Just curious what is the "greater good" and who gets to decide that? And how is being silent considered selfless?

I agree with LGEME. Ditto. Silent is not selfless rather it is an effort to partake of the common good. Everyone doesn't need a protest sign and teargas to make a point. The blogger of this article is the equivalent of a teargas throwing street radical.

LGeme,

It's a blog post, not an article. It'd be the same as complaining about a "letter to the editor" being biased.

Also, how did this in any way "solidify" why you intend to vote Republican? What did she state that you disagreed with, where you instead side with the Tea Party Republicans?

MBear -- please don't confuse "selflessly stayed silent" with being too weak or timid or simply unwilling to stand up for your rights. Judging by your comment, 'It actually reminded me, and solidified why I intend to vote Republican', I'm going to guess you know very little about women's struggles for equality in this country.

Do you people realize 100 years ago American women could NOT vote!?! Do you realize freed black, male slaves could vote decades before White Women? Where would women be if it were not for Susan B. Anthony and her 40-year struggle for women's suffrage?

And MBear, just as you don't think women deserve a right to personal autonomy, there were many, many, many 20th Century woman who vehemently opposed the Woman's Suffrage Movement. MBear--- you are the modern equivalent of the women who opposed woman's suffrage.

And you must not have read the Blue/Red Mitten Patch articles.

Facts are facts and I'm disturbed by the idea that half of the population should be trampled on for the greater good.

Why is it a crime to live in a safe community? I'll take comfortable, heterosexual, safe middle class any day over being neighbors with someone as ignorant as you.

It is disgusting that male politicians can say such things about women yet the minute a female politician says vagina she is forced to shut her mouth!! Sad that there is such a double standard in 2012! I hope my daughter's generation looks back at this behavior and is mortified at how things once were!

It isn't *all* about women, but what *is* about women are the policy positions that the conservatives have taken to the extreme these past few years.

You are correct that there are lots of other topics and problems to think about, but that in no way justifies the problems that the Republicans are causing for women. To excuse or ignore those problems is irrational, as long as the Republicans continue to push legislation causing those harms.

JH - Just curious about your opinion on family planning and the use of condoms. What is a 12 or 13 year old girl supposed to use during a rape?

The phrase "ban abortions for women" misses the point completely. This isn't about the woman, this is about the child. Killing a child cannot be justified, regardless of the circumstances of the conception.

JH, I'm glad you hold your position consistently, to not provide exceptions in instances of rape or incest. I don't understand those who feel abortion is murder, but are willing to allow a baby to murdered if it was conceived through rape. I personally don't view abortion as muder though. So with that said, we either have to provide women with the freedom to choose, or we have to take away that choice from all women.

For those that cannot imagine supporting taking away a woman's freedom to decide what to do with her body after she was impregnated through rape, we will continue to fight for women's rights. For those that do want to take away that woman's freedom, you can continue doing so. I'm confident the public and the Constitution is on the side of the woman.

I'm glad there are individuals like you and Todd Akin and Paul Ryan who are holding consistently onto the anti-abortion position and are not willing to moderate it in an attempt to gain more political popularity.

Please pardon my typos in the first paragraph.

RR - Thanks for sharing your perspective as a hard working mom. As such, I realize it's hard to find the time to get into the weeds + read some of the legislation that has been proposed by candidates. And I agree, there are extremes + Limbaugh is an idiot (!).

Just be careful that you find out exactly what is buried in some of the legislation the candidates you vote for are promoting. RE: "Abortion is one thing and birth control is another". You'd hope so, but not so much.

Bills introduced and co-sponsored by Akin and Paul Ryan include HR 212 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf - specifying life at fertilization which is "the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being". By this, a human being is considered at the one cell stage, before it makes its trip down the fallopian tube and before it is even medically considered a pregnancy (implantation in uterus).

Therefore, the most popular forms of birth control that might inhibit implantation would be considered infanticide, and thus illegal. That would be a major practical reprecussion of "life at conception" legislation for single and married women alike. Men may be interested to know this as well, unless perhaps most believe in "intercourse for procreation only"?

And there isn't gov't funding of abortions per Hyde Amendment - in effect since1976.

Erin - ever heard of Natural Family Planning? Or condoms? You are jumping to the extreme (intercourse for procreation only) to illustrate a false point (that chemical birth control is needed).

Also, the Hyde Amendment hasn't ended government funding of abortions and I'm guessing you know that. Murder is illegal too... but it still happens. Passing a law against something does not make it magically stop happening.

JH -
"ever heard of Natural Family Planning? Or condoms?" Yes, ever hear that the most popular and utilized forms of b.c. involve hormonal meds? Thus, if you outlaw these medications, you are EFFECTIVELY banning most, but not all (such as abstinence), forms of birth control. My point is that that would indeed be the practical effect.

RE: going to the "extreme". I am not trying to be disingenuous or incendiary in what I say, but stating reality. Views once thought to be extreme are now mainstream. Santorum said that intercourse should be for procreation - "the perfect way that a sexual union should happen". I respect his view and honesty, but don't think that's the mainstream view. However, this view, and the moral judgment behind it, is shared by many "mainstream" in his (and formerly my) party. There is really no daylight between Santorum, Akin and Ryan in their reproductive views and legislative efforts. And I think it's important for voters to be aware.

Many folks are Pro-Life and still fine with birth control. I think many of those folks have no idea that some of these women's health bills would, if passed, limit their and their husband's family planning choices.

JH - forgot to mention. These "personhood" bills would also make IVF treatments impossible for those couple who suffer with infertility. More practical reprecussions -

First of all, it would not make IVF impossible, it would only make it illegal to create embryos which would not be implanted, or to abort them afterwards. I agree that this would make IVF more expensive, but not impossible.

Yes, I am aware that it would outlaw a large number of birth control methods. I am pointing out that there are other safer, cheaper methods which are being ignored by most either because they are unaware of them or they choose the pill for the sake of convenience.

Santorum is a devout Catholic. He does not believe that intercourse is strictly for conceiving children, but he does believe that intercourse should be open to the possibility of conception - meaning not prevented by artificial means such as birth control or condoms. This does not bar the possibility of natural family planning which is promoted and taught by the Catholic Church.

JH - sigh. OK, you keep inadvertently proving why having all male panels on such things is really not a good thing for women.

When you read up on actual scientific data on IVF, and/or go through the procedure yourself, then we'll talk. You clearly don't have an accurate view.

And here, you're just proving my points about bc: "Yes, I am aware that it would outlaw a large number of birth control methods. I am pointing out that there are other safer, cheaper methods which are being ignored by most either because they are unaware of them or they choose the pill for the sake of convenience. "

"Santorum is a devout Catholic." Good for him! As are many of us. However, the US Constitution does not say you can make laws according to Catholic doctrine, or any other religious doctrine. It's explicity mentioned and prohibited as in - separation of Church and State.

Erin, I think JH was just explaining that the view attributed to Santorum is not the Catholic view, not suggesting that Catholic doctrine be legislated.

While laws that are explicitly based on a religion are not allowed according to the current interpretation of the Constitution, a religion having a view does not make it a religious view. The Ten Commandments, obviously from Jewish religion, state "Do not murder". This is a moral view shared among many religions and non-religious people too. No one points to the Bible or a religion's doctrine and says that because it is espoused by a religion it cannot appear in U.S. laws. No one says we shouldn't legislate this morality.

Recognizing that a unique human life is formed at conception is scientifically demonstrable. It is a moral - not religious - question if this life deserves the same protection as other human lives. The U.S. Constitution does allow for the legislation of morality, It is what our laws are based on.

Rochester Resident - I just want you to notice that comments rebutting my original comment do NOT include a denial that hormonal birth control would be necessarily restricted with personhood bill passage. Because it would, and the following (yes, male) commentors agree, and that doing so would be fine with them.

Also, rereading your comment I wanted to say - you are an AMAZING mom. And I'm glad you're a neighbor and that you took the time to be engaged and comment from a woman's perspective. Thank you.

Joshua -

You make so many interesting points, and as I said, I agree with you on many.

One point in particular caught my eye though, your comment "While laws that are explicitly based on a religion are not allowed according to the current interpretation of the Constitution". Hmm, according to current interpretation. This seems to imply that you don't quite believe that, and perhaps hope that some future administration or SCOTUS may or will change this interpretation? That to me is scary. That we would throw out the concept of separation of Church and State. Isn't that one of the reasons why folks came here to start this type of democracy WITHOUT interference or preference for any religion or doctrine? Church influencing/running State didn't, and hasn't, worked so well in Europe and other areas of the world.

The morals that underlie our faith(s)? Of course that can and should influence who we are and how we live our lives.

Erin, how the First Amendment has been applied to law has varied greatly over the history of our country. I don't use "separation of church and state" as that phrase is not part of our laws, but in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. While the Puritans did come over to escape religious repression, they chose to religiously repress others once they arrived. The Puritans were also only a subset of the peoples who made up our young country. Others came over for many different reasons.

Each of the thirteen colonies had religious laws that favored a particular religion or denomination. These laws were often around taxation or eligibility to serve in the legislature and existed after the writing of the U.S. Constitution. Until the Fourteenth Amendment, whose Section 1 was a giant brush used primarily to address a single issue, these laws would have been legitimate. There are still Blue Laws that are enforced even though they are religiously-based.

I do not know what future interpretations of the First Amendment will bring or which religiously-based laws will be overturned or allowed. Some religiously-based laws are not written as to appear religious now. For example, one law I would like to see overturned is the Blaine Amendments, initially enacted so that only Protestant doctrine and not Catholicism could be taught in public-supported schools, although a modern reader of this law would not automatically understand this.

I am not advocating removing the First Amendment as our founders understood it. I do believe that certain interpretations have overstepped how it was written. I also do not believe that the founders would have agreed to the Fourteen Amendment. I believe the Fourteenth Amendment should be retailored, primarily because I am a supporter of states' and municipalities' rights to run as they see fit, within certain measures. (While I would not expect you of suggesting I support a return to states allowing slavery, others on here might. FTR, I do not support that.)

We have a great diversity of peoples within our nation and often groups of these peoples can feel that their culture is not allowed our Constitution and its current interpretation. I believe new freshly-established municipalities should have the ability to institute their culture and beliefs on that area. For example, if a group of Muslims wants to create a city run under Sharia or a group of atheists wants to create a community without any churches, I would support that. I would not support the addition of religious laws to an existing community. It must be a place that positive action is required to move to.

I hope that clears up my beliefs on this issue in this fun little detour.

Josh, I think anyone with a history like McMillin cares little for a group that has a high teen suicide rate. McMillin is not a good guy and I'm surprised that a so called education advocate like yourself would support a person like him since many gifted students are LGBT. Josh, do you have a gay son? I do and I can tell you that I would never let your buddy know his name. He supports Gary Glenn, a guy who runs a hate group that wants to make homosexuality a crime. Enough said. Scary people .

Paul, do you agree with everything the candidate you vote for does? I never have. I am not willing to judge whether McMillin or VanRaaphorst are good people or not.

As I've stated before, my purpose for bringing McMillin up was as a recent example of someone who has had intentions ascribed to him other than his statements. This discussion is rife with such maligning of intentions where people trying to save innocent lives are characterized as being hostile to women. I was curious to see if Jordan actually believed that politicians should be taken at their word on their intentions or if that was all just talk.

I would argue that the Democrats are waging the real war on women, fighting to make sure sex-selective abortion is legal. This is, quite literally, a genocide against unborn women.

Since when did the word "vagina" become profane?!?

Julayne -You have every right to have your beliefs, but let's "fact check" you + Limbaugh. It is clear neither Limbaugh nor you listened to Ms. Fluke's testimony.

Ms. Fluke offered testimony speaking generally about birth control, and specifically, NOT about Fluke's experience, but her FRIEND and classmate. Her friend has PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) a serious endocrine disorder that effects several body systems, causes a myriad of disorders, often including, but not limited to, bursting ovarian cysts, infertility, high incidence of Type II diabetes and much higher risk of heart disease. Early diagnonis and treatment of PCOS helps to decrease symptoms and risk. Treatment for sexually active or inactive: bc pills. Her friend did NOT need b.c. for contraception, but as PRESCRIBED treatment for this disorder, with which she's suffered serious medical complications.

But isn't b.c. cheap and readily available? Yes, and no. There are 60 types of b.c pill formulations available in the US. Of those 60 bc pills, 3 are available generic at major pharm for $9. PCOS rec'd treatment, is not generic and $89/mo, thus the $3K/3 yr grad schoolcomment. Do you still say this woman was a sl*t for needing hormonal medication to treat a serious disease?

Here is the full text in the non-partisan site Politifact in their "In Context" series offering full speeches and texts. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/

Kristi,

The word itself is not profane, but it can be (and was) used in a profane manner.

JH, are we supposed to take your comments seriously? Or are they just in jest?

"I would argue that the Democrats are... fighting to make sure sex-selective abortion is legal."

Do you have any rational basis for making such a claim? If not, please apologize. Because it seems to me as though that same type of disingenuous debate tactic would be in use if you accused someone that is in favor of "innocent until proven guilty" of instead being in favor of "allowing murderers and rapists to walk free".

Please provide a reality-based source for your accusation that Democrats want *sex-selective* abortion to be legal, rather than abortion in general.

Jordan, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) which would ban sex-selective abortion was up for a vote in the House with 2/3s required to pass. Republicans voted for it 226-7. Democrats voted against it 20-161.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299

Thank you Joshua.

Now do you think that it is intellectually honest to claim that the Democrats voted against it because they want sex-selective abortion to be legal? Or would the intellectually honest position understand that they voted against it because the bill would do more than just outlaw sex-selective abortion, placing barriers and unnecessary regulations on non-sex-selective abortion?

If someone was against sex-selective abortion, but didn't want to take away the rights of, or make it more difficult for, women who are seeking an abortion that has nothing to do with the race/gender of the fetus, wouldn't they still have voted 'no' on this bill?

Is there any Democratic member of Congress who ever actually took the position that sex-selective abortion should be legal?

Jordan, yours is one interpretation, but I do not believe it is the only intellectually honest interpretation. Many countries that allow abortions prohibit sex-selective abortions and that law has apparently not caused other "barriers and unnecessary regulations" on other abortions.

I believe this issue is so polarized here that any restrictions on abortion, even if is a restriction that provides gender equality, are not permissible to many legislators who rely on that 100% NARAL-approved rating so they don't lose in the primary to a further left opponent. The same happens on the right in its primaries. If Democrats truly oppose sex-selective abortions, the easy answer is for a group of them to propose a law that they believe will only restrict sex-selective abortions.

I do wish that the heads of the county Republican parties were as vocal and well-spoken online as you are. As a party leader, you do a great job defending Democrat policies.

Joshua,

If the Democrats wrote a bill that made it illegal to buy guns in preparation for a mass shooting, but the Republicans all voted against it because they felt the law could be used in a way that keeps individuals who aren't planning a mass shooting from being able to purchase guns, would it be appropriate for the Democrats to say that the Republicans want to allow people to prepare for more horrific events like Aurora or the shooting at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.

I would join those who say that the Democrats in that hypothetical are obviously misrepresenting the Republicans' position. No one wants to allow people to plan mass shootings, but Republicans don't want the process of preventing those shootings to also result in innocent people losing their rights. It doesn't matter that other countries are able to have laws that more successfully prevent the mass shootings that are too common in our country, I respect those who feel those same laws would have unintended consequences here (even if I disagree with their position, I would not misrepresent it).

The Democrats felt that the law would not only be used to stop sex-selective abortion, but also abortions for which there is a constitutional protection. That is why they voted against it. To say otherwise is to be as inappropriate as the hypothetical Democrats accusing the hypothetical Republicans of wanting to let crazy people plan massacres.

Jordan, here is the relevant text of the law. The entire law can be found at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3541/text

Please inform us how this could be manipulated to ban other abortions.

Sec. 250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sex

‘(a) In General- Whoever knowingly--

‘(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child;

‘(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion;

‘(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or

‘(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

****

BTW, some pretty horrendous claims have been made about Tom McMillin regarding HB 5039. Are you willing to call out your fellow Democrats on their interpretation that McMillin would say is misrepresenting his position?

Joshua,

I've not seen/heard much about HB 5039 until now. From what I have just found, it appears the people who are opposed to HB 5039 say that it would prevent cities from being able to provide equal protection to citizens based on sexual orientation.

I've not found what Rep. McMillin's reasons for the legislation are, or how they are being misrepresented by the opponents. Does Rep. McMillin not want to prevent cities from providing protections for LGBT status the same way they would for gender/age/race?

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Rochester-centric stories. If the Democrats are wrong in saying what the bill would do, or the reasons behind it, then absolutely they should stop misrepresenting Rep. McMillin's position. But I'm not sure what his position actually is.

Regarding the sex-selective abortion bill, it's more about how it is implemented and enforced, rather than what it prohibits. There's no reason for us not to recognize that there are states (like Mississippi) where the state legislature is doing everything possible to outlaw abortion, pushing numerous laws to their limits to test the boundaries. If the sex-selective abortion bill was passed, I don't see the safeguards that would prevent the state of Mississippi from misusing the law to outlaw non-sex-selective abortion.

Additionally, just like with voter ID laws (not a tangent I want to get onto), no one has shown a need for such a law, as there's no evidence that sex-selective abortions occur.

Jordan, McMillin's stated reason for creating HB 5039 is to have a consistent set of discrimination laws across Michigan instead of each community creating a patchwork of laws that could vary as you cross the street. He has stated that discrimination laws should be addressed at the state level. It would end some municipal anti-discrimination laws, including ones based on sexual orientation, appearance, criminal background, credit history, etc., should they exist outside of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. These laws may exist for good reasons, but according to McMillin should be addressed at the state level.

From what you saw while doing research, many people see this directed at gay rights ordinances even though that is not mentioned in the bill. He has been many times called a bigot based on assumptions of his purpose in drafting this bill.

If I'm reading you correctly, it appears you are saying that we should be more willing to believe politicians and not ascribe to them ulterior motives because their views conflict with ours.

****

In regards to his bill, the longer I've considered it, the less I believe it to be a good bill, but that has everything to do with my belief that most decisions should be made at the most local level possible. However, that reasoning would lead to all anti-discrimination laws being at the local level, something I'm sure many people against HB 5039 would reject.

5039 is pure hate and targets to make local protections for LGBT citizens (20 cities) null and void. It isn't a republican or democratic issue. It is a human rights issue.

L Brooks Patterson

Patterson supports the inclusion of sexual orientation in state hate crime laws. "We don't kill young gay guys just because they're gay. Maybe McMillin's brand of Christianity accepts that. Mine does not," Patterson was quoted as saying in the Oakland Press

Joshua,

Thank you for the additional info. I agree the bill is a bad idea. I also agree the opponents of the bill shouldn't ascribe motivation to the legislator. They should argue against his flawed position, explaining why it is better for the local governmental units should be able to provide additional equal rights protections.

With that said, the opponents should (and have every right to) ask Rep. McMillin if he would support adding protections for the LGBT community at the state level, and the burden is on him to take a position on that issue. If he is against giving the LGBT community protections from discrimination at the state level, and he is actively pushing legislation that would prevent the protections being provided at the local level, then the claims of him being bigoted towards the LGBT community have a rational base.

If Rep. McMillin was instead in favor of providing protections for the LGBT community at the state level (which is entirely plausible if his reasons behind HB 5039 are true), then obviously he is not a bigot. He's still wrong in regards to HB 5039, but there would be sufficient evidence to show that his motivation is what he says it is.

One way in which this issue is different from the sex-selective abortion though is that discrimination against the LGBT community does really occur, and so a solution is needed. With the former not actually happening, bills to "solve" it don't provide any benefit.

Also, notice that I stated the local governments should be able to provide "additional" equal rights protections.

My philosophy is that the federal government should set the "floor" when it comes to protections for our citizens, allowing the states to set additional protections if they choose, and the states allowing the local units to set even more protections if they choose. The states shouldn't be able to go below the "floor" set by the federal government, and the cities shouldn't be able to go below the "floor" set by either the federal or state. But if any level decides there is a need to provide additional protections, they need to have the ability to do so.

That is why HB 5039 is a bad bill.

This is why motivation has been ascribed.

On Homosexuals

"I think that the people who are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle need help," McMillin told the Detroit News on Sept. 18, 2003. "We encourage people to stop smoking. This resolution is the same sort of thing."

Patterson said McMillin hailed from the "Taliban wing of the Party," after McMillin used robocalls against the Oakland County executive that said he embraced the homosexual agenda.  Patterson also said that McMillin wasn't a member of the Christian Coalition because, in fact, he embarrasses the Christian Coalition.

The American Independent News Network’s Todd Heywood asked Gary Glenn if he supported criminalization of homosexuality in an interview last year. “The short answer to your question is yes, we believe that states should be free to regulate and prohibit behavior that’s a violation of community standards and a proven threat to public health and safety — including, as most of the United States did throughout its history, homosexual behavior.”

McMillin said this about Glenn  “The brightest development in Michigan was the rise to prominence of the American Family Association of Michigan and its leader, Gary Glenn."

Jordan, I didn't really mean to detour into gay rights. The vocal opponents and supporters already duked it out in another thread and it's not an issue I care to get involved in. I simply used that as example of a politician having motives ascribed to him. If Republicans are expected respect the explanations of the Democrats who voted against sex-selective abortion, Democrats should pay the same courtesy to Republicans. That was just a very recent example of another hotly contested item, but I have no desire to enter that conversation.

I also think the word bigot is not great to bring into a conversation. It mostly serves to shout down conversation. Whatever the subject, I prefer to discuss the merits instead of getting into personal attacks or who can paint the other side worst.

Josh,

L Brooks is a Republican. Not a party issue. Human rights issue.

Patterson supports the inclusion of sexual orientation in state hate crime laws. "We don't kill young gay guys just because they're gay. Maybe McMillin's brand of Christianity accepts that. Mine does not," Patterson was quoted as saying in the Oakland Press

Jack, do you really believe McMillin believes it is OK to kill young gay guys? Or that gay rights ordinances make any difference on whether it is OK to kill homosexuals?

Brooks is being Brooks - being a fiscal genius and making asinine comments on everything else.

Legislating abortion is not about a woman's body, it is about the child's body.

Please feel free to elaborate. Having an opinion you don't agree with does not make me ignorant, but name calling without any explanation does not reflect well on you.

JH.

If you plant a seed into the ground, when does it become a tree? If someone says that it immediately becomes a tree, and someone else says that it's not a tree until it sprouts, and someone else says it's not a tree until it reaches a certain height, is there any objective way to say who is correct and who is not? No, there isn't. It's a difference of opinion.

Likewise, there are many people who understand that calling a zygote a "baby" makes about as much sense as calling a seed a tree. And that's fine if you want to call that zygote a baby, but the law should not take your label as definitive enough to justify taking away freedoms of other people (that the law does actually recognize).

I'm sorry that your opinion differs from mine about zygotes. What's great though is that I am not imposing my opinion on you (if you want to think of your zygote as an actual baby, go right ahead), so don't use the law to impose your opinion on anyone else.

The tone of the article implies a desire to unite all women to your exact point of view, which you make clear is superior to other women's views. That doesn't work...

Joshua - you are backing up my position - that Obama did not PERSONALLY do or say this (December or April), which is what your original statement said.

Statements made were from Medicaid director Cindy Mann, yes, of the Executive Branch and thus Obama Admin, as I stated already.

I just find that there's a lot of "Obama said/did this" - when he never actually did or said whatever the claim is. It just winds up the partisanship, and dials down the facts which muddles everyone's views. I hated it when they did it to GW Bush too. It does not help to move the conversation forward basing arguments on misstatements.

I point this out because I know you're a serious person and careful about facts and I've never seen you misstate something before. I always appreciate your honest discourse.

Erin, President Truman had a sign on his desk "The Buck Stops Here". As the ultimate authority in the Executive Branch, he took responsibility for decisions made by his employees. A decision of this magnitude is not made in a vacuum and cutting off funds to an entire state would not have been made without Obama's approval. Not only is it a large and politically-charged decision, but it would be politically devastating for Ms. Mann, a political appointee, if it had been reversed by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebulius or President Obama. I maintain that this decision had his agreement and ultimately stops with him. Not commenting personally on an issue does not isolate a boss from responsibility for public decisions made on that issue.

I feel the same way about decisions made by political appointees in the Executive Branch by Republican presidents. Appointees in the judicial branch do not serve at the whim of the president nor can the president reverse their decisions.

Thanks for posting! I too am proudly pro-woman and anti-abortion.

Not possible to reconcile the two, sorry. Pro-woman means...that you support her autonomy within limits? And given the Republican platform, those limits are scary: no exceptions. It is absolutely a war on women and as Amanda suggests, they MUST stand up for themselves. Even well-intentioned men are poor substitutes. Here's another stunner: 31 states apparently give rapists paternal rights. The bottom line: the right gets crazier every election cycle. It's time for the rest of us to take back our country.

It's quite possible. Over half of the babies whose lives are ended in abortion procedures are women - how is it pro-woman to support killing them prior to their birth? It simply isn't.

Also, most women who have had an abortion regret it afterwards. Abortion advocates point to surveys showing that "relief" is the most common feeling immediately after an abortion procedure. I am not arguing with this, it is a simple fact. However, most women feel differently a few years later and come to deeply regret having an abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/12/nat-2579/

I don't think it's possible to reconcile being "pro-choice" and pro-woman.

Shadow - here's the one woman's story RE: having to deal with her rapist in custody/visitation struggle. "Raped, pregnant and ordeal not over" - devastating, I can't imagine.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html

Erin, that is devastating and I don't think it should happen - but being pro-life does not make somebody pro-rapists-rights. The laws allowing them to pursue paternal rights need to be changed, and I don't think people who are pro-life will disagree with this.

JH - "being pro-life does not make somebody pro-rapists-rights" Of course not!

But electing those who promote medeval ideas of rape and conception (like Akin and Ryan) will not exactly promote getting some of those laws in place to help victims of rape. They are way too busy drafting several iterations of personhood bills to spend time on crime legislation.

Joshua - I totally respect your position. Just be careful to fact check the list backing your argument.
"December 2011: Obama refused to renew ALL federal WHP funds for Texas, affecting health care for 130,000 low-income women because of the abortion-funding restriction."
Actually, was a federal judge, April 2012, just two of many citations:
"Federal judge blocks Texas from cutting off Planned Parenthood"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/30/federal-judge-blocks-texas-from-cutting-off-planned-parenthood/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424548/judge-texas-cant-cut-out-planned-parenthood/
"U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin ruled there is sufficient evidence that a law banning Planned Parenthood from the program is unconstitutional. He imposed an injunction against enforcing it ..The law passed last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature forbids state agencies from providing funds to an organization affiliated with abortion providers. Texas law already required that groups receiving federal or state funding be legally and financially separate from clinics that perform abortions." Of note: Yeakel was appointed to the judgeship in 2003 by GW Bush.
Technically as a federal judge he's part of the "Obama Administration", as Pro-Life sites state. But it wasn't Obama HIMSELF who made this court ruling. And this ruling was overturned today.

It is vitally important to separate exactly who said or did what, especially during highly partisan times.

Erin, while that court case exists, prior to it Obama's administration told Texas it was pulling the funding. The Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services mentioned in the articles below is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is in the Executive Branch of our government.

http://www.texastribune.org/m/story/34927/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/in-abortion-battle-white-house-defunds-texas-women-health-program/2012/03/15/gIQAJWLtES_blog.html?tid=pm_business_pop

Joshua - "I maintain that this decision had his agreement and ultimately stops with him." Yes, yes! I agree! We keep agreeing on things yet you refuse to concede what we keep agreeing to. That Obama did not "refuse to renew ALL federal WHP funds for Texas". I would be perfectly happy with the accurate "Obama Administration" which of course "does not isolate a boss from responsibility for public decisions. Not commenting personally on an issue does not isolate a boss from responsibility". Again, true, and really, a given for most people.

Why is the distinction important? What's more likely to get the outrage machine going (on both sides)? Headline: "Medicaid director Cindy Mann Refuses to renew ALL federal WHP funds for Texas" OR "Obama Refuses ALL federal WHP funds for Texas".

It raises an issue, decision or policy change to another level when you're indicating by an affirmative statement (as you did) that a POTUS addressed it personally. Particularly in polarized issues, it's a big difference if POTUS, or a surrogate, makes a statement or policy move.

So then, I'd prefer sticking to the literal facts, so as to not have misunderstandings that could needlessly inflame an already touchy issue. And I'm sure neither I nor you would want to inadvertently get any misinformation out there.

Erin, given the facts that are public and I've been able to find, I concede that "Obama Administration" may have been a better choice of words, even though I strongly believe that Obama did play a role in this decision. Unfortunately, I cannot edit my post, so it stands as something that may not be provable. Let's move on.

The reason I directed my initial reply towards you is that I have great respect for your ability to discuss politics rationally without name-calling. You also have great command of the political facts, so I knew our conversation would be fruitful and not degenerate.

Joshua - thanks for indulging in a detour into a Constitutional question with me. My urge to geek out in talking about underlying assumptions and interpretations is sometimes hard to resist.

It is so enjoyable to dialogue with folks who have taken the time to look at such questions over our history, and look to possible future implications.

It seems to me that "strong, independent women" really means "pro-abortion feminists".

I know many strong, independent women who are pro-life and will be voting for Romney due to this issue as well as the weak economy and high unemployment rate.

Shadow - unfortunately, I meant it literally. Many of these theories of rape distinctions and conception are spawned from a 13th century British legal text called "Fleta".

Akin's ideas admittedly came from Dr. Jack C. Willke, the former president of the U.S. National Right to Life Committee. Incidentally Wilke was a 2008 surrogate for Romney's last prez run. And no official role, but has met with Romney during the current run.

Honestly, I've liked Romney for many years. I feel badly he's been dragged into the world of wacky "science" having to deal with some (not all) of these folks.

Erin, you may have "liked" Romney, but he wasn't dragged into anything - he chose to be associated with Willke, and cannot be absolved of the ideas (which were the features that brought him to Romney's attention) spread by Willke. It is this underlying affiliation that has his handlers declaring questions about Akin and abortion off limits. One can only hope that people will awaken to the true Romney and the threat his excesses and willful blindness evident in his quest for power present.

FHVoice -
I'll give you the middle schoolers answer. I like Romney. I don't LIKE, like him. ;-)

I like he and his wife personally. I've liked his previous pragmatic way of governing and working in a bipartisan manner to get a lot accomplished. I like that he was the first R to boldly enact a major Republican policy which had wallowed unused for years, but based on the key core R value of self-reliance (a mandate called the Anti-Free Rider penalty) - what became Romneycare, now the ACA.

Unfortunately, in his current prez run, Romney is allowing the fringe of the party to lead him, rather than him leading the party. And he has not taken the opportunity to show an independent moment where he's stepped out and really spoken up to the fringe. I've mentioned before, that neither speaks of strong leadership nor executive experience.

How many conservatives are going to try and redirect the focus onto something else without even trying to provide the most basic defense of the Republicans' positions towards women?

When the Republicans vote against equal pay for women, that puts women's rights actually in jeopardy.
When the Republicans vote to defund Planned Parenthood, that puts women's health actually in jeopardy.
When the Republicans vote to redefine and distinguish between "rape" and "violent rape", that puts women's safety actually in jeopardy.
When the Republicans vote to require women seeking abortion to do medically unnecessary procedures, that puts women's rights actually in jeopardy.
When the Republicans vote to make it more difficult for women to obtain birth control, that puts women's health actually in jeopardy.

But rather than addressing any of those actual votes the Republican Party has supported these past few years, conservatives would rather that we just ignore the fact that they've happened and instead focus on something else.

How about this, we can discuss the war on our children's future, or the "real" war on women with sex-selective abortion, or whatever, as soon as conservatives actually account for the votes and positions that we are identifying as being anti-women.

Don't ignore the reality of what the Republicans have been doing. Either say that you support them (and why), or say that you don't support them but you still support the Republicans overall (and why).

Karen - I don't believe there is a war on women - it is actually active disregard for the rights of approximately half of our population.

It's funny to me that it's acceptable that people angrily tout their reasons FOR abortion, but the minute someone else speaks about their stance for LIFE somehow it's simply intolerable. Brian...what you wrote was thoughtful and I commend your choices, however, if Amanda feels comfortable enough to share her stance on this situation then she and you should be prepared for rebuttals from the other side.

Brian, I am glad you would not hate them, but I don't know anyone around here into cannibalism.

While you hold that view on many life issues, are you truly consistent? Would you support the same penalty for someone who kills a chipmunk as someone who kills a toddler? Would you be as understanding? Or are you stating that you believe an unborn baby's life is equivalent to that of a chipmunk's?

99% of pregnancies occur through the chosen actions of both the mother and the father. Our government's role is not to provide reimbursement for choices made that affect someone financially nor to excuse the taking of a life to ease financial burdens.

I would have no problem with a law that provided pre and post natal care, reimbursement for time off before and after birth for victims of rape. I also support social safety nets for those who need them which may cover the items listed above.

I am confused by your comparison of bombs and abortion. If bombs killed 40-50 million unborn children a year, the world would rise up in outrage.

Karen, better yet is any opinion a man gives on the issue. If a man is in favor of abortion he's understanding & progressive. If a man is against it, he is either a misogynist or a cave man and therefore not entitled to share his views.

Whatever hypocrisy it takes to justify killing unborn children... I suppose you can't realistically expect somebody with morals which let them favor abortion to play fair can you?

JH, no man nor woman is in "favor of abortion". Many, in fact most in this country, think that the question and answer should rest with the woman and her doctor. Your view is that a zygote is the same as a human being, that even under penalty of death, a woman must continue nurturing the pregnancy until the end. Most Americans do not agree with that, and do not believe that enshrined in law.

Open debate of this issue is one thing. The fact that the Romney/Ryan team would prefer to sneak into office without addressing their disconnect with the majority of voters is another, and is an outright threat to self-governance. The fact that Snyder got away with running on a vague, undefined platform should have voters rejecting two who are trying the same on the national stage.

Leigh and Donna -

thank you for your kind words. Although, I'm a bit disheartened that at this time in America it seems that if someone argues using verifiable data and scientific fact, they are considered courageous.

Nonetheless, please continue to stay informed, engaged, and vote. We really need womens' voices to be heard at this time - from all sides of the issues.

Boomer -

I concur, "It IS the economy stupid" (not you, but meme).

The legal availability of family planning including birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 – married couple from Greenwich, CT sues for legal access to b.c.) enabled women to be able to plan their family – when to start, child-spacing decisions made with their spouse. This enabled women (single and married) the time and financial freedom to go to grad school/med/law, to work in research, become entrepreneurs, legislators, judges, and CEO’s of major companies thus contributing immeasurably to the GDP ever since.

Child spacing helps family household income by allowing families to plan and for women to stay in the work force contributing to family income, thus keeping families on the edge from slipping into poverty. This in turn, keeps families off the welfare and food stamp rolls.

Families firmly in the middle class are able to hopefully at least maintain, and perhaps spend some of mom’s income in the community – supporting local businesses, which in turn, supports and/or creates new jobs. Moms make most of the purchases, pay for the dance classes, etc. So really, moms ARE the job creators (or at least a big cog in the creation wheel).

I would argue strenuously that it (women and their family’s legal access to family planning) is INDEED, the ECONOMY stupid. (again, not you)

PS - see my earlier comments RE: b.c. + the practical repercussions if R proposed personhood bills were to pass.

Boomer -

forgive a political nerd like me, but I must correct. It was Clinton '92 campaign strategist James Carville that coined the phrase which was originally "The economy, stupid". It evolved into the more famous meme used now by many.

Boomer -

Ran out of space previously, but thought I'd mention what I hope most would see as self-evident.

Family planning, of course, also helps families manage financial planning when a woman is able to, or chooses to be, a stay-at-home mom (SAHM).

Just as in families with working moms, a family with a SAHM who can decide child spacing as well as how many children they ultimately want to have, they can better manage their finances/resources appropriately in their household economy on one salary: housing, healthcare, clothing, food, school, and of course college.

Okay, since you brought up unions let's go there. I think the anti-union movement is more destructive to women than the anti-choice rhetoric and the censorship in the state legislature. Unions fight for safety at work, a decent wage, health care, etc. These are exactly the things women need to help take care of themselves and their families. These are the things a child who is born needs to continue to thrive.

The unions that have been most forcefully attacked in Michigan are the teachers unions followed by other public sector unions. It is no coincidence that these are the unions whose membership is predominantly female. These attacks are subversive and hidden behind hateful fear mongering, but they are devastating to the middle class and to women and children in particular.

I totally agree that Public Employee Unions should be abolished-- like yesterday! They are the number 1 root cause for State and Municipality debt PROBLEMS in this country with pension and post-retirement health care costs being the driving factor. There is absolutely zero accountability for 'deals' that have been cut in the past and most agreements (deals) were made using bogus assumptions for how the pension funds would stay solvent in the future. In a business, the owners of a company (shareholders) approve the deals and expense the commitments through 401K defined contribution programs. These "defined benefit" public pensions, on the other hand, are open ended commitments that allow workers to retire at a young age and get unlimited benefits for life-- For how much future dollars? At who's expense? And who will make up the shortfall when the funds run dry? These guys think me you and I, the tax payers of the community, will have to pony up more money when this happens. I say Phooooey to that. No one is backstopping my 401K program if it doesn't perform.
This is the most critical issue which will

TaterSalad stays with it - posting the same post over and over again:

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Brecksville Business Owners...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Romney, Ryan to Hold Rally ...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Karen Jacobsen Thanks the ...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Illinois Politicos: Paul ...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
PA Republicans: Paul Ryan a...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
August Poll Shows Obama 44 ...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Overt Discrimination in ...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Mitt Romney Picks Paul Ryan...

Can someone please tell me why Oiho (Obama's new spelling...
Ohio Tweets: Paul Ryan ...

... and not a one pertinent to the subject at hand, earning her new name "TaterSpam"

Sarah, other than approving a platform with the usual social issues in it, the Republican Party has been focusing on the economy. Akin's statement was in response to a question and Democrats have been driving the resulting social issues media firestorm. The contraception issue has been raised by changes made by Obamacare laws, not Republican social agenda.

If the Democrats win this election, it is because they have been successful at shifting the message to social issues. The media also tends to like the juicy social issues more than the dry economic issues, which will help the Democrats.

I also would not view the Internet as an accurate picture of the country's beliefs. People on the Internet tend to be more liberal than the actual populace. There is also a greater tendency on the Internet to use words or statements that shout down and shut down conversation, so many social conservatives tend to speak with their votes instead of being ostracized in both the virtual and real world for having dissenting views. It can be very much a valid concern. Many people in this very thread are people I will be working with on education and I hope that our political differences will not cause alienation.

Yeah, Louise, but Darth Cheney also declared "deficits don't matter", so his lips aren't clean.

Sarah, Pam, Louise - after spending years watching the Republican party from the inside, I've noticed one thing in particular about R campaigns.

The ONLY time they go all out on social issues, is when they DON'T have a good economic plan, in particular, when they don't have any NEW ideas. Muddy the waters, so that the candidate does not have to spend a lot of time talking SPECIFICS - about how to move the econmony forward, or a deadline for when debt will be erased.

I thought he had his opportunity to be "bold" and embrace big change when he chose Paul Rand- I mean Ryan - and Ryan's budget (not that I agree) filled with austerity, while doubling defense. Romney endorsed it several times, Rep House passed it TWICE.

But within 36 hrs after naming Ryan VP pick, Romney and the RNC began running away as fast as he could: "Oh, that's HIS budget, we'll be running on the ROMNEY budget". Which is....? Still waiting for it.

What we DO know is that he promises to return to W's trickle down, MORE tax cuts, bank deregs and double down on defense. How does this balance the budget? An invitation to 2008 redux? No thanks. A personhood amendment would reduce debt and create jobs...how?

Sarah, Wars are really, really, really expensive. The endgame of America's current path, in which fewer and fewer people own more and more, will be very similar to socialism.

When 10 people own all of America in the not too distant future, when advanced robotics have eliminated every last production job, when there are no postman, no banks (it'll all be electric, no currency), no restaurant employees, no taxi drivers, no translators, no teachers, etc. etc. When this day comes, the .0000000000000000001% who own the country will be happy to institute some form of socialism to prevent uprisings.