOP and not just in Texas. Thank you for letting me vent.

A closer look at FLIP FLOP's aka Romney’s economic policies reveals that his policies would actually jeopardize the economic security of so many American women:

• Romney refuses to say whether he would’ve signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first law President Obama signed to strengthen women’s ability to receive equal pay for equal work.
• Romney wants to cut the Earned Income Tax Credit—a credit directly tied to increases in employment opportunities and earnings for women.
• Romney’s tax plans would raise taxes for 18 million working families a year by an average of $900 per family, while millionaires would see an average $250,000 tax cut a year.
• Romney opposes the Buffett Rule, while calling for deep cuts in investments that have a significant impact on women.
• Romney would make deep cuts into Social Security and Medicaid, both of which provide crucial economic support to millions of women.
• Romney tells low-income mothers that they should be required to work outside the home or lose their benefits, “even if you have a child 2 years of age.”
• Romney has pledged to “kill” Obamacare, repealing the health reform law that will make sure insurance companies can no longer charge women more than men for the same health care.

Flip Flops rhetoric just doesn’t match his platform. If elected, Romney’s policies would have serious consequences for women.

Tex, you also won't see the Fed Gov authority to build roads or define marriage between a man and a woman.

Still, we're better because the Federal Government does what's best for us all.

justoneguy I don't think the women at the border want an abortion. Its an anchor baby that they want.please excuse the now incorrect term.

Isn't it more cost effective to pay for birth control than for unwanted children? If the parents are too poor to afford birth control then the government is going to end up providing aid to the family in the form of welfare and food stamps so the kids can eat. I'd much rather pay for the pill or condoms than I would for an abortion or an unwanted child. Texas is bass ackwards.

Texas doesn't hate women, they just want them to survive and grow up like all the writer's on this useless comment page.

Jenn -

You are aware that the federal government provided millions of dollars for Erectile Dysfunction research and that Viagra, Cialis, and other ED drug prescriptions are covered by Medicare & Medicaid. Their only purpose is to allow sex to be fun for men. So it's OK for men to have sex for fun, but not women?

And while we're on the topic, apparently it's OK to advertise Fun Sex Drugs for men on TV, but not those for women, or advertisements for prophylatics. You know those things designed to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted deseases? But appraently it's OK to tell old men all about solving their ED problems at any time of day or night. I've even seen some ads during commercial breaks of programming aimed at children, during the middle of the afternoon (and I've seen some KY commercials also). The govt. should either ban all advertising for products aimed at mens/womens reproductive and sexual health on an equal basis on outright allow it and properly regulate it. Obviously, not all network advertising execs are capable of exercising good judgement when it comes to this subject.

Well Indie...obviously the answer is that all Republicans are NOT against women's rights as is being rather stupidly reapeated on this thread. Is it a bit more clear now?

justoneguy

Well... then (1) the more rational and logical Republicans need to speak up, because the retarded psychos have taken over your party, and are making you all look bad.

And (2) that still does not answer my question... but I can preface: For the majority of Republicans who want to ban abortion and cut funding to PP... If you are against welfare, why do you want to ban abortions and cut funding to contraceptives to lower income families when that will directly INCREASE the number of people on welfare?

Better?

I would still like to point out that not one... NOT ONE... of "those" Republicans has answered my question.

Michelle -

I'm with you on this. Unfortunately, our republican Governor flunked Econ 101 and doesn't understand the math behind these simple calculations. You know:

More available birth control for poor women = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions &/or less children on welfare

I believe these last two are stated goals of the Republican party. You'd think they'd be able to wrap their heads around that equation.

If Texas wants to keep Planned Parenthood around, maybe they should conside stopping abortions. I realize that free birth control is an amazing thing for married women who dont want kids and single women who cant keep their legs closed, but why should killing babies be government funded? Abortion is, in most cases, a selfish act, getting rid of a child because it is an inconvenience. So sure...keep the free birth control and whatever else....but get rid of the immoral legal killing of our children.

Hey Indie...how bout' the supposed 'Rebubs' that sound fanatical are simply more Obama plants out there to make even more class warfare than they already have? Go figure.

It's often hard to find good news these days, but i must say that looking over these posts and seeing how many of them are pro-women and pro-PP, I find that very encouraging. I suspect that the hard-right is maybe 30-40% on this site with maybe 20-25% being true neanderthals. The % supposting women here is much higher than that. Kudos to all here who love their moms, daughters, wives, and co-workers enough to want them to have healthcare. I don't think anyone needs my 2 cents worth here other than that. Thanks, my fellow Americans. I am encouraged by you all today... :)

@tex-478405

I can't find in my copy of the US Constitution where the Federal Government has the right to be in the health care business. At least one of you librocrats tell me where to find this info.

While you're at it show where they have the right to control education and the right to bear arms.

Ahem.... excuse me while I open mine............ The Preamble states...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While some (apparently yourself) would not include heathcare, those who support SS, Medicaid, Minimum wage laws, Federal Labor laws, National Commerce Laws, National Maritime Law and the myriad of other Federal regulations created to promote the general Welfare, DO.

Sorry if you and those before you have benefited from these laws, but it is what it is my man. Would you like to give them back??

I hope with your seemingly strong convictions that you refuse to partake in any of these...... wait....... you already have.... every time you use a road your state DOT repairs, every time you put a number in the National Do Not Call Registry, every time your purchase a car with federally regulated MPG, every time you drink clean water from the well at your home (see where this is going bro)....

The Preamble has been interpreted this way for many years. Admittedly, it was not in the beginning, but it is now...

Closing my copy.....

I just read a posting that women take the pill just to have sex for fun. LOL Sex, fun? Well, maybe one time in TEN. If you are married more than 5 years it becomes a chore.

So, all you men out there for banning contraception, well, get out the ye 'ole Playboys fellas. Cause the candy store will be closing for business.

They could have put this in front of a four year old and gotten the same response... "this ain't fair!"

Was this a waste of time? No. the extremes got so stupid on this one it woke up over half of our population... and not just women.

Just as what happened to ACORN, Planned Parenthood got attacked and demonized by a GOP shark frenzy... but this one drew an angry mob response they didn't bargain for... oops.

Post 1.51. Most would probably agree with your first sentence. However, I find sentence 2 disturbing: "But, quite frankly, I would rather murder an embryo then (sic) have an unwanted child grow up to murder full-grown people." You use the term 'murder' regarding 'an embryo,' talk about an unwanted child (that IS sad), then finish with a hypothetical outcome (who is responsible for making a judgment about the likely occurrence of this outcome by an unwanted child?). In light of the 'tightness' of the rest of your post, perhaps your wording here was not exactly as intended. OMO

But not for the baby making machines. They need to be sterilized.

GOT NAZI? So much for that freedom thing you tea-tards like to preach. And just who will make that decision? You? Don't think so. But hey, you can start by volunteering yourself. We certainly don't need more like you around.

Nuns/women are not allowed to own property, Priests/men can.

Nuns take a vow of obedience. Priests do not.Women are not allowed to hold high office within the catholic church. Only men can be priests, pastors, bishops, cardinals or pope.

If actions speak louder than words, what is Catholicism saying about the value of women?

Fair and equal treatment is a requirement of ones perceived value, especially from authority figures.

If, "...we as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization.", how can we be good men and indoctrinate our sons and daughters into an influential community that practices and perpetuates the inequality of women?

Let Women be Women,TEXAS be TEXAS for god's sake,Dont let these Greedy Corporation TEXASS GOP made TEXAS as an excuse for their political FREELOADERS for years ,with the TAXES CUT program ,of $ 800 Billions annually of their 1% master,While,they're busy pandering and attacking Women's right to save these patty amount of $13 million annually program. These are much needed to their basic Health-Care program ,that caters for the Poor,Children and Women benefits of TEXAS's family well being.

Jenn S-2267056

I happen to be a pro-choice Republican, although I personally choose-life.

You, madam, are a HYPOCRITE!!!

Hey Indie...how bout' the supposed 'Rebubs' that sound fanatical are simply more Obama plants out there to make even more class warfare than they already have? Go figure.

I was not aware that the ENTIRE Fox Network was nothing but "Obama plants"... good to know.

How's that tin foil hat fitting, buddy? Not too tight, I hope. Keep up the conspiracy theories.

If more people would follow the church and abstain then there would be no need to kill unwanted children - there is no way to justify killing something that you cannot create...If people would stop trying to pawn their own responsibilities off on the government or other sources other then themselves their children would not have these problems...There is no need to have recreational sex...but if you do then don't expect the govt to bail you out - and why should they? Just another example of people with no personal responsibility...

So Texas wanted to deny funds to the eight Planned Parenthood clinics that provide health services to women that need them and do not provide abortions just becausethey are "affiliated" with clinics that might? They certainly do hate women down there in Texas! Their reasoning is so stupid and demonstrates how the supposed "party of small government" wants even more government so they can put it in women's bodies. Health screenings for low income women are a necessity and for those who need it, affordable birth control is too. If women are low income enough that they can't afford to pay for birth control, they certainly can't afford to have a baby! If there was ever proof that they are "throwing the baby out with the bath water", this is certainly one of those.

As for those who say :"women just shouldn't have sex if they can't afford birth control"; that is such an idiotic statement. We are sexual beings and it is proven that sex is good for us in so many ways, even when it is not only for procreation and can be a very good part of keeping a marriage healthy and happy. It is a normal part of being human.

Texas Republicans care about women, and men, who are being murdered in the womb by Planned Parenthood. Why do Democrats support child murder?

Republicans should END their war on women

Republicans are trying to end the war on women, and men, who are being killed in the womb by Democrat child murderers.

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these children that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

Doesn't Texas Democrats have the balls to start a recall on him?

Unfortunately, since Republican-run states are all buying legislation from ALEC, there are many others that are getting to be as bad as Texas.

Could we give Mexico a package deal, AZ and Texas.

McDaniel, you're an idiot. "At least those with religeon have a solid footing as to why we are here." You don't have a solid footing you have a belief structure based on nothing. No different than my kids believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

Scientific results might change every so often but that isn't because the science is wrong, it's because we're still too ignorant to understand the concepts fully.

Timothy McDaniel: Creationism is the predominatly CHRISTIAN way of explaining how the universe came to be. If you are going to give the RELIGIOUS theory of how we got here, then you have to teach EVERY other religion's theory on how we got here or else it's making a law in respect to religion. Unless you also want to teach Wiccan, buddhist, animist, shinto, hindu, and every other form of creation story (there are probably several thousand on Earth), don't make a law that says you should teach creationism - you will be opening a can of worms that you are NOT going to get back in the can.

Creationism makes no testable predictions. It's not science. If it has any place in a public school, it's in a comparative religious studies class where it would be taught alongside the creation myths of all the other world's religions.

Tom

First of all, get you facts right before you spout off at the mouth. Second, if Texas did secede your state would be worse off than it is now. So, instead of hoping we would secede you should be begging us to stay.

Here we go again! Election year manipulation. Politics as usual- let's stir the pot here Texas and a few other places, we can pit the poor against the rich, the rich against the poor, prolifers against prochoicers and vice versa, how about the races against each other and don't forget the gays AND while they are all arguing we in politics can do whatever the hell we want to this country. WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!!!!

YOUR NEIGHBOR IS NOT YOUR ENEMY NOR THEIR BELIEFS - ALL OF US THAT ENGAGE IN THIS PETTY CRAP and let THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH THESE TACTICS

SHAME ON US!!!!!!!!

The Republican states should just go all-in and end their Medicaid programs completely. That would stop the Federal interference in their "state's rights" plan to kill off women and the poor.

While they are at it, the GOP state legislators should just cancel all programs for the poor and women, truly proving out their hatred.

Mr. McDaniel is fudging a bit on that job creation stuff also. Very little of the new jobs in Our Great State were created because of anything that the legislature has done in the last few years, or through the governor's use of his slush fund Enterprise Fund that he mostly dealt out to his friends and political supporters. The bulk of the recently created jobs in Texas have been low-wage jobs, and guess which segment of the state population has gotten those jobs? Hell, you need to know how to speak Spanish just to order a Big Mac around here.



Maybe we could trade Texas and Arizona for Cancun...

Mark Stephens-4334123

The war on women is a fabrication by the Democratic party to keep emotions stirred up, and people from realizing how much of their freedoms are being taken away.

The "war on women" is being waged by the Republican party and the reaction comes from women, not from another political party. The claim that women just unknowingly bought into the "war on women" because the Democrats stirred up their emotions is an affront to women on it's own... but I do agree that the war is still unrecognizable by the right. They haven't a clue who they offend on an almost hourly basis.

On the flip side of this: Too bad Planned Parenthood doesn't give a damn about women. They'd rather shut down due to lack of funds, thus depriving all these women of valuable health care rather than give up their idea of supporting murder of innocent babies. They have the right to support that idea, but they don't have the right to force the taxpayers to pay for it or subsidize it in any way.

If the best the judge can come up with is that he is concerned that some women won't be able to find taxpayer supported health care, then he clearly is not applying any valid legal standard. If the judge eventually finds for planned parenthood, my guess is that it will be overturned on appeal.

Something to think about! Texas can't support the people they have now, so they cut birth control to 160,000 women. Smart, right? To all the men (and women who have been [fixed]) who cannot get pregnant, shut-up, you don't have a dog in this fight.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it strikes me that the main objectors to Planned Parenthood in Texas are men. What do they know, and why should they care except for losing control over women?

Nuns/women are not allowed to own property; Priests/men can.

Nuns take a vow of obedience. Priests do not.Women are not allowed to hold high office within the catholic church. Only men can be priests, pastors, bishops, cardinals or pope.

If actions speak louder than words, what is Catholicism saying about the value of women?

Fair and equal treatment is a requirement of ones perceived value; especially from authority figures.

If, "...we as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization.", how can we be good men and indoctrinate our sons and daughters into an influential community that practices and perpetuates the inequality of women?

Let Women be Women,TEXAS be TEXAS ,Dont let these Greedy Corporation TEXASS GOP made TEXAS as an excuse for their political FREELOADERS for years ,with the TAXES CUT program ,of $ 800 Billions annually for their 1% master,While,they're busy pandering and attacking Women's right to save these patty amount of $13 million annually program. These are much needed to their basic Health-Care program ,that caters for the Poor,Children and Women benefits of TEXAS's family well being.

It's too bad that Rick Perry wasn't able to get Texas to secede from the United States. Between this, and the morons who want to put creationism into the Texas textbooks, it just shows that Texas is the land of neanderthals.

tom8896..........I'm a 51 year old Democrat, free thinking intellectual who has lived in Fort Worth, TX all but 8 years. I take great offense to you stereotyping Texans as these stupid, right wing morons like the ones that control the House. Texas brings many great things to the table of the USA as a state and for you to say that we are all a bunch of neanderthals is the pot calling the kettle black! Texas is a great place to live and raise a family! Sure, it's hotter than hell in the summer and getting worse each year. Maybe those of us in Texas that take pride in being Texans will send to the northern states all of those "neanderthals" as you call them! Maybe then you can find a long, lost family member!!

Janstince: THANK YOU for your insightful comments to Timothy McDaniel, i.e. "Finally, a nice big @!$%# YOU for the underhanded racist commentary. You do realize that Spanish is a much more popular language in the world today than English? That over 1/5 of the US speaks Spanish? That your poor white kids often do as poorly in standardized testing as poor hispanic kids? Yeah, I'm sure that's crossed your mind. Racist jackass."

Not only can't a major portion of kids in school these days in this country NOT speak Spanish or any other language (while kids in European schools and other countries speak not only their native language but at least two others as well), they barely can speak English...that language "we" so prize above all others, ethnocentric idiots that we are. We've so put the blinders on in this country we can't see past either our noses or in back, past our asses. We've gutted the educational system in this country in favor of vouchers, home-schooling, parochial schools who teach only the english language and history that's skewed past all recognition.

So...back to planned parenthood: idiots who rant about their being the "largest provider of abortions in this country" are doing the same thing. They focus on ONE minor aspect of the services provided by a worthy organization to the exclusion of everything else they provide for women who have little-no health insurance and no way of getting it. A good friend of mine went there for care, was diagnosed with cervical cancer and, but for this agency would have died from it. They treated her and she lived to take care of her four children.

SO...all you one-eyed idiots out there...stick it where the sun don't shine.

If this is all against abortion why not make it illegal? Or did that route not work?

If your lawn has weeds, would you burn the whole lawn if you couldn't get rid of it any other way?

I'm not against abortion, it's the woman's choice. She's the one carrying it and sometimes the only one caring for it after it's born. If delivery in a hospital is provided for free for those who need it and paid leave provided and, if need be, adoption services for the baby conducted, and/or money to help pay for the baby's needs provided, then the woman should have no reason to get an abortion if they helped out when they need it.

But if circumstances keep them from caring for the child fully and the resolve is to have an abortion, then they should have that right.

Texans take offense to Texas stereotypes. Racism, bigotry, big oil, etc. But when does Texas come up in the news? Well... the Texas politicians pursuing this aren't helping the public image. If you are Texan and don't appreciate how the rest of the country sees you, take a look at what your state is doing that finds it in the newspapers. This isn't helping.

Also, to Ame123, how can women be hurt by abortion if they are seeking it? Sure, families will also factor in, but it normally is the woman's choice in the end. Wouldn't the woman be hurt more caring for a child she can't care fully for? And what happens to the child who grows up without the attention and care he needs? It looks like abortion rather hurts your ideals. Nice collection of links, though. The problem is they are all biased and one sided.

Ame123, your "Napro Technology" is a fancy name for the rhythm method which is basically useless. Only a feeble old man like the pope would approve of it........him and his happy band of child molesting male followers.. And to say that other forms of birth control will cause cancers and pollute the environment is really stretching it, isn't it? Too many children can also be extremely damaging to the environment and can cause serious health damage to a mother and could certainly cause cancers. As far as women being hurt by abortion, I doubt very few actually are unless they are unstable to begin with and begin to believe all the religious claptrap. If you wish to be a breeder for your life, please go ahead just not on the public's dime. For the women who prefer to control their own reproductive health and do ask or want your approval, stay out of their uterus.

Ame123, go outside once in a while...

A federal judge on Monday blocked a Texas rule that would have excluded Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's women's health program.

The rule forbids state agencies from providing funds to an organization affiliated with abortion providers. It was set to go into effect on Tuesday.

The truth is ALL WOMEN would be for Planned Parenthood if they would separate their services into healthcare for women and a SEPARATE building for abortions. Case Closed!

But the Democrats keep using Planned Parenthood as saying it is an attack on women. No one is attacking women here. THE GOP IS AGAINST PLANNED PARENTHOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE USING GOVT. FUNDS TO ABORT CHILDREN. I wish Democrats would stop lying in order to get their way.

This is what Democrats won't accept. They know that if they separate the services, all the hostility would be gone, and people will finally get to choose their own actions. Case Closed!

And please don't tell me that abortions are necessary to the healthcare of women. Afterall, unlike birth control pills it doesn't really have another purpose.

THE GOP IS AGAINST PLANNED PARENTHOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE USING GOVT. FUNDS TO ABORT CHILDREN.

Except that they're not. See Hyde Amendment.

Religious wingnuts need to get their noses out of everyone else's crotches.

How about educating kids the about the workings and consequences of sex, instead of turning basic biology into the Forbidden Zone Where God Gets Mad at You? Enough already. Sex is here to stay, like gravity, so let's respect our children enough to teach them about sexual practices, contraception, pregnancy, and the avoidance of STDs.

Other than that, it's totalitarian craziness to attempt to legislate personal morality.

Planned Parenthood offers Mammogram and PAP Smears (Preliminary PREVENTATIVE Health Screenings) to women of all ages not just child bearing age. For women who are underinsured, uninsured or just feel more comfortable seeking health care from a highly specialized women's specialty clinic should not be denied that access. What has the GOP become? It certainly is not interested in preserving the very basic tenets of the Constitution but instead has become omnipotent in taking a "religious fundamental stance" in a Country that needs to protect the freedom to worship or not worship the Faith of an individual's choice. Women do not need any heads of state coming between them and their personal physician. No Federal Monies have ever funded abortion in my adult lifetime. Jan Brewer like Rick Perry need to stay out of the decision making process between a woman and her physician. Many women have become disenfranchised because of the "Republican Backlash" of deconstructing States through tax cuts (instead of sensible tax reform laws) for their own egoist agendas. Anyone who reads contemporary Social Scientist Scholars, Economic Scholars and Specialists should know that deconstruction of our society's foundations has been in place for over 35 years and this is the only one issue bringing that sad fact into the forefront. Not all Californians are "crazy nuts." Once we had the best publlic education system in the world thanks to Earl Warren and Edmund G. Brown,Sr. One a Republican the other a Democrat. They invested in the poor through education and now after sixteen years of Neo-conservative Republicans as Governors, our schools are the worst in the country and the state university system has resorted to educating more foreign students than state residents because tuition has increased 600% in the past fifteen years. Our Natural resources are contaminated by aging failing oil refineries and utility company leaching carcinogenics into our drinking water supply. Erin Brockovich has more work than she can possibly bring to a Grand Jury within her lifetime.

One doesn't have to believe in Bronze Age Superstitions to understand that child murder is wrong. One doesn't have to be religious to understand that having sex has consequences, and that pregnancy carries responsibilities to the child being brought into the world. Only a Democrat could be so stupid as to not understand that.

Texas has already made deep cuts in other family-planning programs. As a result, state subsidies that once provided low-cost birth control to 220,000 women a year now cover fewer than 60,000 women a year.

If "Professor" Rick Perry, had hopped into the White House, he would have brought horrific conditions to America. The Right is against contraception. How does this narrow-minded GOP political faction intends to feed the exponential increase in the population that it works so laboriously to achieve?

How can the Right-Wing in the U.S. claim that there is NO, “war on women"?

House Republicans have introduced more than 30 bills that would restrict a woman’s reproductive health care. Those same Republicans, who decry an all-too-powerful government, have no problem deciding what health care is right for our daughters, or sisters or mothers.

Legislators in 39 states have introduced almost 500 measures that tell women what type of health care they can or cannot have. Republicans introduced roughly 90 percent of these measures.

Here in Congress, 116 Republicans in the House and 19 Republicans in the Senate are co-sponsors of “personhood” legislation, which would criminalize abortion with no exceptions for the mother’s life or health. The bill could also outlaw in vitro fertilization and many common forms of birth control. It could even bar doctors from providing life-saving care to women with dangerous ectopic pregnancies.

The Republican governor of Wisconsin recently signed a law passed by Republicans to repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which protected women’s equality in the workplace.

While Republican Mitt Romney’s campaign had to “get back” to a reporter last week on whether the candidate supported equal pay for equal work, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as his first bill. In the Senate, we passed that bill with 56 Democrats, while 36 Republicans voted no.

No one should forget last spring, when Republicans nearly shut down the federal government in their efforts to defund the nation’s family planning program and zero out Planned Parenthood, which provides health care to nearly 3 million women, men and teens. That’s the same Planned Parenthood that Romney now proudly says he plans to “get rid of.”

The Republicans’ attack on birth control – an issue settled decades ago – will never be forgotten as we watched a House panel on women’s health that was missing – you guessed it – women.

I was so proud of Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) for leading a walkout of that hearing. I was also proud of the Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke for her bravery – standing up to be heard even as she was called some of the crudest words in the English language by the GOP’s leading outside voice, Rush Limbaugh.

Who can forget Virginia’s Republican legislators who felt they were more knowledgeable about a woman’s health than her doctor — by seeking to force women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound? Or the law signed last week by Arizona’s Republican governor, stating that life begins two weeks before conception?

It doesn’t end there. Republicans in Congress blocked an international treaty – the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – even though the only other nations refusing to ratify it are Iran, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Palau and Tonga.

They also oppose increasing the minimum wage — when women make up about two-thirds of all workers now earning minimum wage or less. Not one Republican is a cosponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Republicans voted against the Violence Against Women Act, which helps protect women from domestic violence, when the bill was in the Senate Judiciary Committee. They voted to repeal the health care law – including the part that says no more gender discrimination in the pricing of health insurance policies and the part that offers free preventive services like mammograms, STD screening, well-woman visits and birth control.

The facts are the facts. The Republicans have launched a war on women.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C97BE188-1108-4662-9B1A-2B229C735028

"You know what''s so great about all those Texas executions? Less Texans"
-George Carlin

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these babies that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

This is the ideal Republican.....this is what you'll live with if many of you get what you vote for.

"Texas Governor Rick Perry and some Republican lawmakers have said they would rather eliminate the women's healthcare program entirely than direct money to Planned Parenthood clinics.

The Texas program, which is part of the federal-state Medicaid program, provides cancer screenings, birth control and other health services to more than 100,000 low-income women.

The program does not pay for abortions"

And It's Not Just Texas! That ladies is what you have at stake in the next election as any of you think about voting Republican in any of the elections. It's life and death for woman. The abortion debate is just an excuse to deny you health care; to kill you.

@JohnCarter-428979

"One doesn't have to believe in Bronze Age Superstitions to understand that child murder is wrong. One doesn't have to be religious to understand that having sex has consequences, and that pregnancy carries responsibilities to the child being brought into the world. Only a Democrat could be so stupid as to not understand that."

Child murder is wrong. I do not think anyone is arguing that fact. Abortions sanctioned by Planned Parenthood has rules that state you can't be in a certain stage of the pregnancy term because at that point the fetus has a consciousness.

The conservative side points to how many abortions PPH does, ever wonder how many Pap smears they do? 770000 last year. What about other services they provide? Kinda out shines to 330,000 abortions they do, hmmm? Don't want to talk about the stuff the money they get from the government actually goes to, do you? yeah thats what I thought.

1SG..... Most of who? Your post is pointless.

Our Primary is next month 13dev, we'll be voting a whole bunch of people in and out, we're not just voting for President. So regardless what you think my point isn't pointless is it?

1SGFitzWife, yes it is pointless because in the primaries you vote for the people in your own party you want to see in the General Election. So go ahead, vote as many people out in your own party as you want.

1stsgtswife, I watched your youtube video this morning. It was amazing it brought back memories of seeing my daughter (Charleston Naval Hosp) for the first time. Sometimes people on here are just in the mode of hitting anything that moves(collateral damage is acceptable). Its specially visible on First Read. Most of them are big city people or city people who moved to a Green life. I grew up country and joined the military and have been around the globe in some not so nice situations. I very much appreciate not only your husbands service, but you and your families service. Its the support system that keeps us sane when the only persons you see for months is your unit.

THANK YOU!

1SG,

The days of the Leave It to Beaver age have long been DEAD. Get used to it. You don't want a war between men and women. You will LOSE. Shamefully lose.

Bentbrass, actually, the Texas primary system is fairly important, as its an Open Primary. That means that you don't have to be a declared member of any Party to vote in that Party's primary. In fact, this year, there will be a large number of "independents" who will be voting in the Republican primary. In many of the down-ballot races, the winner of the Republican primary will be the person getting the post, because there is no Democratic challenger. In other instances, it's assumed that the Replublican winner will handily defeat the Dem. opponent. So folks around here vote in the primary to have some say in the final outcome. Prior to the mid-80s, most folks voted (and ran) as Democrats for the same reason. Hell, most of our current lot of officeholders were once Democrats, including Gov. Perry, but switched parties once they saw the resurgence of the GOP in the state. Only the die-hard Democrats will be voting in the Democratic primary -- generally those with some stake in seeing a particlaur person win in the down-ballot race. Since there's only 1 candidate in the Presidential ballot, many will "cross the line" and cast votes for in the other party's election. And it's all legal, as long as you only vote in one primary. Texas has a 100-year tradition of the primary being the general election. There was only about 10 years in the mid-80's to mid-90's where the general election actually meant anything.

Thanks for the information about the Texas primaries.

Make my post disappear and I'll post it in 3 other places.

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these children that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

This is the ideal Republican.....this is what you'll live with if many of you get what you vote for.

Rincewind thank you for not making me be the one to have to type that explanation you did a better job than I would have.

Reba- I'm a woman. So I have no idea what your rant means.

rico- I'm a Ron Paul Republican NOT the other kind ;) aka Libertarian. The beauty of Texas is that our Governor (even though he costs us a lot of money) has very limited power in our state, we are run by a plural executive branch, it works well for our state.

Jolly- Thank you for your service also sir, I always enjoy reading your posts. The video is a few years old it's funny how much my daughter has changed since then (she's fixin to get her drivers license EEK!)

BentBrass- Rincewind did a pretty good job of explaining what I meant, so again I can say my point isn't pointless =0)

1SGFitzsWife4ID

rico- I'm a Ron Paul Republican NOT the other kind ;) aka Libertarian. The beauty of Texas is that our Governor (even though he costs us a lot of money) has very limited power in our state, we are run by a plural executive branch, it works well for our state.

Perhaps you could fill me in on exactly what that means. Last time I looked Rick Perry was the governing hand behind ALL of TX misdeeds. Would love to know who else is making these asinine decisions.

rico- Why do I always have to do y'alls homework for you? Google Texas Government.

Why do I always have to do y'alls homework for you? Google Texas Government.

Nice play, right out of Karl Rove's right wing blogger manual! Make a statement, don't back it up, send the other on a fact finding mission, and discount!

You are good wifee.

Karl Rove? You've got to be kidding me.

What is there to back up?? Texas is in fact run by a plural executive branch, everyone learned that in Government class back in the 9th grade.

Texas has a plural executive branch system which limits the power of the Governor. Except for the Secretary of State, all executive officers are elected independently making them directly answerable to the public not the Governor.^[3]

The executive branch consists of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Land Commissioner, Attorney General, Agriculture Commissioner, the three-member Texas Railroad Commission, the State Board of Education, and the Secretary of State. The comptroller decides if expected state income is sufficient to cover the proposed state budget. There are also many state agencies and numerous boards and commissions. Partly because of many elected officials, the governor's powers are quite limited in comparison to other state governors or the U.S. President. In popular lore and belief the lieutenant governor, who heads the Senate and appoints its committees, has more power than the governor. The governor commands the state militia and can veto bills passed by the Legislature and call special sessions of the Legislature (this power is exclusive to the governor and can be exercised as often as desired). The governor also appoints members of various executive boards and fills judicial vacancies between elections.

All members of the executive branch are elected statewide except for the Secretary of State (appointed) and the State Board of Education (each of its 15 members are elected from single-member districts). Past executive branches have been split between parties.

statelocalgov.net/state-tx.cfm

THERE! I even gave you the link to look up the other two branches, freekin lazy people I swear.

When we kick them out.

November 2012

FreeThinker,... you left two things out......... Old, Fat, Rich, Impotent, Catholic, Mormon White men.

ooooops..... that's 3. Oh Well, the truth hurts. LoL

@enviro engineer: so you think that the government should pay for men's viagra just because they are a millitary/vet?

I agree with 13dev.

Enviro engineer: All we are asking them to do is pay for a prescription medication, just like they do for Cialis, viagra, and any other medication. Birth Control Pills are not always used for birth control because they were also approved for the hormonal treatment of other female issues. Would you feel better if they were marketed as hormonal medications with the side effect of preventing pregnancies? Why should any medical plan pick and choose what prescriptions to pay for based solely on the religion of the employer? It would only happen with Catholic USA.

Federal employees pay an arm and a leg for their health insurance. Quit spreading your right wing talking point lies.

And.....what kind of men do you like in your bedroom..... or!

AMEN to that!

Please secede!!!!!

Seriously. Secession would be better for everyone concerned. Texas could become another central American country on it's own and the rest of us could get on with the 21st century.

So hypocritical of them as well. They want small Government and Government out of our lives.

Yet they are pushing their noses into the most personal aspects of women's lives.

Do they have no women in their lives. No mother, sister, daughter, nieces, wives. I guess not

Let's hope all those women rise up and vote, along with those of us who love them.

I'm old, white and a man, working on the rich part and not the fat part. But I couldn't even dream of doing this to the women of this Country. Any man worth his salt, knows, how hard it is to be a woman and how well they do it.

Someone please explain to me why I should pay taxes that are then used to provide free care to women who just can't say no to unprotected sex. I have no right to dictate whether a woman does or does not let herself be impregnated, or even if she decides to kill the fetus before it is viable outside her body. But she - or any one else - has no right to just take the sweat of my brow to pay for subsidization of her choice. If I choose to provide charity, I can do it through any organization I wish, including Planned Parenthood, but it is not for some government bureaucrat or liberal lackey judge to decide who is and who is not to benefit from my charitable contributions.

Jason, gladly.

First, the federal funding that PP receives does NOT go to abortions in any way. What your tax dollars are funding is care like yearly physicals, cancer screenings, and even prostate exams for men. It is illegal already for tax dollars and federal funds to be used for abortion.

Secondly, yearly physicals, cancer screenings, and birth control have very little to do with whether a woman is having sex or not.

Thirdly, it is not just a woman's responsibility to say no to unprotected sex. Men should say no as well.

enviro engineer

And no, I do not think the government should pay for anyone's healthcare except military/vets. Other gov employes should pay for insurance like everyone else.

This Democrat views your statement in another way Enviro Engineer. I believe we (the taxpaying public) should cover on going benefits ONLY to the men and women who have participated in front line action. If you haven't been on the front line with a gun in your hand you are doing a job just like every other American is doing. Only you are getting on the job training that will transfer those skills over when you get out. I believe military should fund their own retirement and pay for their medical....just like the rest of us are expected to.

. If you haven't been on the front line with a gun in your hand you are doing a job just like every other American is doing.

So you're saying screw the airmen, seamen, corpsmen, and every other military position?

I think the system we have now works - if you have an on-duty related disability, you are eligible for ongoing benefits. In the military, everybody's job is equally important. It would send the wrong message to provide ongoing benefits only to the infantryman and nothing to the airman that loses his limb to a prop.



I believe military should fund their own retirement and pay for their medical....just like the rest of us are expected to.

Pension/medical contributions come out of their checks, but indeed at good rates because they are military. They also have a 401(k) type program called TSP.

And I think that the very people receiving socialized medicine (service people and vets) are the VERY ones voting against it for the rest of us.

I stand by what I said....if you haven't had a gun in your hand you are doing the same job people at home are doing. People working at manufacturing jobs here for owners who refuse to update and put safety measures in also lose limbs. Actually, living in some cities is like living in a war zone today.

Please don't tell me that abortions are necessary to the healthcare of women. Afterall, unlike birth control pills it doesn't really have another purpose.

The truth is ALL WOMEN would be for Planned Parenthood if they would separate their services into healthcare for women and a SEPARATE building for abortions. Case Closed!

This is what Democrats won't accept. They know that if they separate the services, all the hostility would be gone, and people will finally get to choose their own actions.

Actually unhappy, I can list several

1. There are cases of ectopic pregnancy.

2. If a young girl is raped, her body may not be fully capable of carrying a child without severe damage to her own systems.

3. Sometimes something goes wrong and women have abortions because their fetus is dead. Whether it doesn't have a brain or whatever. There are many medical conditions where the fetus has no chance of survival. Here is a good story from a father of such a child http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/confronting-life/

Whether you recognize it or not, pregnancy is dangerous. It is very common, yes, but women still die because of pregnancy. And sometimes, abortions are necessary.

Unhappy-1583758,

An abortion AKA D&C is routinely done after a miscarriage, to be sure all of the fetus and afterbirth is removed from a woman's body, to insure a healthy recovery for the woman. It is a common and routine procedure that is "healthcare".

Take a good look around you, we walk amongst you,

women that have had abortions....chosen or not.

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these children that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

This is the ideal Republican.....this is what you'll live with if many of you get what you vote for.

Lots of charities get public funding. I guess you don't want any of your money going toward good causes.

When my tax dollars stop going to "faith-based initiatives" we'll talk.

Jenn - 1) Most charities receive government support. You know nothing about charities. 2) When I was a college student, I had no money. I would pass out every month the pain from cysts and ovulation was so bad. And I would get blinding migraines. If it wasn't for the pill and planned parenthood, I would still be suffering today and would not have graduated from college. The pill is not just to have FUN SEX!!!! I hate that people think that. I question if you are really a woman based on your comments as you seem clueless to woman's issues. And finally, 3) Yes, this is a religious issue. Should the Red Cross not get any more public funding? What about all the other diseases that have charities? No one argues about them because it is not a religious issue but for PP it becomes a religious issue because people equate it to sex!

@Jenn, OK, so let's also then get rid of public funding for United Way, March of Dimes, Special Olympics, and any other privately-run charity that happens to provide a free or reduced-fee service to the general public.

iheart

Please provide your reference to "separation of church & government" in the constitution. I ran a search and the word "church" does not even appear in the entire document.

Workin hard, the exact phrase "separation of church & government" does not need to be in the constitution for the concept to exist. Separation of church and state is created by the establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution, reinforced by the 1st Amendment.

The word "trinity" never appears in the Bible. By your logic, that means that the Bible never says that Jesus is one with God.

Apparently workin hard has to work really hard to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If the actual word isn't in there it's just too tough for him to understand.

working hard --Please get your own education. I have mine.

iheart, You have a serious case of "SEPARATION OF YOUR BRAIN AND YOUR KEYBOARD." 6th graders know what is meant by separation of church and state.

You sure know how to make yourself insignificant don't you?

Jenn S,

The govt supports TONS of private industry charities. How about maybe becoming educated before offering opinions? Apparently your opinion is not welcomed here.

@ working hard - Go back to school and this time pay attention. Please know your basics before posting.

@13dev - So you are getting on me because I wrote "government" instead of "state." Really guy? The word "state" refers to the "government" (sad that you don't know this). I wish I could explain it to you using doodles and playdough, maybe then you will actually get it (I wouldn't get my hopes up though).

Your post only shows how ignorant and insignificant YOU make yourself look. Good thing that 6th graders know what it means, but do you? or are you like a [working hard] part 2? tsk tsk, that post really makes you look like an idiot.

Jenn S....The funding for the abortions does not come from gov it comes from private donors......How many time does someone have to post this before you get this part right.. And if the church is going dictate what the Gov should tell me to do ( God guides me not the politics of a church) they should pay TAXES.....My god teaches me to love, turn the other cheek, and not JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE MY LORD!!!!!! What I do will be judged on my last day by the LORD. Not someone who thinks they know what is best for me. Or thinks I have to be, think, and act, just like them.

WORKING HARD.........What it says is: Prohibits the making of any law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, This is the 1st amendment to the BIll of Rights. To me an establishment is a structure like a church. Then goes on to say: impending the free exercise of religion......Which to me means.... No matter who's religion or what they believe.

Lisa-2316724,
I see you went to Wikipedia for your source of information. Stop it. You cannot use it as a credible source in elementary schools, high schools or colleges. Here is what the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights actually reads;

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

To me it says the Government shall not make any laws for religious purposes, and they cannot prohibit people from religion. Wow, America's public school system has failed miserably.

Uh, Lisa? I challenge you to provide a better definition of "separation of church and state" than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Hey Toasty McGrath - good to see you on here!

Workin Hard wrote, "Please provide your reference to "separation of church & government" in the constitution. I ran a search and the word "church" does not even appear in the entire document."

Try searching for "religion". Or better yet, try reading the Constitution. You might learn something.

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these children that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

This is the ideal Republican.....this is what you'll live with if many of you get what you vote for.

Lisa- Toasty can probably explain it to you better than I can but I'll give it a try, Establishment means not one religion, not a building. People always say we're a Christian nation, this is not entirely true, yes there's a lot of christians BUT we're all different secular's, um catholic, baptist, mormon, muslim, etc. Does that make more sense? Basically our Government can't establish one religion.

Rico. Knock it off. I mean i'm on your side man, but stop reposting.

Thanks to Scott Walker and HIS teahadists, so has my state of Wisconsin. We're working hard to recall this liar, Koch/Alec sponsored tool and get "our state back" from their backwards defeatist policies. On Wisconsin!!!

They are everywhere. Used to live in Bakersfield, CA. Had to listen to people at work constantly hate on welfare, abortion, communism or homos. Meanwhile they all belonged to some church that told them that out of all the people in the world they would be the chosen ones going to heaven real soon. They were ignorant as hell. The only way to restore America is to keep voting Republicans out of office until they stop embracing policies that cater to these morons.

Maybe there should be a parcel of land set aside for religious nuts, so they can endlessly fight each other while the rest of us get on with civilization? Texas may have louder Fascists for Jesus than most states, but it hasn't cornered the market.

Melissa, there is already a parcel of land set aside for the religious nuts, it is called the Middle East....

Bakersfield? Really, Bakersfield? I only have one thing to say to you Mike4703, did ya: "Find a girl... with far away eyes"? ba-dump-bump.

I'd like to cut Texas and let them run their state as their own country. @!$%# em.

Common sense Texans need to rise up and slap some sense into their "right-wing Repub leaders."

Good luck to the common folk of Texas. You DO have the power to vote them out in November. SEND THEM PACKING with this message..... "Don't let the door hit your A$$ on the way out."

Why thanks y'all let's hope none of you never need our help during a disaster or anything, Louisiana should take back all their Katrina victims. Considering we just got number one exporter of the year for the 7th consecutive year, Our economy is 2nd in the nation and 15th in the world based on GDP,We do rank 25th in the nation for household income at 48 thousand plus, but if you couple that with lower than average cost of living it evens out. There's much much more I could tell y'all about so y'all might want to rethink that.

Thats why myself and most of my other senior engineers are getting multiple calls from Texas corps in need of filling high paying engineering positions. If I wasnt 3 years from a Non SS collecting retirement I would be looking at Texas hard. My wife who has lived in Australia and New Zealand says Texas is a play land compared to other places.

And people actually voted for Rick Perry to be the presidential nominee? OMG. I guess there are more dumb people outside of TX. Let's just throw all of them in that state and put a fence around it.

Reba, people voted for McCain and Obama too just a few years back. These are supposed to be the best of the lot. Scary stuff.

I moved to TX from WA. I once thought the whole state was ignorant, religious wackos who enjoyed being uneducated and raising children who thought the earth was 5000 years old. HOWEVER, the whole state really isn't like that. Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the US. Its mostly people out in the middle of nowhere (which is most of the state) that embarass the rest of us. The cities are nothing like the cattlecountry and oil-rig areas. We're just the unhappy minority.

@1SGFitzWife4ID

"Our economy is 2nd in the nation and 15th in the world based on GDP" That would put you behind that Democrat controlled liberal state called California despite all the oil money.

I seriously doubt Texas' GDP is 15th in the world, when California, the largest economy in the U.S. is 37th in the world.

Tex, do you understand that if you secede you will have to come up with your own money, the US currency would no longer belong to you. You would no longer be able to balance your budget using fed funds. Just to get started you would have to raise taxes on everyone and not by just a little. Think about what you wish for.

raddave Google is your friend, I won't do your homework for you.

Mike- but unlike California, Texas isn't bankrupt, I fully see us taking first place soon.

Deb- I actually did a project not too long ago as to what would happen if we did actually secede, we would indeed need our own money, we would need our own standing Army, and well everything else that individual countries have. It's entirely doable, if we kept our "Texas Federal taxes" the same as it is now we still wouldn't have to have state taxes and we'd have no need for an IRS, or a FED. Most of our "income" would be from our exports, and Texas has a lot, we could be prosperous even if we only did "business" with the states around us, we wouldn't even have to export out of the U.S.

It was quite interesting to say the least. Wish I would've saved it to a computer program that I could show other people. But I'm much to lazy to scan all that paperwork.

lol wow you talk @!$%# about us yet.... secede (not succeed which is what we're actually doing) but we're the dummies? Our leader isn't Rick Perry, unlike the rest of y'all our Governor is just a pretty face, he has no real power, we have a plural executive branch (google it I won't do your homework for you)

LMAO......holy hell .....consider your self schooled!

secede (not succeed which is what we're actually doing)

When? Do it already! Secede, already! I'm tired of paying for your wildfires and hurricanes! Hurry, hurry. hurry!

Perry can be YOUR president! He's perfect!

Texas' Governor position used to be the weakest elected post in the country. At least it was when Rick took over for George. Unfortunately, Rick's been consolidating a huge amount of power in the office, primarily due to the length of time he's been in there. There isn't a single appointed board of a state agency that isn't packed by a majority of his appointments, if not completely packed by his appointments. And believe me, they know who to thank for their "jobs". Since he's been in office, a large number of those boards either went from being elected or appointed by the legislature, to being gubernatorial appointments. That's why our poor idiot of an AG has had to spend so much money fighting the federal government in court, because Rick tell the board to do something, they do it, and then Greg has to go get his hand slapped by the federal courts and come back and tell them to undo it.

Raychel, you might not want to read this article about Texas...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/12/Rick-Perry-and-the-Myth-of-the-Texas-Miracle.aspx#page1

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these children that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

This is the ideal Republican.....this is what you'll live with if many of you get what you vote for.

Jo-An, I was saying we're succeeding not seceding, reading comprehension is a good thing to have.

Toasty- I've already read that article back in August when it was published. It's a straw man basically, our unemployment went up because of all the people moving into our area at once (kind of like what North Dakota is going through right now with the oil boom) if you look at the numbers from then until now you'll see that our numbers went back down as people found housing and got jobs almost immediately, but I feel I wasted energy typing this since you're already smart enough to know that ;)

The point of the article wasn't just about jobs. It's about education and insurance as well.

Rick Perry will be UNEMPLOYED.. :). Oh wait, that's not the end of the world. That's a celebration.

Texas is so worried about unborn babies, but they are quick to blow the head of an Afghan child.

This is the most backward state ful of self righteous fools. The Texas women act like men and the men act like whimps. Payback is a b-tch

........AND TO THINK, Rick Perry was considered one of the Repubs finest for President??????

I guess real dummies want a dummy leader!!!!!!! Perry was so embarrassing it was painful to watch. I never thought I would see another presidential candidate appear goofier than George Jr.

I agree - whenever Bush or perry got up to speak - I was embarrassed for our country - they just sound dumb -and you can tell they do not believe in most of the crap they spout out -

They will probably go out and execute somebody!

Please, tell my you're joking?????????????

What is really funny is that if Jesus ever returns, he'd be horrified at the things that are being done in his name.

I can only think of one word to reply

Idiot

m-612920, Just curious, exactly how many unwanted children have you adopted?

tom8896

Jesus would not object to fighting the spread of abortion, I'm pretty sure.

tom8896

What is really funny is that if Jesus ever returns, he'd be horrified at the things that are being done in his name.

He may just come back and say 'Well, love thy neighbor didn't work, so we'll just have to go back to my Dad's methods- smiting the wicked.'

workin_hard: To use your own strategy, please provide a reference to the location in PP's mission statement where it says their plan is to spread abortion. I searched it for the word "abortion", and couldn't find it anywhere. Here's a link so you can check it out and show me:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/vision-4837.htm

Workin hard, I disagree totally. Jesus was all about giving, loving and forgiving, not judging and controlling. If he were here today the religions and their flocks around the world would be on his @!$%# list (If he had one). All you need to do is look at what the religions that inject themselves into politics are doing, which is the total opposite of what Jesus taught. Religions tend to cherry pick what they want to moralize on, and usually miss the most pure teachings so they can harp and judge on things not even mentioned.

As for abortion, most pregnancies don't make it to term. Some call it a miscarriage, some God's will. There are MANY reasons those pregnancies don't make it, not your (or anybody elses) call. Unless you think God is a murderer.

Tom8896....What's really funny is that if Jesus ever returns, these same holy-rollers would be the first in line to throw stones and call him a heritic ! Oh, wait....they are so pure, and loving, they would have already gone "POOF" in the rapture for their good and moral deeds........right !

lib50 . . . are you suggesting that Jesus is fine with the 50 million people he created since Roe v Wade being killed by the hand of man? That is being judgemental? I don't know why women miscarry. I don't know why kids die of leukemia but I don't think Jesus is happy about 50 million abortions. Can you show me in the bible or elsewhere that he would be happy about this?

Right . . .

Are you suggesting that PP does not perform abortions? Strategy? I'd just like to see in the Constitution or in some other Supreme Court ruling that calls for the separation of church and state.

OH NO........... m612###, Let's NOT bring up the "O" word again. With statements like yours it could happen.

I felt sorry for the uneducated Okies of the 30's and 40's. Don't start with that again.

Workin Hard,

Are you going to feed, house and cloth those 50 million people? Are you going to start adopting unwanted children in a wholesale fashion? How about basic education for all of them and then a college education for those who qualify? Oh, and then there are jobs, lets see with 50 million people added to the population we'd have a giant and permanent unemployment problem wouldn't we? Healthcare? Prisons?

One: All those people added to our population would drag us all down, way down.

Two: Crime decreased significantly 20 years after Roe V. Wade. Why? Because unwanted, unsupported and uncared for children become criminals in large numbers.Surprising? It shouldn't be, poor and under priviledged people become criminals and drug addicts, they have nothing to lose!

Why don't you call your church and tell them how you want to start a church based program to adopt and care for unwanted babies, and tell them how the church can help by raising endless cash for their support. See how far you and your so-called Christian friends will go. That should be an eye opener!

James

You are working the slippery slope angle. Too many people . . . kill them. Too old . . . kill them. Sick . . . kill them. In prison . . . kill them.

I'm not going to house the 50 million because there wouldn't be 50 million if people didn't use abortion at birth control. We'd be more careful with our bodies if we knew abortion wasn't an option.

By the way, I do support programs that take care of "unwanted" babies.

working hard- I think Jesus would say that's between Him and the women who had abortions, and not any of your business. I think He'd ask why some women were made to feel ashamed, and though that was the only way out of the situation without being treated cruelly and looked down on (and the child too). He'd ask why families and communities don't help support some women, emotionally, spiritually, and maybe even financially, and the women feel they can't do it alone. He'd ask why some men run at the first hint of responsibility, but only the women left behind is thought badly of.

lib50 . . . are you suggesting that Jesus is fine with the 50 million people he created since Roe v Wade being killed by the hand of man?

That is exactly what I am saying. I could write a book on why I think I'm right, but this is not the forum for it. I do not think abortion is murder and I don't think God looks on it as murder.

Come to Detroit, test your beliefs.

inmissouri

I disagree that Jesus would say "it's between Him and the women" just like I would think that Jesus would not say "it's between Hitler and the Jews". He does want us to help the oppressed.

I do support organizations such as "Real Choices" that do all the things that you suggest so I do think that I'm doing what Jesus would want. We do agree on something.

Well TX ladies, close the candy store for a month and watch the men bow down in shame. Most people married over 5 or 10 years wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Workin Hard,

America and American women do not have to bow to your, or anyone else's, religious beliefs. Its your privilege under American law to make your own choice in the full privacy of your home, your family, and in the light of your individual integrity. And you can make that choice on your own with the full dignity and respect that all human beings deserve. The government does not and will not tell you what to do, its is granting you free will JUST LIKE GOD DOES.

I personally abhore abortion, but I would abhore a government that made abortion illegal and interfered with a women's privacy and dignity far more.

lib50

It's good to clear up what we disagree on. Let me know when the book comes out.

Since I started this particular thread, let me explain a little more in detail. Many of you comment on the return of Jesus. I am a Christian and I eagerly await for His return - believe me, nobody will be happier than I when He reigns on earth and lets us know exactly what is right and what is wrong. But putting this aside, most likely none of you have experienced an abortion and know what the long term affects are of doing something like this. At the time, it just seems the most logical way to get rid of a problem that you don't want to deal with. But in most cases, there WILL come a time in your future when you will change your thinking to believe that abortions are wrong. From that moment on, your life becomes a living "hell" of regret, remorse, depression, etc. etc. etc. It's something you can't take back. You caused the death of another human being. You know that the time will come when you have to answer to your maker for what you did. For those of you in this newsfeed who are at least 40 years old, think back to when you were 20. Do you believe the exact same things that you did back then or has your thoughts or experiences changed your thinking in some areas of your life. I, for one, agree that most of what I thought was OK to do when I was 20, I will now say is wrong. I admit it - I was a sinner. I did things that I hate, that I regret, that I can't take back. Abortion is wrong - there is no other way to say it. Unless it is for the safety of the mother, it shouldn't happen. And I pray for all those women out there who are having to go through this for the rest of their lives because they made a stupid decision to end the life of a child. May God have mercy on all of us.....

James

Can women in their own homes "make that choice on your own with the full dignity and respect that all human beings deserve." if it came to starving their kids? Beating their kids? Beating their dog? Distributing child porn?

Unborn babies have human DNA in the first couple of weeks of pregnancy. That means they will never be anything but a human. They won't be a dog or a giraffe or an bird. They are and will only ever be a human. Abortions after just a couple of weeks kill a human fetus that has a gender defined (often it is female), hair color, race, personality, etc.

For you to say that "the full dignity and respect that all human beings deserve" is kind of ironical as you support laws that allow them to be killed.

workin hard, why don't you go and live the way you want and quit trying to legislate something that isn't your business. The point is NOBODY KNOWS what God thinks, including you and every religion. So worry about your own life and let women deal with theirs. I'll send you a free copy of my book.

Did someone actually say "if there wasn't such thing as abortion". really? Ignore history much? Abortificants have been known about for thousands of years. It just wasn't considered a life until the 4th or 5th month by most cultures until the last hundred years. Even when abortion was illegal or extremely difficult to get, women got them - tansy oil, hangers, electro-shock, knitting needles its always possible. In fact only the poor women used the difficult methods (electro shock for instance). Rich women simply traveled to have an abortion or bribed a doctor. Its not exactly difficult to dilate the cervix and thats usually enough to start an abortion.

lib50 There's the rub. We only have one country but I have my belief system and you have yours. As it turns out, I get to vote on stuff (as you do) and I get to express my opinion freely. The wars we are fighting affect me. Our handling of illegal immigration affects me. The death penalty affects me. Health care laws affects me. If I just "live the way you want and quit trying to legislate something" as you say, things that affect me may go the way I don't like. I believe that God does not approve of abortion and I have an obligation to prevent the death of these children. You may have a wildly different opinion of what God wants. That's fine and expected. You need to realize that I'm just as offended by having your belief system forced on me as you are of me forcing mine on you. That is why we vote and occasionally have these conversations. The fact that my belief system is shared by others and could be called a religion does not make my opinion invalid. That is what the founders wanted.

Looking forward to the book . . .

Workin Hard.

The law makes a big and very important distinction between the born and the unborn. Beating your child or starving your dog is a crime you can chose to carry out but you will be punished because under the law they have a right to be, they have been born. Abortion is not a crime because the law does not recognize a fetus as a "person" under the law, it is still unborn, its DNA is legally irrelevant. The anti abortion people do not seem to realize that they are asking all of society, the law, and the government to overturn centuries of legal precedent. The notion that a fetus is a "person" would create legal chaos and in the opinion of the government and the law and would constitute, potentially, the greater inequity. You, as an individual have every right to make decisions for your fetus, to influence or pursuade others about their fetus, even to the point of terminating it. Have you seen the proposed laws that are being discussed recently where some states want a miscarriage to be treated as a crime, where once pregnant the government would be monitoring you and your fetus to make sure you don't murder it? This is an example of the greater inequity that the government and the law sees in the anti abortion laws that have been proposed. Abortion was illegal in this country and like most attempts to legislate morality it was a disaster and taken as a whole, society decided for the lesser of two evils.

Essentially, society, the law, and the government is not ready to grant "rights" to unborn fetuses or to rule on whether those rights have been violated, they are relying on you and all other women to do that because their inference and or control in these matters would be far worse than the freely arrived at decisions you will make on your own. The government does not want to criminalize those decisions, nor do they want to criminalize nature itself in the case of a miscarriage.

Actually, working hard, the 'founders' wanted religious freedom, not persecuted BY religion, that is why NO particular religion was or is named OR proclaimed as THE religion of the U.S.

Religion just does NOT belong in our government. That is the bottom line, workin hard. I don't want somebody else forcing their particular brand of morality into mine, nor do most Americans. Follow your own, and I will follow mine (and we may agree on most things, who knows). But we all don't agree with everyone all of the time and we all all deserve our full rights to freedom and privacy and our own belief system.

Fantom & Lib

I think you are penalizing me because my belief system happens to be shared by a group (we'll call it a religion) and (I'm guessing) yours are not. You are suggesting your beliefs are valid and it is OK for you to force your beliefs on me but I can't force back with my vote, primarily because my beliefs are shared with a group. Why is that? I'm not denying that I want to force my beliefs on others but only to the extent that I am being forced upon. There are many laws in this land I don't agree with but I don't suggest people are doing something wrong to me by forcing their beliefs (as a majority) on me. Why must I be at a disadvantage? I work and pay taxes like anybody else. The founding fathers never stated that a group of people that have similar beliefs may not influence the laws of the land. I would suggest there are many such groups today that do just that, they just don't call themselves a religion. Why does the word "religion" automatically disqualify any opinions? NARAL has a group that influences laws. The teachers unions have a group that influences laws. I can go on all night. Why is it toxic to have a group known as a religion do exactly what those groups do but they somehow do "NOT belong in our government"? Separation of church and state doesn't really exist. Thomas Jefferson made it up. It was never law.

Workin Hard, many of us do not presume to speak for the force(s) that shaped the universe. Please stop whining when people criticize you for being arrogant and attempting to crawl around inside ladies' underwear.

Workin Hard--try working a little harder at learning about the basics of American democracy. Thomas Jefferson made it up? Yes but it is the Constitution. You can add James Madison, a sincerely religious man, to that also. You see they believed individuals should have the right to the beliefs of thier choosing but that organized religion was a threat to that same right. They had seen how in Europe an established religion repressed all opposing belief and that lots of people died and suffered. Just look at the Middle East. And then there is the faction aspect. A good illustration of this issue is the current polarizing abortion debate which has disabled the government and turned believers into single issue voters who no longer care about the overall effect of the policies they are voting for as long as it is antiabortion. This kind of issue was referred to by Jefferson and Madison as "faction" and a primary threat to their concept of democracy. Religion tends to produce these kind of issues that are not resolvable by reason and evidence. Science is more compatable with democracy because it does not deal in belief. Separation of church and state is the combined effect of the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. In many areas of the country church and state got intertwined because that's the natural course of things if you don't know any better. Earlier in our history when local areas where much more separate this rule was not enforced, but starting in the 60's groups started bringing suits that required that the issue be defined. If you are from a locality where the local preacher is involved in town politics and whose power over the congregation makes all local officials pay head to him, this is the way it has been and seems natural. But you need more than local experience to understand the wisdom of it. Start educating yourself.

Workin Hard wrote, "I'd just like to see in the Constitution or in some other Supreme Court ruling that calls for the separation of church and state."

Have you ever read the Constitution? You might find it interesting, as well as informative. Pay particular attention to the First Amendment.

I'd just like to see in the Constitution or in some other Supreme Court ruling that calls for the separation of church and state.

Here you go, from James Madison,

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Note that Mr. Madison declares the separation is IN the U.S. Constitution.

Then there's the landmark SCOTUS case: Reynolds v. US (1878), in which the SCOTUS interpreted the 1st Amendment to include a separation of church and state. From the SCOTUS decision in Reynolds:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

. We'd be more careful with our bodies if we knew abortion wasn't an option.

Abortion wasn't an option 39 years ago and women were still getting pregnant and seeking back alley abortions. So, were they being "more careful" with their bodies then?

Unborn babies have human DNA in the first couple of weeks of pregnancy. That means they will never be anything but a human.

So? They are not human yet and in the first weeks of pregnancy, they do not remotely resemble anything human! A cancer has human DNA. Does that mean we shouldn't try to have it removed?

They won't be a dog or a giraffe or an bird.

Human, pig, dog, and cat fetuses look almost exactly the same in the early stages of pregnancy.

Abortions after just a couple of weeks kill a human fetus that has a gender defined (often it is female), hair color, race, personality, etc.

Abortion isn't considered the same as killing and gender isn't determined until about 16 weeks.

. I believe that God does not approve of abortion and I have an obligation to prevent the death of these children.

You can believe whatever you want. But you do not havve the right to push your beliefs onto others or into the law or government!

You need to realize that I'm just as offended by having your belief system forced on me as you are of me forcing mine on you.

My "belief system" allows an individual to choose for themselves. Your belief sytstem would seek to take that choice away. The only one who seems to be forcing their beliefs onto others is you!

That is what the founders wanted.

But the Founders did not want religious beliefs to be used in making law or public policy, nor was the law or government based on any religious belief or ideology. They advocated a separation of church and state for a reason.

You are suggesting your beliefs are valid and it is OK for you to force your beliefs on me but I can't force back with my vote

How are anyone's beliefs being forced on you?

Separation of church and state doesn't really exist. Thomas Jefferson made it up. It was never law.

I've already demonstrated that statement to be false!

Why is it toxic to have a group known as a religion do exactly what those groups do but they somehow do "NOT belong in our government"?

I've already explained that too!

Working Hard: I don't want you to have a seizure or anything, but here's a little secret.

Jesus was a liberal.

You were all up late, I see. I'll have to be brief as there is a lot here.

Melissa: You bring nothing to the table.

Mike: I understand the history of the Church of England, hence the establishment clause. But I don't think the founders did not want there to be religions in the US and I don't see anywhere in the constitution where that religious groups should not have their ideas respresented in government via the vote and lawful demonstration.

Heather: I've read the 1st amendment and don't see in there a call for separation of church and state.

gordy: Too much. I'll have to check this out after work.

crazy: I agree, as I am liberal when it comes to the death penalty, war, immigration, feeding the poor, etc. I don't think abortion is a fundamentally liberal issue, it just got grabbed by the Democratic party for some reason (see www.democratsforlife.org). As it turns out, I'm an Independent.

But I don't think the founders did not want there to be religions in the US and I don't see anywhere in the constitution where that religious groups should not have their ideas respresented in government via the vote and lawful demonstration.

The Founding Fathers were fine with people having religion in this country. That's why we have freedom of religion. But they did not want religious belief to be involved with the government and vice versa. That's why we have a separation of church and state!

I've read the 1st amendment and don't see in there a call for separation of church and state.

I've already cited valid, original, and authoritative sources providing where you will find separation.

gordy: Too much. I'll have to check this out after work.

Take your time.

Workin Hard, The ONLY way you can have Freedom of Religion is if the government does not establish any religion----in the moment that the government adopts a sanctioned religion as its own, above all others, Freedom Of Relgion will instantly go away. Freedom of Religion is the first Freedom and without it you will have no other freedoms.

For proof of that statement just review the many interpretations of a single religion that appear in our society. Review a little religious history, it seems that every religion on some level thinks it is the one and only religion, and immediately that means all others are evil. Review the history of any society that was ruled by religion. Religion takes all other freedoms away. Freedom to assemble and discuss some unauthorized religion or just ideas? Gone. Freedom to think and live the way YOU please, GONE, Freedom to vote for who you wish, GONE. And so forth,

This is separation of Church and State. And yes the constitution does not use those specific words it says something far clearer, the establishment clause. It is no accident that this is in the 1st Amendment. Religion was viewed by the framers as a personal matter for each individual to decide upon. They also knew very well the abuses of religion, and viewed it as the greatest threat to the formation and operation of a rational, fair, and equitable government. The government must be secular and it must remain so. If it doesn't we will no longer be living in America.

I love this lol from now on I'm going to start judging every other state based on their elected and non-elected officials. Thanks for showing me the light y'all!

jolly-friend request pending.

I'm back, hard day at work.

James: I disagree with your premise. You can have freedom of religion even if the government establishes another religion, as long as you are not required to join it. Even so, the establishment clause rules that out so there is no discussion needed.

gordy: Even with me being home, your post is still too long (just kidding). I'll hit a few before dinner. I did some research on separation. Wiki had a nice concise discussion. They pointed to a SC decision that I'll reference (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/306/case.html , Page 343 U. S. 312). I'll cherry pick just one statement from this decision, "The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State."

I don't expect this decision to change your mind but it is clear to me that separation is not absolute. He mentions the problems that would cause such as fire engines that can't go to a burning church or on the other side, churches that don't have to pay property tax. There is also the Everson v. Board of Education decision that requires the public school busing to take parochial school kids to catholic school. Again, not to change your mind but to show that this is far from settled or absolute.

"How are anyone's beliefs forced on me"? I live in a country where I pay for wars I don't agree with, tens of thousands die on my dime. Where prisoners get executed against my beliefs and I pay for it. I pay for contraception in public schools that I disagree with.

"Do I have the right to push my beliefs on others"? Of course I do, as do you. I can vote, demonstrate, and voice my opinion. All those things are ways for us to push our beliefs on others and they are totally supported by the constitution. You might even say "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" . . . .

You can have freedom of religion even if the government establishes another religion, as long as you are not required to join it.

The problem is, if the government did establish a religion, it would be construed that all other religions are secondary or of less importance and not deserving of equal rights, protections, and recognitions. Adherents to those "second-class" religions could be regarded as second class citizens as well, also underving of equal rights. Do you not see the major discriminatory hazards such a system could represent?

Even so, the establishment clause rules that out so there is no discussion needed.

And wisely so!

gordy: Even with me being home, your post is still too long (just kidding).

I've posted longer. :D Although I try to be as clear, concise, and to the point as best I can.

. They pointed to a SC decision that I'll reference (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/306/case.html , Page 343 U. S. 312).

Ther SCOTUS case: Zorach v. Clauson (1952), if I'm not mistaken. That case dealt with the constitutionality of allowing students to leave regular school hours and grounds for the purpose of religious instruction, with written permission from parents or legal guardians. The key here is that the schools did not fund, support, or otherwise assist such programs. Nor did they provide religious instruction on their own accord. With those conditions in place, the SCOTUS referred to the earlier landmark case: McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), in rendering its decision (6-3 vote):

Held: This program does not violate the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, distinguished. Pp. 343 U.S. 308-315.

(a) By this system, New York has neither prohibited the "free exercise" of religion nor made a law "respecting an establishment of religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Pp. 343 U.S. 310-315.

(b) There is no evidence in the record in this case to support a conclusion that the system involves the use of coercion to get public school students into religious classrooms. Pp. 343 U.S 311-312.

303 N.Y. 161, 100 N.E.2d 463, affirmed.

I'll cherry pick just one statement from this decision, "The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State."

Don't cherry pick! It makes you look dishonest and seemingly attempting to hide something. Plus, it damages your credibility. Let's look at that statement in its entirety, shall we (emphasis mine):

There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the 'free exercise' of religion and an 'establishment' of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter.

I don't expect this decision to change your mind but it is clear to me that separation is not absolute.

Actually, I just used your own source to demonstrate that separation is pretty much absolute, with respect to the government and individuals involved. To put it simply, the government, as an entity, cannot endorse or prohibit religious belief or religious practice (within acceptable limits).

Again, not to change your mind but to show that this is far from settled or absolute.

In cases regarding separation, what needs to be taken into consideration is the question of whether the government is mandating, endorsing, or prohibiting individual or organizational religious involvement, activity, or fealty, with respect to the Constitution and (later on) the Lemon Test. The Zorach case demonstrates that point perfectly.

I live in a country where I pay for wars I don't agree with, tens of thousands die on my dime. Where prisoners get executed against my beliefs and I pay for it. I pay for contraception in public schools that I disagree with.

We all pay our taxes. But we have little say as to where our tax dollars go. I have no problem with taxes going toward wars which defend our country or its allies, execution of the worst of society, or for contraception and sex ed. If you do have a problem, then you are free to contact or lobby your congressman or representative to make the appropriate changes.

I can vote, demonstrate, and voice my opinion. All those things are ways for us to push our beliefs on others and they are totally supported by the constitution.

Yes you can and you misunderstand. You do not have the right to expect the government to validate your (presumably religious) beliefs for you or make them into public policy. If such beliefs are made into law or policy, then they are clealry unconstitutional and violate the Lemon Test as well.

You might even say "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Our rights are enumerated and guaranteed by the Constitution. Your reference to the Declaration of Independence is a flawed application. The DoI does not make or establish our system of law and government. That is for the Constitution. Also, notice how the DoI makes reference to "their Creator?" Whose "Creator" do you think it's referring to? Notice how it says "their" creator and not "The" Creator or "Our" Creator? It's an ambiguous reference meant to apply to the individual's belief, if applicable, and not to the country as a whole.

HA! it's gonna be funny seeing Mitt have to defend this. You know the liberal republican has to be flinching everytime one of these articles hits the wires.

Next month, the GOP will be banning sale of wire clothes hangars.

Actually I think the republiCONS prefer the wire clothes hanger technique for abortions, because it can be done in the privacy of the home. No one can see their daughters going into an abortion clinic. Reminds me of a fight I overheard between my mother and her mother. My grandparents, were "God fearing" southern Baptists who were anti-abotion. My mother was a "rebel" and had loose moral standards in her younger years and she ended up in a "family way." "My mother was screaming "How dare you let him shove a clothes hanger in me to try to make me abort." Well, when that failed, my mother was kept out of school for about a year because she was "ill." and the baby given up for adoption.

OMG rad, that's terrible. I hope your mom is OK and wasn't forced to give her child up. Either way I'm glad that abortion is legal (if not actually accessible) now and forced/coerced adoptions are less common.

She was forced to give her child up, she was only 16 at the time.

raddave44,

Sadly, your mother's story is a common one for the generation just before mine, I know many similar stories. My children can't believe people would think like that, or that a woman wouldn't have a choice in the matter. I thank God, kids are being educated and use birth control (for the most part) today. And if they do have to face an unplanned pregnancy, they have a choice in the matter.

If these crazy teabags get anymore control of this country we are headed right back to the "good ole days" of forced or unforced coat hanger abortions!

They don't fight too hard for them. Remember Abramhoff/Delay and the Marianas Islands? Practically slave labor, forced abortions, horrible working conditions and all for the fact that they could put made in the USA on the label and keep those Republican thugs cronies rich doing so.

You seem to be under the impression that womens health and reproductive services are all about sex. You're wrong.

You also seem to think that only rich people should be allowed to have children.

You're everything wrong with this country and should be ashamed of your ignorance.

PP does so much more than birth control and abortions, and none of their services are free - they're subsidized by local governments to keep costs in the affordable range. Please do some research before you condemn something you know nothing about. PP also provides services to men.

Republicans say they don't want to pay for contraception

THEN they say they don't want to pay for Food Stamps and Medicaid

so we just get over populated and let them die of starvation and exposure?

Jenn S-You obviously must be from Texas, the home of Rick Perry, the 2nd dumbest Governor in the US, (Rick Scott here in Florida is the dumbest-hmmmmm..both named Rick...?), so you be content to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant and hope like hell something doesn't go wrong in childbirth, cause ya know, "if you can't afford birth control, and you can't afford children, why are you having sex?"

Please stay in Texas and whatever you do, DON"T REPRODUCE, cause the gene pool is already a little shallow.

Do you know anything about charities? A large number of them, particularly health charities, obtain money from the goverment, state & federal. Very few charities are fully privately funded, sorry to break it to you. Doubt me if you want, but I see it daily in my job. Planned parenthood is about so much more than sex. Please educate yourself a little before spewing these irrational comments.

I know what PP does (men services and counseling etc etc etc). And I am fairly familiar with what constitutes women's health issues, as I am in fact a woman and have been for quite some time.

And if you read my entire post, you would see that I DO think PP is a good institution - just that it is a private one; and as such, funding should come from the private sector.

(AND Rolos - yes, I think there are way too many people out there having children that they can't afford to feed or clothe or educate. Which is why I am pro-choice, in hopes that maybe, just maybe, people will stop having kids they can't take care of, and the rest of us won't have to support them all. So yeah, I wish the need for welfare would disappear - sue me.)

( Italylov; yes, I know they do but that's the point, I don't think they should. Tax breaks, yes, but funding should be coming from people who agree with the cause, whatever it may be, PP or ASPCA or whatever.... )

(Hugh, I am NOT from Texas. And I do have sex relationally because I work and can afford to make sure I don't have unplanned children.)

Jenn S, you have to be one of the most ignorant posters I've seen on here in a while.

The poor should just stop having sex? Really? Married couples too? You are amazingly ignorant.

My tax dollars REGULARLY go to "faith-based initiatives" that are a clear violation of the separation of church and state, but I'm sure you're fine with that, too.

Planned parenthood does a lot more than provide birth control or abortions. They provide poor women with regular health screenings too. But I guess you don't care about that either.

You're a shameful example of righteousness. Shameful.

Stop trying to rationalize your disdain for the poor. You value your precious "tax money" over human health an human lives. Again, everything wrong with this nation.

(Hugh, I am NOT from Texas. And I do have sex relationally because I work and can afford to make sure I don't have unplanned children.)

So promise us if you lose your job you'll stop having sex. Please!

jeen I agree with you 100%. It is time that we the people take on responsibility. We the people need to provide for ourselves. We the people need to work and earn. We the poeple do not need governemtn for everyday life's issues. If we cut all teh stupid spending taxes would dwindle down lower as well. It seems we can do tax cuts but have a huige problem with spending cuts.

Way to go State of Texas. Stand your Ground. It is not a violation of the constitution. Make the good arguement. First of point out he part where it is authorized in the constitution. The federal Governemtn doesn't have all the power. Period. Listen to the speech given February 10, 1933 in Germany. it is a famous speech. Listen closely. It rings familiar with what is being said today here. We know the result of that speech.

Poor Jenn......... She / He / HeShe (LoL) is so INDOCTRINATED into right wing religious zeal it is futile to convince her of anything else.

Too bad we still have to shoot her demagoguery down. Such a waste of posting, but we can't let her pathetic statements go unchallenged by TRUTH and REALITY.

Hey Concerned75..... Maybe you and Jenn can jump in bed together some day and share more than your idiotic posts.... maybe something that really makes sense would come out of it. LoL.

How cornball can the two of you get?

I can't believe most of these posts. You are definately the 'gimme stuff for free crowd' here today. Most of you think you are entitled to other peoples hard earned money. You aren't entitled to anything. Get out and work and provide for yourself. I certainly don't want to pay for your entertainment in the sack. You want sex, pay for your own birthcontrol or at least a portion of it. If you can't afford to have kids then I guess you better make your birthcontrol purchase a priority in your budget monthly. It's all about personal responsibility. Most of you sound like a bunch of losers who blame everything on the GOP/TB's when in reality it's people like you with those 'your stuff is mine' attitudes. I do like the fact that PP does do mamograms and pap's though, but NOT abortions. This isn't a 'they hate women' issue either. So stupid.

Republicans have always thought of women to be second class citizens. I have said this consistantly for the past 20 years. Now they are showing their true colors. My best friends are both die-hard republicans. They aren't anymore. Stay the course republicans. You will have more defect from the party.

Against union thievery,

Would that the world revolved around your ideals. It is not about hatred of women. It is about control over women. Guess what? Most women are not about to ber controlled anymore. Get over it!

What about the women and children that don't qualify for medicade or welfare? Plenty of women out there that don't even really make a living wage but still don't qualify for either. Plenty of two parent families with both working that can't afford health insurance or barely adequate insurance. Planned Parenthood most certainly does much more than abortions and is one way women who don't qualify for anything else can get the health care they need. I have to agree with any one who says white, middle aged, hypocritcal white men don't have any business in my personal issues or those of any other woman. If you want to butt into social issue start going after dead beat dads!! Maybe stop giving men Viagra etc.. why should taxpayers foot the bill for some middle aged man to have sex? IF you can't make men act responsibly what right do you have to go after women??They aren't doing it to procreate or assist in any medical issue as does BC so stop funding it, right?? It's not even about taxpayers funding anything for anybody when I say a womans body is her own business and shouldn't be legislated by anyone. Pro-life folks can chose what they want for themselves and their families not everyone elses. I don't encourage anyone to abort but realize I have no business dicating to anybody outside my own family what they do with their bodies and lives.!!!

Let me get this right....Rick Perry wants to curtail birth control to low income women and he wants to outlaw abortion. Meanwhile Republicans don't want to provide food stamps, medical care, housing or public education to all these children that will be born due to lack of birth control. How can this not be seen as a Republican war on women?

This is the same Rick Perry who is drawing monthly retirement pay plus benefits ($7,699.) while serving as governor ($150,000 annually). That's $242,699 annually he is sucking off the taxpayers. The same Rick Perry living in a rented mansion costing taxpayers $10,000. a month since 2007.

This is the ideal Republican.....this is what you'll live with if many of you get what you vote for.

You gonna cry?

Better idea. Donate to planned parenthood yourself.

Join the feminist hero of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who's real agenda in supporting abortion was to help rid the world of low class people.

I'm not interested in paying for it, though. People who whore around should enjoy it and pay for it themselves.

While dems are idiots, the idiot lemmings who vote for them are even more idiotic.

Most Reps are not much better, though slightly the lesser of two evils.

Paul's the only one who would change anything. He'd be murdered like Kennedy, though their family's personal profiteering and whore mongering was less than honorable.

Well, they're not wild about the 14th, either.

So true

And this surely confirms that this entire law is directed at Planned Parenthood. And that tells you that the people behind the law are complete idiots.

and obama threathens to revoke funding for women's health program which funds MEDICAID that provides family planning services to poor women. under federal law the states have the right to decide criteria for providers and texas have the law that bans taxpayers money from being used for abortion. planned parenthood provides 40% of abortions in texas so it's cutting funding to planned parenthood. SOME planned parenthood facility supposedly do not provide abortion services and they are the ones who sued the state. thus the injunction.--- what is this war against women mantra that the libs. are drumming on? texas provides family planning services to women but not abortions. women have the rights to abortion; that's the law. texas is not witholding that right. women who want declare war on their babies can do so on their own : texas does not want any part of it. that is the gist of the argument. women can declare war on their own defenseless babies that is their right. texas just don't want to give the women the ammunitions. so please... enough of this texas and the gop war on women. OBAMA is the one waging war on other poor women holding them hostage on behalf of the abortion seekers and providers.

scalibrini, if you would do some research, you would know that taxpayer money has never been allowed to be used for the funding of abortions. Essentially what Texas tried to do is to hold the other healthcare functions of Planned Parenthood hostage, so that Planned Parenthood would not provide abortions, even though there was nothing illegal about what Planned Parenthood was doing. The GOP tried to do an endrun around the law. Abortions are legal in the United States, but Texas would like to make them unavailable.

If Mitt Romney loses, this will be the reason.

Jeff, I think you are COMPLETELY backward on that statement! Obama is part of the Democrats and he flat out said that American's are stupid; yet he's the one that doesn't know how many states the US has. As for a war on women, what about a war on humanity; Obama's the one working on so many things to cut down on the population. You claim Republican's are after women, the Dem's just don't see a difference as long as it benefits their pockets!

I think you are the reason behind the discovery of the pill.

Jeff, I can sympathize with voting out the Republicans.... but unfortunately the Democrats will benefit. I stopped voting years ago. There's no point. I will be content to read who the US' new rulers are a day or so after the elections. I've worked hard, and successfully so, in recent years to insulate myself from the worst effects of govt and it has been time well spent.

DarnThatDream--and I can sympathize with your attempt to withdraw from politics as it gets dirty, nasty, and any politician can turn on you for his own benefit. But this time it's different. In the end you can't escape government. Even if you move to a remote island, someone will have authority and the resources to enforce it. For what it's worth, living in a democracy gives you the opportunity to participate. If you value the future, become a citizen again at least for now. The current Republican party has become an advocate of a kind of religious fascism, bigotry, militarism, and just plain ignorance and anti-science. They just about ruined the economy with Reaganomics and deregulation. Democracy is hard but at it's heart it is liberal, which just is hard for those raised in a rural areas to understand. In the end that was the genius of the founding fathers, to provide a government for people that would not end up being dominated by vested interests if they could understand it and keep it. Welfare may not be good, but a plutocracy of the rich and rich wanna-Be's is far worse. You may have to choose things that you don't agree with if you put the welfare of the nation ahead of your individual ideals. The present Republicans do none of these things. Instead they play to the masses while stealing from them behind their backs all the while congratulating them for standing up for "freedom." Vote Democrat across the board, not because they are superior, but because they will prevent this new fascism from distorting the freedoms given to us by the founding fathers. The old Republican party of Eisenhower and intellectual conservatism of William Buckley, has been replace by a shallow self-serving conservatism that exploits all the prejudices of white suburbia, funded by front organizations of eccentric super rich donors. Stop them now with your words. Stop them in November with your vote.

Girl from HR

Jeff, I think you are COMPLETELY backward on that statement! Obama is part of the Democrats and he flat out said that American's are stupid; yet he's the one that doesn't know how many states the US has.

Do you really believe what you wrote? You are a great example of how Roger Ailes at Faux news has totally manipulated the weak-minded people with fear inducing scare tactics.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525