Arguing on the House floor Thursday against allowing public-funded abortions within the District of Columbia, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, took the regrettable step of wondering aloud whether such a “financial incentive” might have prompted the single mother of President Obama to abort him. “There is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion,” Tiahrt said. “If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our president grew up in similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it?” Tiahrt didn’t stop there, unfortunately, also raising the specter of an aborted Justice Clarence Thomas, inviting “another round of questions over how the GOP is actually relating to minority communities,” noted a Huffington Post blogger.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
162 Comments
Obama’s mom was married when Barack was born. Does Tiahrt never bother with fact checking?
It appears the point being made is “poverty” not being a single mother. Obama has talked about living in poverty as a child many times.
“Tiahrt should have left Obama out of abortion ‘what if’”
Why?
I think that Tiahrt makes a good point. Many women have aborted using “poverty” as justification. Of course “poverty” in our country today is relative, and what a lot of the “greatest generation” grew up in and thought was normal. And what people in a lot of the world would think of as affluent.
Sad to imagine what great individuals never were.
That’s the way it works Pro-Death people. If you snuff out a life pre-birth, you snuff out human potential. This is what Tiahrt was saying.
It is life after all and it is a human life, to say otherwise is denying science.
The chances are better that they’d be in prison right now. Most of them would have ended up either in state custody or orphanages, and you’d be paying for them for life.
Toad Tiahrt should have avoided the obvious racist aspect of whatever argument he was trying to make by coming up with an example of a poor, desperate, single mother who wasn’t African-American.
Tiahrt also needs to shake his argument (I think it’s his argument) that access to free abortion will automatically turn into one of those scenes in the “Blondie” comic strip with stampeding matrons attacking a “Sale!” at Tudbury’s department store.
Toad’s remarks score the right-wingnut hat trick by pandering to advocates of illegal abortion.
He’s pandering for votes! One-issue voters will vote for him and think he is actually doing something to make abortions illegal — he isn’t! If Republicans had wanted this wedge issue to go away they had ample time and opportunity with the majority of votes. They don’t want it to go away, they want to use it to pander to one-issue voters. How does it feel to be used?
Here is the Sedgwick County Election website:
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/
To vote in the primary contest between Tiahrt and Moran you must be registered Republican. At the website above you can print a registration form, mail the completed form in and in a few days the return mail will bring your new card with the party affiliation that will allow you to participate in choosing the next Senator from Kansas.
You can bad mouth a white person but how dare you say anything negative about a person of a different color?
His comments were not racist.
Why should people opposed to abortion have their tax dollars pay for them at will? Tax dollars today pay for abortions in a case of “the life of the mother”. That is current federal law. Why should it be expanded?
I do not understand why political mama I did not see where Tiahrt mentioned anything about Obama’s children, so why are you bringing up his?
Children of politicians are not and should not be free game for anyone. They did not run for office, so leave them out of the discussion unless you have something kind to say about them. The politican on the other hand is a different story.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 20, 2009 at 7:36 am | Permalink
Toad Tiahrt should have avoided the obvious racist aspect of whatever argument he was trying to make by coming up with an example of a poor, desperate, single mother who wasn’t African-American.
====================================================
Racist?
Try Justice Ginsburg’s comment regarding the same on for size.
lindainks55
Posted July 20, 2009 at 7:44 am | Permalink
He’s pandering for votes!
====================================================
If you don’t know Tiahrt’s stand on abortion already you really shouldn’t be voting.
It’s a valid argument.
The President was born to a lady who fits the demographics for a free abortion under the bill.
Those calling for it to be “taken back” are those who want to hide the fact that BHO’s was not a virgin birth.
Tiahrt, in his usual moronic way, specifically targeted blacks with his rhetoric. That anybody can back his racist comments shows the state of his party. He could have said Einstein, Letterman, Palin, the Pope . . . but he didn’t. Typical racist.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:05 am | Permalink!.
Those calling for it to be “taken back” are those who want to hide the fact that BHO’s was not a virgin birth.
=================================================
What a typical right wing friken moron.
JMWalker
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Tiahrt, in his usual moronic way, specifically targeted blacks with his rhetoric. That anybody can back his racist comments shows the state of his party. He could have said Einstein, Letterman, Palin, the Pope . . . but he didn’t. Typical racist.
—————————————————-
The President’s mother was white.
JMWalker
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Tiahrt, in his usual moronic way, specifically targeted blacks with his rhetoric. That anybody can back his racist comments shows the state of his party. He could have said Einstein, Letterman, Palin, the Pope . . . but he didn’t. Typical racist.
====================================================
Einstein was born in Germany.
JMWalker
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Tiahrt, in his usual moronic way, specifically targeted blacks with his rhetoric. That anybody can back his racist comments shows the state of his party. He could have said Einstein, Letterman, Palin, the Pope . . . but he didn’t. Typical racist.
====================================================
Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, Albert Einstein..David Letterman?
One of these things is not like the others….
Mr_Kia
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:14 am | Permalink
JMWalker
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Tiahrt, in his usual moronic way, specifically targeted blacks with his rhetoric. That anybody can back his racist comments shows the state of his party. He could have said Einstein, Letterman, Palin, the Pope . . . but he didn’t. Typical racist.
==================================================
Einstein was born in Germany.
==================================================
As was the Pope.
Racism!
They mentioned a half black man who happens to be president as an abortion example. That’s racism! minorities are immune from the discussion.
Racism! It’s what you go to when you can’t refute a point.
The permanently offended left.
“Politico” scrambles –
“You can bad mouth a white person but how dare you say anything negative about a person of a different color?
His comments were not racist.”
As an analogy, imagine I were criticizing big league baseball players using steroids and only mentioned Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, ignoring Mark McGuire.
Imagine if I were to praise Hollywood actors and mentioned only Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones while ignoring, say, Dustin Hoffman and Jack Nicholson.
There most assuredly would be a racial tinge to such remarks.
Such were Toad Tiahrt’s remarks.
Bemoan racism by omission if you want. But as someone posted yesterday, Tiahrt’s emphasis on African-Americans who “might have been aborted” was a dumb, tin-eared recycling job on the old illegal-abortion meme about Beethoven.
It’s not about political correctness, it’s about political stupid. If Toad Tiahrt gets to the United States Senate he’ll be identified as “The Senator from Stupid.”
“Why should people opposed to abortion have their tax dollars pay for them at will?”
Why should people opposed to the war in Iraq have their tax dollars pay for it?
Why should people opposed to agriculture subsidies doled out to Archer-Daniels-Midland have to pay corporate subsidies for ethanol plants?
I read something someplace where someone suggested a cafeteria-style income tax return. After it’s determined the total tax bill the law requires, the tax-payer could assign percentages of how those dollars are spent.
Don’t like the war? Don’t pay for it.
Don’t like cheese for the poor? Don’t pay for it.
Love new bombs and airplanes? Dedicate 90% of your tax bill to that specific program.
I wonder how that would work out in practice.
JMWalker
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Tiahrt, in his usual moronic way, specifically targeted blacks with his rhetoric. That anybody can back his racist comments shows the state of his party. He could have said Einstein, Letterman, Palin, the Pope . . . but he didn’t. Typical racist.
==================================================
Sarah Palin was born to working parents, both employed in the school system.
jYzfQX
He’s speaking regarding DC.
DC is 55% African-American.
Nearly 25% of African-American’s live below the poverty line (highest percent of any ethnic group.)
So in the case of “arguing against public funded abortions within the District of Columbia”…he was actually speaking of the majority.
The grim statistics of Blacks and Abortion
Human Events
The statistics on African American abortions are shocking.
African Americans are only about 13 percent of the U.S. population.
– one of every three abortions in the United States is performed on a black woman
– Three of every five African American women will abort a child
– 1,452 African American babies are killed each day in abortions
– 40 million abortions in the United States since
1973, some 30 percent are African American
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, would be among the first to argue that babies born into poverty constitute an economic and health burden that justifies killing the fetus.
Sanger’s slogan, “Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds,” appealed to the type of racist thinking that gave rise to Hitler’s propaganda and the resultant “racial purification” violence of the concentration camps. Her writings are filled with a mix of the popular ideas of her day, drawn from early sexual psychology and Darwinism.
Right, “Mr_Kia” –
We all know how Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas were born in the District of Columbia.
Oh wait….
It’s pretty early in the morning, “Regular,” to break Godwin’s Law.
You are right Monkeyhawk, Obama was born in Kenya not D.C.
One of the contained acts in the Health Care bill is for government paid abortions in Washington D.C. That’s the D.C. reference.
Wouldn’t it be a compliment to be mentioned as one of those great minds that might have been aborted?
Of course it is. But the left, or at least as represented here, cann’t think that way, or they wouldn’t be offended. And they couldn’t have that.
The permanently offended left.
Why is it racist?
Obama’s Mother was a white lady.
Obama is a white President.
When the facts are not what you want then to be then play the race card.
People are getting sick and tired of it. Color does not make a differenc. If you choose to be a victim you will be.
Political_mama
Posted July 20, 2009 at 7:21 am | Permalink
The chances are better that they’d be in prison right now. Most of them would have ended up either in state custody or orphanages, and you’d be paying for them for life.
—————
So pmom is saying that if poor people have babys they will probably end up in prison.
Tiahrts statement doesn’t offend me but this one does. Many great people would have been aborted if pmoms standards were applied. Jesus Christ would have been one of those.
—————
And then saint Linda comes in with her appropriate mindless reply.
“lindainks55
Posted July 20, 2009 at 7:44 am | Permalink
He’s pandering for votes! One-issue voters will vote for him and think he is actually doing something to make abortions illegal — he isn’t!”
—————-
I guess the dims are having so many problems with their own party and Obamas sinking poll numbers that they now what to give the conservatives tips on how to run our party.
You guys have plenty of problems of your own to fix. Start with the unemployment numbers that are soaring and then move on to the economy which is headed the cellar. When you get those fixed I have several more that the democrat party needs to fix.
“ANTI” admits –
“You are right Monkeyhawk….”
Yup.
As always.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:46 am | Permalink
“ANTI” admits –
“You are right Monkeyhawk….”
===============================
Obama was born in Kenya not D.C.
That was Tiahrt’s “Yo Mamma”, moment. Repubs used to be big on leaving family members out of an argument, at least if you’re talking Mary Cheney.
Bluedog Democrats against Health Care Bill:
“We need to slow down and do it right,” Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said outside a meeting of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 52 moderate to conservative Democrats. “It needs to do a much better job of cost containment” within the health care system, he added.
Newsmax.com
Invoking Clarence Thomas, defeated his entire argument! Without Clarence Thomas we never would’ve had 8 yrs. of bush screw ups, and the economy would still be humming along.
Phantom
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:50 am | Permalink
Invoking Clarence Thomas, defeated his entire argument! Without Clarence Thomas we never would’ve had 8 yrs. of bush screw ups, and the economy would still be humming along.
==========================================
Obama is a Muslim.
Except in backwater Ks.:
“But Obama remains more trusted than Republicans in Congress to do a better job on healthcare reform, the poll showed, with 54 percent of respondents putting their faith in the U.S. leader versus 34 percent in favor of Republican lawmakers.
His overall approval rating also remains high at 59 percent despite some slippage in approval ratings for his handling of the economy, the federal budget deficit and other leading domestic issues, according to the poll”
Obama is a Muslim, he has no b.c., and he pals around with terroist. We know the meme, but it just doesn’t play.
“Phantom” admits -
“Obama is a Muslim, he has no b.c., and he pals around with terroist.”
Yeah, we know.
Phantom
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:50 am | Permalink
Invoking Clarence Thomas, defeated his entire argument! Without Clarence Thomas we never would’ve had 8 yrs. of bush screw ups, and the economy would still be humming along.
—————————————————-
You work in the media don’t you?
“ANTI” is a troll.
“Monkeyhawk” is a troll, daily.
Phantom
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:51 am | Permalink
Except in backwater Ks.:
“But Obama remains more trusted than Republicans in Congress to do a better job on healthcare reform, the poll showed, with 54 percent of respondents putting their faith in the U.S. leader versus 34 percent in favor of Republican lawmakers.
==================================================
It’s interesting.
Why do you even ask about Republican law makers?
They have zero power in Congress. Completely obsolete.
So really the poll is a reflection of an uninformed electorate.
Sigh…. It would seem a picture book is in order for some to understand the problem with Tiahrt’s comment?
Well Writer maybe you need to paint that picture. While you’re at it. Tell us what Ginsburg was referring to. Tell us why pmom thinks that most poor mothers that have babies will see those babies go to jail. Tell us about the stats above that show a much higher rate of poor black mothers. Are these the babies the left wants to exterminate?
Is what Tiahrt said that far off. I thought he made a very good point by saying that a single poor parent might very well have a child destined for greatness if they aren’t wiped out by political correctness before they have that chance.
Paint us that picture.
33 of 100 women in a picture reflecting those having abortion would be black.
25 of 100 people reflecting those living in poverty would be black.
But why talk about majorities.
Abortion is another way for the Liberal Democrats maintaining their ‘Keep ‘em on the Plantation’ mentality.
Poverty and family status
According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[20] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households [20] and 19.1% of all persons living alone. [20]
[edit] By race/ethnicity and family status.
Among married families: 5.8% of all people[20] including
5.4% of white persons, [21]
8.3% of black persons, [22] and
14.9% of Hispanic persons (of any race) [23] were in poverty.
Among single parent families: 26.6% of all persons,[20] including
30% of white persons, [21]
44% of black persons, [24] and
33% of Hispanic persons (of any race) [25] were in poverty.
Among unrelated individuals and people living alone: 19.1% of all persons,[20] including
18% of white persons [26]
27.9% of black persons [27] and
27% of Hispanic persons of any race [28] lived in poverty
————
A pretty good societal reason to get/stay married and support family friendly policies.
Its a logical fallacy to say that abortion would prevent us having another Einstein or Obama, or any other famous person, using that logic using contraption or not having sex at all has the same effect. Also using that logic one could argue that abortions save us from the next Hitler, Stalin, BTK, or Ted Bundy. And lastly children born into poverty are a drain on the economy, its not wealthy and middle class people using WIC, Vision Cards, section 8 housing, or SCHIP. Many republicans don’t support those programs, are they now saying they would increase welfare to save children?
“outlander” advocates censorship –
“I will assume that Monkey’s and PMom’s classless, tasteless posts will be removed.”
That’s it.
If you don’t like the truth, suppress it.
How very CON of you.
The anti-abortion activists, having failed to convince women to not seek abortions are playing the race card, trying to sound like civil-rights actiivists.
But instead of expanding rights, they want to limit reproductive choice freedoms.
It is cynical and dishonest. And trying to drag discredited eugenics ideas into today’s debate and paint abortion rights advocate with the eugenics smear is sickening.
free and freedoms aren’t the same thing.
In an interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that at the time Roe v. Wade was decided, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Probably the most outlandish statement by anyone concerning abortion in ten years.
The statists get their panties in a wad over a perfectly good statement by Tiahrt but when we get a good look into the dark soul of a Supreme Court Justice it just goes right over their head.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 20, 2009 at 10:14 am | Permalink
“outlander” advocates censorship –
“I will assume that Monkey’s and PMom’s classless, tasteless posts will be removed.”
That’s it.
If you don’t like the truth, suppress it.
How very CON of you.
___________________
Truth? I dunno Monkey. Or is it just cruel partisan bullsh*t from an over the hill shock jock who bases his love and hate of people on politics?
monkey….tiehart will be the senator from stupid, only if he acknowledges you……………….
monkey…..it is probably also insensitive to mentiom your failure……at everything………but you demonstrate it all on your own
“wichhick” blithers –
“…tiehart will be the senator from stupid, only if he acknowledges you……………….”
He already acknowledges me!
I get a smattering of e-mails and postal gimme-letters a week from Toad Tiahrt asking me for money.
Now you people on WE Blog pretty much know me and my political leanings.
What kind of incompetent campaign organization would even to dun me for money on behalf of Tiahrt’s ascendancy to the United States Senate? They even send donation requests to my cat! (He is, for the record, an independent. In all things except tuna water and spaghetti sauce, anyway.)
Even more amusing, “whichhick,” is how Tiahrt’s most adamant followers can’t even spell his name correctly.
Tiahrt is nothing but a tool. Of course he is pandering for votes. That all he knows. In a state wide election in Kansas, that all he needs, pander to his base. Why is he even talking about abortion? It has been legal for a good number of years, the Repbulicans have had many chances to outlaw abortion, and have failed to do it. Abortion is not going away. When politicians talk about abortion, they are trolling for votes for all the single issue voters. In Kansas, that is enough.
When Tiahrt gets Kline’s endorsement, he’ll have the election tied up!
“wichhick” adds –
“…it is probably also insensitive to mentiom your failure……”
Go ahead, “mentiom” away!
Especially since no one would know a whit about my supposed “failure” had I not volunteered most of those events to this forum for all to see.
H.L Mencken said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
I “failed” by overestimating it, I guess.
I’m at absolutely no risk of that when dealing with you, “wichhick,” in this forum.
Libdave I think you missed the entire reason for Tiahrts statement. He is informing the voters that the Obama health plan has paid for abortions embedded in the health care plan.
No where did he mention outlawing abortion. That is your statement.
“Phantom” posted –
“When Tiahrt gets
Kline’sScott Roeder’s endorsement, he’ll have the election tied up!”I fixed that for you, “Phantom.”
(He is, for the record, an independent. In all things except tuna water and spaghetti sauce, anyway.)
=====================================
My cat is so independent that I fear she might ’snuff’ me out while I sleep. She only keeps me around because she hasn’t figured out how to open the cat food…
monkless…….don’t let your cat near beber………..but for the record what do you think of ginsbergs comments………………
It is quite unsettling when I wake and see her sitting with squinted eyes staring at my pulsating jugular.
monkwuk…….whether tiahrt gets my vote or not is not relevant…………is his statement true or not……as to your failure……….as i said you demonstrate it daily………..
“okobserver” –
Note in my 11:28 post I didn’t call it “your small, syphilitic, senility-ravaged brain.”
If I were a CON, I probably would have.
In the course of CON-speak in this forum, the odds are at least even someone such as “Boxlock20″ or “Regular” or “Nathaniel” or “wichhick” or someone would resort to name-calling and fantasized personal attacks.
I don’t do that.
I could.
But I don’t.
Notice that, “okobserver.”
I’m not all that proud when “BlueJay” or “Chas” lower themselves to the level of CONs who post to WE Blog.
I don’t do that.
I mention facts on record and CONs tend to get frenzied because I’ve mentioned, well, facts on record.
CONs run away from facts the way Dracula avoids garlic.
Alas, just like the legendary blood-sucker, you think you’ll live forever.
monk…name one fact you have mentioned……….
“He is informing the voters that the Obama health plan has paid for abortions embedded in the health care plan.” Is this the same health care plan nobody had time to read, is it in the bill curently under consideration? We don’t know, no one has had time to read it.
based on monk’s 11:39 post we all need to get our boots on …….quick
“wichhick” asks –
“…for the record what do you think of ginsbergs comments….”
I’ve already posted it. Do a bone-dig.
In my earlier contribute I brought up the fact much of the pre-Roe v. Wade dialogue used the term “unwanted pregnancies” into the argument.
I think Justice Ginsberg was relating to that particular piece of rhetoric which, I admit, has fallen out of fashion.
I’ve frequently mused about how — given all the Aborted “Baby” porn splayed on posters and billboards and vans — anyone in the Illegal Abortion Movement can justify any woman who seeks abortion be forced to become a good mother.
If “Abortion is Murder,” anyone who gets an abortion is, by that definition, a MURDERER, isn’t she?
Kansas has a death penalty and a whole lot of unused needles. What’s the hold-up if you really believe “Abortion is Murder?” Shooting a guy in the face in his church?
Might I suggest a more civilized alternative?
Persuade people to not want abortions.
You have “God” on your side (or so you say). Pray about it.
Nothing’s more powerful than prayer, right?
What if Tiarht said the very same comment about George W. Bush or Dick Cheney? Then how would these sanctimonius Republicans be reacting?
I bet they would be singing a different tune out of the other side of their mouths!
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–A group of anti-abortion Democrats opposed to U.S. House health-care legislation in its current form have emerged as a major obstacle to Democratic leaders’ goal of passing the measure by August.
A group of 20 House Democrats signed a letter sent Friday to House Democratic leaders stating they “cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”
The letter comes at a time when other blocs of House Democrats, such as the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, have threatened to withhold their support for the bill. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., warned that Democratic leaders should heed the group’s letter, saying the bill is endangered by the defection of anti-abortion Democrats.
“I told leadership repeatedly, but they just sort of ignored us,” said Stupak, who signed the letter. “They ignore at their own peril.”
President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have avoided painful debates on abortion thus far. Obama has largely stayed above the fray on culture-war issues, and the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor have done little to ignite passions on the issue.
But abortion debates have creeped up in recent days in Congress. The House voted Thursday on a rule to limit amendments on a financial-services spending bill, with 39 anti-abortion Democrats voting against the rule because it bars a vote on an abortion-related amendment.
The House health-care bill doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, but the Democrats who signed the letter are a guarantee that it wouldn’t allow the federal funding of abortions or require that private health-insurance plans pay for abortions.
———–
Libdave it seems there are democrats that are concerned about this also. When would you make your thoughts known – before or after the bill is voted on.
Okie – unlike Republicans – just because there is a ‘D’ behind someone’s name, that does not mean they have to go lock-stepping to the tune of their puppet master (ie the Bush years)
BTW – wasn’t abortion rates higher during the Bush years? Just exactly when was that drive by the Republicans to outlaw abortions done? Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006 and the White House from 2000 to 2006.
Why in all that time was something NOT done by the Republicans about abortion? If you truly want abortions to be a thing of the past – get after your own Republicans (those with the letter ‘R’ behind their names).
After you get their explanation as to why they failed in 12 years – then get back to us. Better yet, write and and come back to the blog and present your case – again!
better yet, write an essay and come back
“cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”
So if it doesn’t “explicitly exclude” it is included? I don’t think so.
monk…..i hope you pray also
toto….i think your in lockstep
libdave
Posted July 20, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
“cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”
So if it doesn’t “explicitly exclude” it is included? I don’t think so.
_________________________________________
You’re right Dave… but since Okie is never wrong(/sarcasm off) that would make you wrong… ROFL
monk i have had childhood friends commit suicide, there children commit suicide, friends of my children commit suicide…………i never once wondered what political party they supported b/4 i knew what my feelings were…..
Just tell bc/bs or any of the ppo,hmo’s that if your care/procedure wasn’t specifically excluded, then by God, they have to pay for it!
Tell me how that works out for you.
Tihart should’ve been sensitized to leaving deceased family members out of a dispute, or at least he should’ve considered it.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 20, 2009 at 11:39 am | Permalink
“okobserver” –
Note in my 11:28 post I didn’t call it “your small, syphilitic, senility-ravaged brain.”
If I were a CON, I probably would have.
In the course of CON-speak in this forum, the odds are at least even someone such as “Boxlock20? or “Regular” or “Nathaniel” or “wichhick” or someone would resort to name-calling and fantasized personal attacks.
I don’t do that.
I could.
But I don’t.
Notice that, “okobserver.”
I’m not all that proud when “BlueJay” or “Chas” lower themselves to the level of CONs who post to WE Blog.
I don’t do that.
—————-
Good grief.
Someone get Monkey a gold star to paste on his locker.
Regular
Posted July 20, 2009 at 7:18 am | Permalink
That’s the way it works Pro-Death people. If you snuff out a life pre-birth, you snuff out human potential. This is what Tiahrt was saying.
–
If this is truly what he was saying, then why just use two scenarios in which the babies were black? Why didn’t he use George W. Bush or Dick Cheney?
Tiarht meant this as his way to pander to his Social Conservative base – plain and simple. These people hate Obama and would love to think he was not around!
Those are the ones that want abortions outlawed but yet have asked their own Republicans why they did not ever do one thing about abortions in the 12 years of their control in Washington?
They had 12 long years – what were they waiting for? Doesn’t that make you angry?
If not, then you’re a hypocrit.
wichhick
Posted July 20, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
toto….i think your in lockstep
–
actually, you might want to take an English grammar class – the correct word is – you’re – not your.
I don’t lockstep to anyone. But I still want to know why none of you Republicans on this blog ever dare to question your own Republicans who had the power for 12 years and they did not even attempt to get abortions outlawed once!
And, to think, you even had a majority on the Supreme Court – and yet your party STILL did nothing?
But yet you jump on the Democrats?
toto..you remain in lockstep……you cannot change the fact that if you abort you snuff out potential……….it is unfortunate but it will be a long time b/4 abortion is made illegal……that doesn’t change anything
toto……..you are correct…i do not always check my spelllllean or my grammar………….i always was a poor typer…………..still use the 1 finger jab……….something my dad did in wwII and he did fine…….let’s say we failed at stoppping abortion as if we could……does that make tiahrt’s comments any less valid………………as i read this subject it seems the dems are jumping on tiahrt for stating a fact…….you included
Toto as I have said many times on this very blog. We will never stop abortion by outlawing it. The change has to come from the heart and the stats tell us that is happening. It is encouraging that the majority of 18 thru 26 year olds say that abortions should be legal but much more controled. The majority of them called themselves pro-life.
This however doesn’t mean that abortions should be paid for with tax dollars. If the left thinks they should be available for all then they should fund this with their own dollars. Set up a fund in the DNC for instance funded by private contributions.
“whichhick” shares –
“….i always was a poor typer…………..still use the 1 finger jab……….something my dad did in wwII and he did fine….”
And got a Purple Heart for a paper cut?
Perhaps you should use another finger. (Not that one, if you know what I mean.)
I suspect being a substandard “typer” is the least of your problems, “wichhick.”
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.”
– Voltaire
“okobserver” –
Why didn’t you advocate a voluntary fund to finance George WMD Bush’s invasion of Iraq?
How ’bout raising your own voluntary money for “faith-based initiatives?”
Why don’t you host a telethon to raise private money to finance George WMD Bush’s current security detail?
I proposed earlier — one of my many substantive posts — the IRS determines each taxpayer’s Income Tax obligation and then gives each taxpayer the option of what percentages of that money that go for specific governmental programs.
I may choose to contribute to health services. You may choose to direct all your taxes to fighter jets the Air Force doesn’t want or need.
Y’know. Dollar Democracy.
Are you willing to join with me in that effort, “okobserver?”
Why or why not?
No Monkey because national defense is a matter of national security and peaceniks would never think it was worth funding even when buildings started falling down around their heads.
Abortion on the other hand is a bi-partisan subject. Many on both sides of the aisle think it is murder of the most helpless among us.
This is why I think it will never be solved by legislation.
As for designation where our tax dollars go – well we are a republic and send representatives to DC to spend our tax dollars.
We are at their mercy in some ways but also we still have the power to let them know that elections are coming.
Since OKO asked me to paint the picture of what was wrong with Congressman Tiahrt comment.
It goes without saying that being poor and a woman who is expecting is not only based on race.
And having abortion covered under a medical plan will not cause a poor black woman or any woman to decide to have an abortion because “Gee I want this baby but damn this is free!”. Incentive implied a reward for doing it.
Tiahrt could have used a very generic situation to describe the situation where a woman facing the financial hardship of raising a child. Might having the aborting of that child covered by a program choose to have the pregnancy end. It would be a true and valid point to make in this discussion of funding medical care.
And perhaps the list of those who had a single parent as their mother is extensive and would included many of the best and brightest. But then again there really was no need to single any one person out for an example. Tiahrt would have no idea whether either Obama’s or Thomas’s mother ever considered aborting them. He singled out two black men as his example, do not try that me-me straw-man of Obama’s mother is white so it was not race based.
I say to that and I am not saying you are anyone else is a racist. I am saying that if you were walking down the left side of the street on a dark night and saw Obama coming the other direction also on the left side.
You not knowing it is Barrack Obama, all you are seeing is how he appears as a Black man.
By the time you were both in the same area of the street which side of the street would you be on?
No one upon seeing Obama would go, “Hey his mother is white!” . Off hand does anyone know what color Clarence Thomas’s mother is? About now I can imagine fingers flying in a mad rush to find a picture of Thomas’s mother on the net! “Oh she is Black so that proves Tiahrt’s comment was not race based!”.
Am I saying that Tiahrt is a racist? No, not really that intent, but he is playing to a segment of the base who came in with the Dixie-crats. Within this big tent is a segment that are racist and with the growth of the Republican party in the ole South that segment has grown even here in Kansas. Also he was playing to the folks at home. In a State where Pro-life is almost a perceptive of being a Kansas Republican. Yes, even though the issue he said it in does not effect Kansans. He was not playing to the people of the District of Colombia which are who would be effected by the issue. He was playing to the Pro-life at home by saying he was against the bill that gives money to D.C. because that money would go into a larger pot where some money would go to health care programs that do pay for abortions.
He was implying that the only deciding factor for a poor woman as to whether to keep a baby is that an abortion would cost them. That poor women do not have feelings for their children, this is the other side of a old coin. For years elitists and morally lacking people have said that women on welfare have children to just make more money. I would fault a woman on welfare with ten children for not taking action after the first two and still having unprotected sex. But having known several families like that I would not accuse them of either wanting more to increase the monthly allotment or because they do not love their children.
It was either Pmom or Linda who pointed out a reasoning for a woman to decided she can not afford one more child. As such they have an abortion but then that goes against the one sizes fits all view of those who neither will pay for the child or be effected by the birth of that child. It is so much easier to keep focusing on abortion is only used as a form of birth control or to escape responsibility.
I give a woman more credit than that and realize that such a decision is far more detailed than
“Oh silly me I forgot!”.
I will accuse Todd Tiahrt of being a real Politician who morality is for sell. His core is a void except for which every way the Political wind is blowing. In one statement he played to two segments of the base and of course will in the end deny he even said it in the first place.
It did kind of surprised me that he would have made such a racist and openly belittling statement.
Since I witnessed him go seamlessly from being anti-illegal immigration to being supportive of illegal immigration without taking a breath. All depending on what the person asked and the flavor of the question.
““There is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion,”
Single dad here. Searching Tiarhtless’s record for instances of aiding single parents or the poor with child care.
File not found.
Searching Toad’s record for instances of helping single parents or poor people with health care.
File not found.
Searching record for Toad’s record on helping single parents or the poor with shelter.
File not found.
What about the potential of Animal – Human Hybrid Super Beings? We must unlock THIS potential!
A whole lot of Eugenics supporters on the left has written today.
Just throw those puppies in a burlap sack and into the river to solve the population problem instead of practicing adequate birth control according to the Liberals.
Except, they are not puppies, they are humans.
Grind em up, Suck em out, Rawhide!
(Whah-psshhht)
Toto,
“Why didn’t he use George W. Bush or Dick Cheney?”
Same reason he didn’t use Dennis Rader or the Carr Bros.- because that would have ruined the point he was making. 70%+ of the population wish they had been aborted!
Of course the real problem with such an argument is that it assumes some metaphysical “destiny” for a particular person. Obama wasn’t “destined” to become president; he happened to be in the right place at the right time and had developed the the right charisma and ideals to appeal to a public disillusioned by 8yrs of conservative dishonesty and mismanagement. If he hadn’t been there, someone else with similar charisma and ideals would be president now.
And if Dennis Rader was “destined” to become BTK, why did we spend all that time and money to find him and lock him up? After all, it wasn’t his fault that destiny picked him to be a killer!
So the problem with Tiahrt’s argument is that for every saint a ban on abortions might theoretically save, we can probably find a few hundred sinners we wish hadn’t. Rather than depending on “destiny,” maybe we ought to work harder to provide more opportunities for the children we have to become great leaders, and fewer chances for them to become serial killers, and of the greatest assets a child can have is to know he is a wanted child and not just a missed pill!
and of the greatest assets a child can have is to know he is a wanted child and not just a missed pill!
———
Good grief.
David,
“What about the potential of Animal – Human Hybrid Super Beings? We must unlock THIS potential!”
Somehow I’m not enthralled by the prospect of a neighbor who craps in my flowerbed or barks all night.
Somehow I’m not enthralled by the prospect of a neighbor who craps in my flowerbed or barks all night.
======================
Be thankful you are not Monkeyhawk’s neighbor, Jed.
Outie, Let me guess- you were a missed pill or a leaky condom.
Nah Jed. It’s just that stupiidy and disingenuous argument makes me queasy. As if it is better for a child never to have lived than to know he or she wasn’t planned for. It is hard to listen to such a stone cold, anti-humanity statement.
Ant,
I’m just tickled pink I’m not yours.
Jed
Posted July 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
Ant,
I’m just tickled pink I’m not yours.
==========================================
I suppose that is good for the both of us, I would get tired of all of your story telling.
;)
It wasn’t my choice of course.
But If I had it over and again and it was my choice?
Knowing what I know now? The lack of support in this society for family exemplified by someone like Tiahrt…
I can’t honestly say I would choose “life”.
Knowing what I know now?
I can’t honestly say I would choose “life”.
=========================================
Well that should do wonders for your son’s self esteem.
The problem with your examples Jed is that you compared examples on extreme ends of humanity.
Most people go through life unremarkable and with only those close to them remembering them after they pass. This doesn’t mean they have less value than anyone else.
This whole federally funded D.C. abortion agenda sounds very much like Eugenics. They are trying to convince the lower economic class to ‘cull’ themselves through federally paid for abortions.
This does nothing to address irresponsible sexual conduct by single people, where most of the problems derive. It will compound the problem, entrenching apathy deeper into society as a normal value.
Eugenics-baiting! Is no low point in debate these people will refuse to sink below?
I thought the liberals were breeding a lower class voting block!
DavidB
Posted July 20, 2009 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
Eugenics-baiting! Is no low point in debate these people will refuse to sink below?
———————————-
It is what it is.
Congress is not recommending federally funding abortion in West Virginia Appalachia, mostly white. It’s recommending federally funding abortion in a largely black populated Washington D.C.
It’s a measure for population control – aka Eugenics. The Libs don’t want D.C. too filled with low income undesirables.
LIke I said, there is no low you won’t sink below.
Regular
Posted July 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
The problem with your examples Jed is that you compared examples on extreme ends of humanity.
=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Isn’t that exactly what Tiahrt did in his speech? He just picked the ‘higher’ end.
Outie,
Seems to me we have enough life now, with 7 billion and counting, that life alone isn’t the necessary goal. There ought to be certain qualities of life to make it worthwhile, and I’m not referring to economics. It’s the children who aren’t loved, or loved in all the wrong ways who grow up to be the Dick Cheneys and Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, assuming they grow up. Some don’t. Some live short, painful and terrified existences (read your newspater), and maybe an opportunity for abortion might save a few of those from the real hell!
#
Daniel
Posted July 20, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted July 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
The problem with your examples Jed is that you compared examples on extreme ends of humanity.
=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Isn’t that exactly what Tiahrt did in his speech? He just picked the ‘higher’ end.
—————–
Yes, but Jed was trying to use how one hand is supposedly different from the other by just flipping them.
It’s not really worth address imo.
The real problem is the Eugenics mindset the Liberals have developed about using abortion as population control of the so-called lower and ethnic classes of U.S. citizens.
The warning signs are all over the screen and the Libs don’t see it.
Yea, it is all over the screen… coming from solely the RW… No wonder the Libs ignore such filth… :-))
#
Regular
Posted July 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
It is what it is.
Congress is not recommending federally funding abortion in West Virginia Appalachia, mostly white. It’s recommending federally funding abortion in a largely black populated Washington D.C.
It’s a measure for population control – aka Eugenics. The Libs don’t want D.C. too filled with low income undesirables.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Doesn’t the Congressional oversight vis a vis abortion in DC have something to do with DC not being a state?
Wasn’t the District exempt from the Hyde Amendment(1977)?
“okobserver” admits –
“Abortion … will never be solved by legislation.”
So why is it so important a POLITICAL issue for CONs?
Re-direct all that money you’re sending to the Repubic Party’s candidates toward persuading people to eschew abortion!
After all, even with a rock-solid Repubic Party-dominated Congress, President, and SCOTUS… making abortion illegal never seemed politically advantageous to the Repubic Party after election day.
If the abortion issue “…will never be solved by legislation,” you might consider other avenues of persuasion.
The basic problem with Tiahrt’s statement is that he assumes women are too weak-willed to figure out what to do about their own pregnancies. Obviously, even if Obama’s mother was living in poverty, doubtful, since she was married to Obama’s dad, she wanted to give birth to her child and she did. If she’d wanted an abortion, her parents probably could have paid for it. The same is true of every woman who ever made a decision about what to do about her pregnancy. Tiahrt needs to give women credit for making up their own minds about these life-changing situations. Then he needs to leave his nice house in Virginia and move his family back to Kansas.
Doesn’t the Congressional oversight vis a vis abortion in DC have something to do with DC not being a state?
Wasn’t the District exempt from the Hyde Amendment(1977)?
They are your questions, you answer them.
so molkluck…………so you admit……………if someone commits suicide you determine their political affilation b/4 you feel for the family………wait i take that back…………as selfesh as you are you probably don’t care one way or the other……
monk…..as to my dad…………3 bronze stars, france, belgium, germany (no purple hearts)……..and he was just doing his job………….you on the other hand are a nothing……….and you are proud that you are…….
I’ll take that as ‘yes’ and ‘yes.’
jed………i do not wish that the carr brothers or rader were aborted……i do wish however that they would have been executed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what a dum azz
jed …….you haven’t grown up……..what should we do?
Awh let them use my tax dollars to pay for abortions. Much cheaper than paying to raise the kids (mom’s not going to)
Better yet: Put the morning after pill in bars, womens’ rooms in public housing, and next to cigarette machines. Right between the Twinkie machine and the cokes.
Much cheaper than the suction machine, doctor, nurses, and disposal costs of the murdered baby.
Let’s try using facts, not propaganda:
“It’s recommending federally funding abortion in a largely black populated Washington D.C.”
The Federal government does NOT fund abortions in DC. There are NO Federal funds that provide abortion services.
What (woman hater) Tiahrt want to ban is LOCALLY funded, city supported, abortion.
In other words, Tiahrt wants to prohibit locally elected politicians from providing funding for abortion.
States rights is a calling card of the anti – Roe v. Wade advocates, yet they don’t want the people of DC to make their own determination regarding abortion.
There are NO Federal funds that pay for abortion in DC, but Tiahrt want to prohibit LOCAL taxpayer supported funds from paying for abortions.
Hypocrite.
“There are NO Federal funds that provide abortion services.”
In D.C.
“Tell us why pmom thinks that most poor mothers that have babies will see those babies go to jail.”
Oddly enough there is empirical support for that assertion. See this book:
http://freakonomicsbook.com/thebook/
The assertion that abortions increased under Bush is not true. This myth started by some reports that used “cherry picked” data.
hick,
“jed………i do not wish that the carr brothers or rader were aborted……i do wish however that they would have been executed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what a dum azz”
In other words, you’d rather revenge all those murders instead of preventing them. And you call me a “dum azz?”
WS,
“States rights is a calling card of the anti – Roe v. Wade advocates, yet they don’t want the people of DC to make their own determination regarding abortion.”
Well….. they want state’s rights when the states agree with them, and the feds to intervene when they don’t. See medical marijuana and gay marriage.
wichhick
Posted July 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
monk…..as to my dad…………3 bronze stars, france, belgium, germany (no purple hearts)……..and he was just doing his job………….you on the other hand are a nothing……….and you are proud that you are
–
If he was ‘just doing his job’ then why do you insist on telling everyone about HIS accomplishments?
And YOUR accomplishments are what – other than being on this nameless blog 24/7?
Steven,
Actually, if accurate figures were available, you’d find that abortion isn’t nearly as common now as it was before Roe v. Wade. In the 1960’s Wichita supported at least four full-time abortionists as well as numerous part-timers. Of course birth control wasn’t as available or reliable as it is now, and single motherhood wasn’t nearly as acceptable then.
President Barack Obama cut abstinence funding.
“In Obama’s FY 2010 Proposed Budget, the president calls for at least $164 million in funding for contraceptive-only education. The money includes competitive grants, research, evaluation and authorization for $50 million in new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes and territories.
Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, told LifeNews.com that Obama’s decision “is a Hollywood-failed old approach that only increases teen pregnancy and damages America’s greatest resource, our children.”
“I believe there will be a political backlash for those who oppose these life saving abstinence programs. The enemies of sexual integrity programs will feel the heat from the army of youth who have seen the light through these programs as they approach voting age,” she added.
Meanwhile, the National Abstinence Education Association said Obama’s anti-abstinence budget “disregards the growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of abstinence education,” including research showing “a 50% decrease in sexual onset among teens that are enrolled in abstinence programs.”
“At a time when teens are subjected to an increasingly sexualized culture, it is essential that common-sense legislators from both sides of the aisle reject this extreme attempt to de-fund the only approach that removes all risk,” said NAEA Executive Director Valerie Huber.
It’s A.O.K. for tenns to fuqk around, and if they do taxpayers will pay to crack the babies head and suction out it’s brains. But it is not A.O.K to spend taxpayers money to teach kids that it might not be a good idea to do so.
WSClark posts: “The Federal government does NOT fund abortions in DC. There are NO Federal funds that provide abortion services.”
Washington D.C., Jun 30, 2009 (CNA) President Obama has issued a budget recommendation for the 2010 fiscal year that would ease the restrictions on taxpayer funds for abortions in Washington D.C., a change that has drawn criticism from pro-life organizations across the nation.
Unlike other U.S. states and territories, the budget for the District of Columbia is reviewed and modified by Congress and the President before it is approved.
In its submission for the fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration has reversed the “Dornan Amendment,” introduced in 1988 to prevent both federal and local tax dollars from funding abortions in the District of Columbia, except in cases of rape or “where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.”
Under the Obama administration’s alterations, the prohibition will only apply to federal tax money .
“Under the Obama administration’s alterations, the prohibition will only apply to federal tax money .”
So, the people of D.C. should not be allowed to vote where THEIR tax money goes at a local level?
How Republican of you AmWay.
Damn Clark – you’re a miracle worker!
You got all that out of my cut and paste without an opinion?
But please tell us, AmWay, since you presumably live in Kansas, on what grounds do you propose to deny the people that live in D.C. the right to determine where THEIR tax dollars go?
Eh?
If the inverse was the case, would you want the people who lived in D.C. to dictate where your Kansas tax dollars went?
Cool with that?
Remember, we are not talking about FEDERAL tax funds, we are talking about tax dollars from the people that live in D.C.
So, AmWay, are you okay with people that do not pay taxes in your state or city dictating how your tax dollars are spent?
Maybe the Doctor who would have cured Cancer, was aborted.
Or the next Einstein to perfect clean Fusion power, might have been aborted.
When you don’t value human life, those selfish ones wanted no bothers or inconveniences of raising a child, don’t realize what might have been.
“Maybe the Doctor who would have cured Cancer, was aborted.”
What does that have to do with the people of D.C. deciding where THEIR tax dollars go?
“Maybe the Doctor who would have cured Cancer, was aborted.”
And maybe the next Dennis Rader or Reginald or Johnathan Carr was aborted.
Or maybe the next Jeffry Damhler or Charles Manson was aborted.
Or maybe any untold serial killer was aborted?
Why just claim that the positive members of society could have been aborted?
What about the Lee Harvey Oswalds among us?
Eh?
Apparently, the anti-choice people thinks that every aborted fetus would have been a scientist, doctor or savior of mankind.
WSClark
Posted July 20, 2009 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
“Maybe the Doctor who would have cured Cancer, was aborted.”
What does that have to do with the people of D.C. deciding where THEIR tax dollars go?
=================================
Sorry Clark, you assumed I was replying to you?
I was commenting on the topic and Tiahrt’s comment:
“If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our president grew up in similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it?”
I suppose Clark that YOU can pick and choose the ones that should be allowed to live.
“I suppose Clark that YOU can pick and choose the ones that should be allowed to live.”
No, I leave that decision to others, directly involved.
Quite frankly, it is none of my FREAKIN” business – and none of yours either.
“Our president grew up in similar circumstances.”
No, Barack Obama was the product of a married couple that WANTED him, not a product of a unwanted pregnancy.
“I was commenting on the topic and Tiahrt’s comment:”
As was I, of course, if THAT is okay with you.
I told ya. Tiahrt’s remarks were so stupid that the stupidity is contagious.
No, Barack Obama was the product of a married couple that WANTED him, not a product of a unwanted pregnancy. (WS posts)
“For instance, Obama says “racism” tore apart his white mother and black father, but in reality, his mother divorced his father after she found out he was still married to someone else, whom he’d abandoned back in Kenya. (Daily Mail) His first wife was pregnant with their second child when he left.
According to the Daily Mail, Obama’s father married a third time to a woman he’d met while married to Obama’s mother. A nephew told the paper that polygamy is part of African culture, implying that there’s nothing unusual about an African having multiple wives. I’m no expert on African culture, but I believe would-be wives in polygamous cultures know about previous wives, and Obama Sr. hadn’t told his second wife about his first wife. Deception and bigamy.”
So by US standards he was the product of an illegal union and they really weren’t married. Thought everyone knew this.
toto….i was responding to monkey’s “respect” for those who have served and that my dad probably got a paper cut (because he typed with one finger) and a purple heart……….i did not find out about my dad’s accomplishments until after he died, he would never tell me anything other than he was doing his job…………and i am proud of him and all the others who have sacrificed for this country….you on the otherhand…..well what can i say
as to pick and choose, it appears jed is claiming he can do that
Republicans would have killed the doctor who would have cured cancer. They don’t want no stinkin cures, it earns more to keep em sick.
Republicans would have also told the little abused boy who stole bread that he needed to be executed for his crime.
I think Tiahrt’s point was if abortions are free, the poor people will be getting them like hot cakes, and going out and getting pg, just because they know the govt. got them covered!
hick,
“as to pick and choose, it appears jed is claiming he can do that.”
No, I’m perfectly willing to let the woman choose whether or not to become a parent. She knows more about her abilities and her resources than you ever will, and it’s her choice, not yours or your minister’s or the government’s to make.
Phant,
An abortion is not a fun day at the park. It’s painful, invasive and expensive. Nobody’s first choice would be to go get scraped out and spend the next few days with terrible cramps.
Although I did once meet an alcoholic masochistic anti nutcase who said she’d had six abortions before she was born again, and then had six kids to make up for it. I pity those kids!
What Iiahrt needs to do is explain his connection to that Washington den of iniquity known as the C Street house — which is on the tax rolls as a church. Tiahrt has a deep and abiding connection to the shadowy outfit that runs the house, The Family. What’s up with that Todd? Do you put the voters or your blood brothers at the The Family first?
Tiahrt. Sorry.
….Speaking of representatives….
Under the healthcare plan, virtually every American will eventually be forced into a plan that mandates abortion by requiring individuals to buy health insurance that meets minimum benefits standards determined by unelected government bureaucrats. If the law does not clearly state that abortion is excluded, abortion automatically becomes a minimum required benefit.
Americans don’t support this and don’t support paying for abortions. The proposed healthcare bill amounts to a bailout for the abortion industry, which is swimming in profits already. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize this controversial industry.
Since abortion is mandated in the healthcare bill, every insurance plan will have to cover it and provide means necessary to obtain an abortion.
I urge you to E-mail and write letters to your Representative and Senators to vote no on any healthcare bill that does not include language to explicilty exclude abortion. No one should be forced to pay for abortions.
Incredible site!
Unlike dental insurance, with discount dental plans there are no waiting periods before you can see a dentist, you are not subject to pre-existing conditions, there are no coverage limits, and there are no paperwork hassles to deal with.
I really, truly am glad I found this site. It has answered so many questions for me. I will be back. Thank You
Just dropping in to let you know you have an interesting site. I hope you’ll continue to work on it. Wishing you all the best.
I must say that I was surprised to find this web page, but – - – Good Job.