Why Women Are Going For McCain over Obama

[mdh]

Women are not easily fooled;


Equal Pay for Women: McCain versus Obama
Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: September 13, 2008 - 9:20 AM
This is really striking and illustrates Obama's hypocrisy on equal pay for equal work. Not only are the female staffers on McCain's campaign paid more than their counterparts on Obama's staff, but McCain's female staffers make more money than McCain's male staffers. The Boston Herald examined the salaries for female staffers in both campaigns Senatorial offices using this formula:

The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel.
For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.

Let's take a look at the salaries for Obama's staffers:

Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisers, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

Now let's compare that to McCain's female staff:

McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart - while adding $10,726 to her annual income - by leaving Obama's office and going to work for McCain.

How could this be?

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women - much more than men - for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

So let's summarize.

Obama employs fewer women, and of the women he employs, only 1 is part of his five highest paid staffers. On top of that, Obama pays the women he does employ quite a bit less than he pays the men who work for him.

On the other hand, McCain employs quite a few women, and of the women he employs, 3 of them comprise his five highest paid staffers. Additionally, McCain pays the women he employs more than he pays the men who work for him.

Obama demanded equal treatment for women in his acceptance speech at the DNC and even referenced his daughters:

I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.
He writes about equal pay for women on his website:

Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.
Even though Obama paints himself as the the patron saint of women, he doesn't act on his words. Senator Obama has some explaining to do.

I've heard women say, without knowing this information, "he reminds me of a jerk (they didn't say jerk) I used to work for".

[seanz]

Women are not easily fooled;


Oh, that's a good start.....
:D

After a quick read through what I noticed was that Obama has more staff and a bigger budget....make of that what you will.
:p

[BrianW]

After a quick read through what I noticed was that Obama has more staff and a bigger budget....make of that what you will.
:p

Even more big government? :)

[mdh]

Oh, that's a good start.....
:D

After a quick read through what I noticed was that Obama has more staff and a bigger budget....make of that what you will.
:p

McCain practices what he preaches.

[seanz]

Even more big government? :)


Or an investment in the infrastucture of change with the firm belief that hope requires many willing hands to make a better future a reality......
:)

[seanz]

McCain practices what he preaches.

Judging by McCain's budget, when the preacher passes the plate, it's coming back a little light.
;)

[mdh]

Or an investment in the infrastucture of change with the firm belief that hope requires many willing hands to make a better future a reality......
:)

Pure gibberish.

[seanz]

Pure

Only the best for you.
:D

[BrianW]

Or an investment in the infrastucture of change with the firm belief that hope requires many willing hands to make a better future a reality......
:)

That's freakin' good stuff!!! :)

[seanz]

That's freakin' good stuff!!! :)
At least someone gets it...I put on a smiley face and everything.
:rolleyes::D

mdh; I seriously doubt that the information in the article had any affect on the prior polls that showed women deserting the Obama camp, that would be the choice of a woman VP candidate.
Palin might have made a real difference, we'll see.

[mdh]

At least someone gets it...I put on a smiley face and everything.
:rolleyes::D

mdh; I seriously doubt that the information in the article had any affect on the prior polls that showed women deserting the Obama camp, that would be the choice of a woman VP candidate.
Palin might have made a real difference, we'll see.

I think it would make a difference if they knew it. Certainly those who said "he reminds me of a 'jerk' I used to work for".

[seanz]

I think it would make a difference if they knew it. Certainly those who said "he reminds me of a 'jerk' I used to work for".

Well get the truth out there then tiger.

Or at least a version of it.....the figures aren't for the campaign, they're for the Senators office.

Here's a link to the original story.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?&articleid=1118682&format=&page=1&listingType=opi#articleFull

Here's a link to a profile of the author
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deroy_Murdock

And then there is these people (they sound like a barrel of fun and I'm going back later to check the site out properly) the origin of the figures in the story.
http://www.legistorm.com/

Don't waste your time with the "He reminds me of a jerk etc." crowd, they've already got the message.

You think you know what women want, what they really really want?
Have you ever renovated a house?
:)

[LeeG]

mdh, then there's reality. I can't imagine women thinking well of a mother who thinks rape victims should carry the rapists child to term.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/14/103042/902/965/597033


http://mudflats.wordpress.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNlcYaEOLRM

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

McCain practices what he preaches.

You gotta' be more specific.
When?
McCain's positions on many major issues have flip-flopped over the Bush years.
Just two weeks ago he was flogging Obama's lack of EXPERIENCE. That has disappeared and now he campaigns as the sole agent of CHANGE.
That was amost necessary FLIP. Expect to see more in the weeks ahead.

[spirit]

One would think that women would be aware that electing another war president would mean sons going off to war.

One would think that women would be aware that electing a president who will appoint more conservative supreme court justices, would lead to the end of sensible control of their own bodies.

[elf]

Women, suckered into believing that they must subsume themselves to a mythical power up above, will believe what they're told.

Which means that when they're told that their mythical power needs defending from those who don't believe in it they weep and mourn and see themselves as noble when their sons are killed defending the mythical power.

And when told that their mythical power believes that humans need to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth, all human creatures that do that are therefore vastly more precious than themselves.

You know. It's a terrible responsibility to have to take care of yourself.

Easier to believe that the mythical power is responsible.

[cats..paw]

Does anyone care to name simply one woman in the USA who wants to be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term?

How about her father's baby or brother's baby?

One?

References please.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[adampet]

Here's one woman who isn't going for Sarah Palin, and is very clear why.
Gloria Steinem in the LA Times.

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.


Adam

[paladin]

Howcome when I say it everyone jumps in my crap and bitches at me and when Gloria sez it it's a great revelation...ya can't win for losing.....

[cats..paw]

Paladin,

You got to pay the ahead-of-your-time tax, dontcha know.

I guess Gloria's on record for paying up long ago.

;)

[ljb5]

Here are some more women who don't support Palin (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-13-anti-Palin-rally_N.htm)

And they're from Alaska!

[adampet]

Aww Chuck, I believed you :)
Besides, I expect they'll all jump all over Gloria soon.
Adam

[cats..paw]

And they're from Alaska!

.....and Alaskans are the few who will have gotten a look at her before the recent Republican handlers began to mold her to their calling....

:rolleyes:

[paladin]

I remember Gloria from the 60's, not bad looking, tiny boobs.......but I had seen a better head on a beer......

[adampet]

It's not what the head looks like..it's what's inside that counts.

adam

[cats..paw]

Where the long-term erogenous zone resides...

;);)

Oh oh, I might regret openning this door.

:rolleyes:

[ljb5]

You can tell that McCain is doing really well with women when Cindy McCain complains that the ladies on the view picked her bones clean. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/cindy-mccain-tough-interviewers-picked-our-bones-clean-2/)

[LeeG]

I don't think women are easily fooled, people who chose ignorance are easily fooled.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/

Soon after the book controversy, Bess found himself again at odds with Palin and her fellow evangelicals. In 1996, evangelical churches mounted a vigorous campaign to take over the local hospital's community board and ban abortion from the valley. When they succeeded, Bess and Dr. Susan Lemagie, a Palmer OB-GYN, fought back, filing suit on behalf of a local woman who had been forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. The case was finally decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that the hospital must provide valley women with the abortion option.

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie's office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer's Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician's practice that day was Sarah Palin.

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'

[Robmill0605]

Obama now has employees and a payroll, I guess he can now say with a straight face ,he finally has "executive expierence".
Palin has actually run a government with 60,000 employees and a billion dollar budget while Obama claims running his campaign is
" executive expierence".
Please.
Obama had the chance to choose a woman who recieved 18 miilion votes and passed on her for Biden.

The left and the media has just lost it with the hysterical and uncontrolled vitriol for Palin. With two wars, a democratic majority in both houses and a vastly unpopular President , a economy on the brink and the feds taking over banks and gas prices the highest in history, and a VP choice that is blasted for the unforgivable act of keeping a baby with Down's syndrome, and Obama is barely even with McCain?

So much for femminists like Gloria and others like her.
Silent when Clinton was a sexual predator.
Screaming when a right wing, non femminist might just pose a threat to liberalism.
How quaint.

[Keith Wilson]

Isn't it curious that the only people who say Obama should have chosen Clinton for VP are Republicans?

[High C]

Isn't it curious that the only people who say Obama should have chosen Clinton for VP are Republicans?

It is a curious thing. My take has always been a quite different, that neither Hillary nor Obama are electable. When McCain won the Rep nomination, my confidence in that prediction was somewhat shaken. I thought him the weakest of the Republican field. But even worn out old John McCain seems to have found a way to shore up his greatest weakness, the Conservative base, by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP.

I still can't bring myself to vote for McCain; Palin doesn't help. I like her ideological stance and her leadership qualities. But I do find her too inexperienced to be President. We need to see a lot more of her before electing her VP to out oldest ever President. Same with Obama. He has great charisma and leadership qualities, but we barely know him, and he has even less relevant experience than Palin.

This has to be the most pathetic array of candidates we've ever been offered! :mad: Two has-been Senators and two greenhorns who aren't ready for the job. :mad:

[David Tabor (sailordave)]

Isn't it curious that the only people who say Obama should have chosen Clinton for VP are Republicans?

I was just gonna say that! :D

[mdh]

Isn't it curious that the only people who say Obama should have chosen Clinton for VP are Republicans?

And Joe Biden.

[LeeG]

mdh, do you seriously think a fundie mom who believes the victim of rape should carry to term is going to be popular with women?

seriously?

[troutman]

Palin's "leadership" qualities. What a load of crap. Looked at your retirement fund lately?? That's Phil Gramm and his stewardship of the banking committee. In line to be McCain's secretary of the treasury. Palin's "leadership" qualities what a laugh.
she brings along the nuts, hand picked by rove and old Mac goes along. I don't know a woman who buys her act. Notice where they have her appearing? Lancaster County PA hasn't voted democratic since 1888. Wise up before your totally broke.

[High C]

mdh, do you seriously think a fundie mom who believes the victim of rape should carry to term is going to be popular with women?

seriously?

Do you know how infrequently this happens? This is not an important issue in this campaign, and poll numbers reflect it.

[High C]

Palin's "leadership" qualities. What a load of crap. Looked at your retirement fund lately??

Sarah Palin hosed my 401K! :mad: :rolleyes: :D

[LeeG]

Do you know how infrequently this happens? This is not an important issue in this campaign, and poll numbers reflect it.

no, I really don't know how infrequently women are raped and require rape kits and extra doses of birth control to prevent pregnancy. But hey, we're guys, it aint happening to us. It's not like we'd be affected right?



well, yes this a public where 60% in 2003 thought Saddam had a role in 9/11 and in 2005 40% thought the same.

[StevenBauer]

Do you know how infrequently this happens?


191,670 rapes reported in the US(2005) 5% pregnancy rate. Just under 10,000 times per year. :(



Steven

[LeeG]

yeah, but those were women.

[ljb5]

191,670 rapes reported in the US(2005) 5% pregnancy rate. Just under 10,000 times per year. :(


Good lord.... that's more than the population of Wasilla, AK.

[C. Ross]

191,670 rapes reported in the US(2005) 5% pregnancy rate. Just under 10,000 times per year. :(



Steven

Yikes. That's horrifying. Where did you find that?

[Kaa]

191,670 rapes reported in the US(2005) 5% pregnancy rate. Just under 10,000 times per year. :(

Link, please?

The FBI thinks there were about 94,000 cases of rape and attempted rape in 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html).

Kaa

[LeeG]

either way, Governor Palin has some funny rationalizations going on for firing Monegan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

apparently there's a problem in Alaska

http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/8825231p-8726532c.html

Alaska officials said they're working to get more manpower and money to areas lacking police.

..
Walt Monegan, public safety commissioner, acknowledged there's not enough law enforcement in Alaska. He's drafting plans to create a system that will encourage villagers to become local officers and, eventually, state troopers. It will require legislative approval and should be introduced in Juneau next year, he said.

Gov. Sarah Palin hadn't seen the Amnesty report, said spokeswoman Sharon Leighow early Thursday afternoon.

Palin "has heard the message from the rural communities that they need more law enforcement" and is working with Monegan to increase law enforcement there, she said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

graph

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/16914870?limit_modifier=all&graph%5Blimit%5D=52&commit=%3E

[BrianW]

It is tough to keep qualified Troopers, and city cops, in bush communities. It's a complex issue, and an old issue, not confined to Palins tenure as governor.

It would be a shame to see it oversimplified, and used as a mere political soundbite, but I'm sure it will be.

[Aed]

Palin has actually run a government with 60,000 employees and a billion dollar budget.


Alaska has a total population of 683,000. There's nearly one state employee for every 10 people?

For comparison, Michigan has a population of about 10,000,000 and only 55,000 state employees. That's one state employee for every 181 people.

The Alaska Department of Administration's web site claims only 15,000 employees. Where are the other 45,000 employees hiding? :D

[High C]

191,670 rapes reported in the US(2005) 5% pregnancy rate. Just under 10,000 times per year. :(


:( Indeed.

I don't know where you got those numbers, likely from some politically motivated pro-choice source. ;)

There are also competing numbers available from politically motivated pro-life sources that say the annual number is some 300. ;)

Perhaps the reality lies inbetween. Nonetheless, I maintain that it is not a significant issue in terms of how people will choose to vote. Those who are otherwise inclined to vote for someone who takes a pro-life stance are unlikely to find anything particularly off-putting about Palin's position.

[LeeG]

HighC, are you seriously proposing that there are only 300 rapes in the US that result in pregnancy? Given two sets of numbers, 191,000 and 94,000(FBI) with a 5% pregnancy rate range of 5,000-10,000 you come up with 300??

What a fluid grasp of reality you've got.

The bizarre part is that Palin supposedly fired him for seeking federal funds when he was being told to expand the program with no money.

Maybe it's the part where rape victims are given contraceptives to prevent impregnation that Palin objected to. She is for rapists parental rights you know.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5804581&page=2
Some members of Palin's administration were focused on the issue of sexual violence. Officials in the Department of Public Safety were devising an ambitious, multi-million-dollar initiative to seriously tackle sex crimes in the state, but Palin's office put the plan on hold in July.

Days later, Palin fired its chief proponent, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, after he declined to dismiss a state trooper Palin accused of threatening her own family members. Palin has said she fired Monegan because she wanted to move his department in a "new direction," and he was not being "a team player on budgeting issues." The dismissal is now at the center of a hotly-contested investigation by the state legislature.

The status of the plan, which would have "fast-tracked" sex crime cases via a dedicated group that included specially-trained investigators, judges and prosecutors, is unknown. "I'd ask the governor," said one official with knowledge of the plan. Numerous inquiries to Palin's campaign spokeswoman went unreturned.

[High C]

HighC, are you seriously proposing that there are only 300 rapes in the US that result in pregnancy? Given two sets of numbers, 191,000 and 94,000(FBI) with a 5% pregnancy rate range of 5,000-10,000 you come up with 300??

What a fluid grasp of reality you've got.

I see that my point went right over your knee smacked head. Where do you get the 5% figure? Is that set in stone somewhere? I tried to verify it and found it used repeatedly....at politically motivated pro abortion sites. If that number can be found at a legitimate source, that should've been provided when challenged by two other forumites. There are studies, from politically motivated anti abortion sites which contradict it, finding the rate to be as low as .2%

I suggested that the truth lies in between, but somehow you managed to read that I was proposing the 300 number.

You read as poorly as you write.

[Robmill0605]

Alaska has a total population of 683,000. There's nearly one state employee for every 10 people?

For comparison, Michigan has a population of about 10,000,000 and only 55,000 state employees. That's one state employee for every 181 people.

The Alaska Department of Administration's web site claims only 15,000 employees. Where are the other 45,000 employees hiding? :D

Ok, I stand corrected, now tell me how many employees has Obama managed?
Besides his campaign and Senate staff?
ZERO, because he has NO executive expierence.

[Aed]

Ok, I stand corrected, now tell me how many employees has Obama managed?
Besides his campaign and Senate staff?
ZERO, because he has NO executive expierence.

Dunno. ;)

How come Sarah Palin needs one state employee for every 45 Alaskan citizens to run the state when other states make due with far fewer civil employees per capita? :confused:

Did she cut the number from 60,000 to 15,000 during her tenure? If so, hats off to her. If not, then why does she tolerate such government waste?

[TimH]

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85372

[Scott Rosen]

I work with a woman who is a former elected Republican official.

She was all set to vote for McCain. Palin's appointment pissed her off beyond belief. She'll be voting Democratic this year.

If Palin is as devisive as Hillary, that won't be good for the Repubs.

[Keith Wilson]

HighC, you're quite right that it's hard to find statistics from unbiased sources. However, I think we can probably trust the FBI on this one; I doubt they have an agenda either way. They say 94,000 rapes in '06, and estimate that about 40% of rapes are reported. So rounding down, a figure of 200,000 rapes/year seems pretty conservative.

As for pregnancy rate, here's an abstract of a peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (subscription only), a fairly large study which supports the 5% figure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248 There's also an article in American Family Physician which uses a similar figure. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v55/ai_19051866
Neither of these sources could reasonably be considered at all political.

A rough estimate of 10,000 pregnancies every year in the US as a result of rape seems to be pretty well supported by data from unbiased sources.

[LeeG]

Oh come on, High found the number 300. Just like facts about pre-war intel. If you come up with different numbers than numbers don't matter. You take a stand, go with your gut and that's all there is to it.

Besides, every blastocyst is sacred. Even the one started by a rapist. Ask Sara, the vp nominee vetted by the Christian Right as McCain buckled to politics. It's not like it's an important issue to women. Women with money will always have a choice. Isn't that the whole idea behind polarizing politics? If you got the power, then someone else doesn't. That's just the way it is.

[High C]

...A rough estimate of 10,000 pregnancies every year in the US as a result of rape seems to be pretty well supported by data from unbiased sources.

Both of these articles, which refer to the same study, claim over 680,000 rapes annually. This is more than six times the number provided by the FBI stats, more than triple the number Steven used. How did this study arrive at such a number? Is anyone doubting the veracity of this study yet?

To arrive at such a number, it seems that they included statutory rape in the mix. There is reference to this where the ages of the victims are discussed. This really muddies the water as a great many statutory rapes are consensual, not forced.

They also specify that the 5% rate applies only to the age group of 12 to 45, not to the whole group.

Given that the figure for the whole group is admittedly less than 5%, and that it appears to be skewed to some unknown degree by the inclusion of accidental pregnancies among horny teenagers, what we have here appears to be a study that is confusing at best.

Pro-life groups have their studies which show a far lower rate. I make no claim as to their accuracy.

As I said, the truth lies between the extremes.

[Keith Wilson]

As I said, the truth lies between the extremes.If you have multiple bad data points, it is not at all reasonable to conclude that the truth lies between them. All you can conclude is that you have bad data. The truth might be something else entirely.

I don't think we can assume from the study's high estimate of the number of rapes in the US that the pregnancy rate reported is also inaccurate. Estimates of unreported rapes vary widely; the FBI number is on the low end. If they used a 6:1 ratio you'd get about the number they cited for '95. Their pregnancy rate data, however, is not an estimate, but actual data from their study. Unfortunately we can't read the entire paper without subscribing to the journal.

[Robmill0605]

Oh come on, High found the number 300. Just like facts about pre-war intel. If you come up with different numbers than numbers don't matter. You take a stand, go with your gut and that's all there is to it.

Besides, every blastocyst is sacred. Even the one started by a rapist. Ask Sara, the vp nominee vetted by the Christian Right as McCain buckled to politics. It's not like it's an important issue to women. Women with money will always have a choice. Isn't that the whole idea behind polarizing politics? If you got the power, then someone else doesn't. That's just the way it is.

Women without money have a choice also. Don't get pregnant or expect the taxpayers to support you for the next 18 years with your 5 kids on welfare. What you really want is abortion on demand AND have us pay for it.
So what if I object to abortion and you use my tax money to perform them anyway.
Right?

[cats..paw]

Women without money have a choice also. Don't get pregnant or expect the taxpayers to support you for the next 18 years with your 5 kids on welfare. What you really want is abortion on demand AND have us pay for it.
So what if I object to abortion and you use my tax money to perform them anyway.
Right?

Rob,

Isn't your view a little narrow?

Care to share your experience in the community of poor women and help us understand the source of your insight?

;)

On another matter I think your tug project is a great one.

:D

[seanz]

So what if I object to abortion and you use my tax money to perform them anyway.

Then you'll find yourself on the same side as taxpayers that object to pointless wars.

[Scott Rosen]

Then you'll find yourself on the same side as taxpayers that object to pointless wars.
Right to Life . . . Except after Birth

[Milo Christensen]

Interesting results (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm)when you ask the right question:


"Regardless of whether you think abortion should be allowed or not, do you personally believe having an abortion is wrong?" 10/12-14/07

.
Yes 60%
No 36%
Unsure 4%

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

But, Milo, what makes that the "right" question?

Any Liberal in the proper sense of the word may answer "yes" to that question, as indeed my wife does, without seeking to impose this view on others.

I personally believe that owning a jetski is wrong, I do not seek to impose this view on others.

[Milo Christensen]

Well, in the political context, assuming people will bail on McCain because of Palin's stance on abortion, when they personally feel abortion is wrong themselves is just a bit idiotic, don't you think? By they, I mean the 60% that includes the 12% everybody is fighting over.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, no, Milo.

The point about Governor Palin's views on abortion is not that she holds them, it is that she seeks to impose them on others.

[cats..paw]

Well, no, Milo.

The point about Governor Palin's views on abortion is not that she holds them, it is that she seeks to impose them on others.

Precisely.

[Milo Christensen]

Imposing life on others is wrong? Whoa, time to reorient your moral compass.

[cats..paw]

C'mon Milo, please stop twisting the words.

Imposing one's views on another is not imposing life.

We're talking about choice. Do you enjoy your choices? Allow others the same dignity.

;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Verily, dear Catspaw, we stand on the brink of the Cultural Divide, here.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of hideous certainty..."

(WB Yeats)

;)

[LeeG]

Nothing like righteous certainty, how others should live based on Gods will, as interpreted by oneself of course.

It's a two-fer, you get to abdicate some personal responsibility for ones position to God AND presume to have the power over others.

To me it's supremely cowardly position.

[Milo Christensen]

My hideous, righteous certainty has absolutely nothing to do with my religion, and everything to do with my certain knowledge of when human life begins. Because you have, if you support Roe v Wade, chosen to extend the time the "blob of jelly" is not given human rights by 90 days says nothing whatsoever immoral about me and says everything I need to know about your morality.

[Rick-Mi]

Imposing life on others is wrong? Whoa, time to reorient your moral compass.



One would think Milo. But, here comes the subject of a moral compass again. Some people insist on a fully adjustable model with manual overide.....



.

[LeeG]

ok, Milo. Seems this topic has been covered.

[Robmill0605]

Rob,

Isn't your view a little narrow?

Care to share your experience in the community of poor women and help us understand the source of your insight?

;)

On another matter I think your tug project is a great one.

:D

My view might well be a little narrow, but it not based on religion.
It's based on personal expierence.
I do not approve of abortion as birth control that is the basis of what I object to.
I do NOT advocate that a woman should be forced to carry a child because she was raped by some cretin.
I do not advocate that because your religion says so, it is so.

I think it is wrong to kill a child in the womb, and as full disclosure will provide the following;

In 1971, I was stationed aboard the USCGC Campbell(WHEC32).
My girlfriend in Portland got pregnant and we were in no postion to have a child, I was being deployed.
I was 18 yrs old.
Abortion was still illegal everywhere except NY. So we traveled to NY and she had the abortion. We got married and got divorced 25 years ago.
To this day I am ashamed of what we did, it haunts me to this day every time I look at the son that we did have, and my ex regrets it too.

We used abortion as birth control instead of a condom. :mad:

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

I do not like, and Ido not approve of Evangelical Chrisitians jamming their beliefs down my throat, including the whole God crutch that they lean on.
That doesn't mean that I do not respect that THEY believe it.
I just do not.
In conclusion, abortion should be the absolute last resort, not the first one.
..........

I'm lofting the tug right now and enjoying myself, thanks.
End of rant.

[Rick-Mi]

My view might well be a little narrow, but it not based on religion.
It's based on personal expierence.



Thank you for the heartfelt comments Rob.



.

[Milo Christensen]

ok, Milo. Seems this topic has been covered.


And you have the effrontery to call me a coward? I reveal you for the "flexibly moral" creature you are and now it's time to move on?

No, I don't think so. Tell us what you feel is the latest day after conception an abortion should be a matter of privacy between the abortionist and the woman? Because a "right to privacy" for 90 days is all that Roe v Wade did. Defend the fetus' "right to life" suddenly overwhelming the mother's "right to privacy" on day 91. What happens that day that hadn't happened in the previous 90?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

It would be good if your moral compass were as sure on some other matters.

[Milo Christensen]

It would be good if your moral compass were as sure on some other matters.

Start a new thread. Include your perceptions of my lack of surety on other matters of morality.

[elf]

To me it's supremely cowardly position.I've always experienced it as patronizing, which comes from "pater" which is in Latin "father". (Notice we have no word matronizing - a testimony to the powerlessness of women in a religious culture.)

There is also a very strong element of bullying in it as well.

I guess that's why I have so much trouble understanding why women are Republicans, are anti-choice, get caught up in domineering religion. There is no logical reason why the female of homo sapiens needs to be so fearful. Being the nurser of the next generation should, just as logically, evoke the ferocious and defending.

Without the paternalistic, domineering/dominating, bullying other gender (reinforced by every religion which is based on a superior being myth) the female of our species is just as capable as the female of other species in relation to the male of that species to promote survival.

It is not necessary to be agressive to survive, or even to live decently.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Bravo!

[Sam F]

Start a new thread. Include your perceptions of my lack of surety on other matters of morality.

Milo, I know you can't stand me, but we do have something in common... welcome to the Expelled!


Bye, Sam. You and Milo are now in Limbo, along with the Virtuous Heathen and all the unborn babies, so far as I am concerned.

[elf]

In conclusion, abortion should be the absolute last resort, not the first one.

And, indeed, noone who is pro-abortion-availability asserts that it should be the first one, or even any number between the first and the last resort.

However, you were 18, young and biologically close to the age at which reproduction is a primary purpose of your gender. You were stuck in a patriarchal culture into which you bought, whole hog. That culture, only 25 years ago, resisted your acquisition of the pregnancy controlling device to which you referred in your story. The woman you impregnated was not the correct choice of a partner in the project of raising a child, apparently, as well.

You, together, made the correct choice for the welfare of that prospective child. Had you brought the child to term and attempted to raise it, it might have had some pretty terrible raising (starting life with a resentful, too-young mother and absent father) - something which no child deserves in any society. Had you brought the child to term and parted with it in hopes that it would stumble in to some better raising, you and its mother might have regretted letting it go so unprotected into such an uncertain future.

I don't question your regret. I think from time to time, about every couple years or so, of the children I didn't have too.

But I am continuously thankful that I did not attempt to do something so foolish as carry those pregnancies to term and impose my immaturity, failed birth control, dislike of infants/small children, unwillingness to modify my own behavior for the benefit of a child I did not want, incompetent marital choice etc. upon them.

Every moment is a choice. Those who are wise enough at 18 to make a solid marital decision and combine that with 18 years of solid child raising decisions are extremely rare.

Any sensible culture would devote a decent amount of educational resources to helping each person in the next generation figure out whether child bearing is their right choice. Instead we argue about whether we have to right to impose child bearing and rearing on that generation.

Crazy. Lunatic.

The gods must be crazy.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Now, see here, young curmudgeon, just because this thread has the words "Why Women Are..." in its title doesn't mean that women can go posting to it! Who gave you the right to an opinion! :rolleyes:

[Milo Christensen]

Milo, I know you can't stand me. . .

Sam, you know you're a bit dogmatic for me, that's all. But, I'm apparently in good company :p, however, in my case please don't take it personally, lately I can't stand anybody.:cool:

[BrianW]

How come Sarah Palin needs one state employee for every 45 Alaskan citizens to run the state when other states make due with far fewer civil employees per capita? :confused:

Here's a link to a good article on the` subject...

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/sep07indgovt.pdf

Alaska does have a high ratio of State employees to residents. There are lots of villages where nearly all the jobs are either Federal, State, or local government. It seems logical that every State has a certain number of services it must provide to it's residents. When the population is small, the employee/resident ratio is going to come out on the large side.

In the article linked above, it's pointed out that Delaware, with a slightly larger population, but 200 times smaller land area, provides 6.7% of the States total job count, compared to Alaska's 7.8%.

So there's lots of room for improvement, but there's reasons for the glut of State employees too.

[Sam F]

Sam, you know you're a bit dogmatic for me, that's all. But, I'm apparently in good company :p, however, in my case please don't take it personally, lately I can't stand anybody.:cool:

Don't worry Milo, I don't take much personally!
Given the endemic lack of honesty seen on the Forum, one can take some comfort in knowing that, at least, enmity is always sincere. :D

[LeeG]

And you have the effrontery to call me a coward? I reveal you for the "flexibly moral" creature you are and now it's time to move on?

No, I don't think so. Tell us what you feel is the latest day after conception an abortion should be a matter of privacy between the abortionist and the woman? Because a "right to privacy" for 90 days is all that Roe v Wade did. Defend the fetus' "right to life" suddenly overwhelming the mother's "right to privacy" on day 91. What happens that day that hadn't happened in the previous 90?

Milo, you haven't revealed anything about me. You've made a statement and attributed it to me. I think protestations about when life begins and what a woman should do is a cowardly position. I said "position" in my post where I used the word "coward". If you are so hyped up that you can't differentiate between YOU and your position I'm sorry. I never said YOU were a coward. I think your POSITION is a cowardly one.

There's no consequences for YOU if laws or hysterical protests outside a clinic make life harder for the woman seeking medical care.

Do you understand me?

[cats..paw]

Rob,

Thanks for your honest and personal reply. We agree on many things and I believe I understand your feelings.

The freedom of choice, in my way of thinking, is just that...a freedom. A freedom used responsibly is good .... abused: not. We live in the Land of the Free, which is a goal not yet attained (but we're working on it). Cultivating good judgement in ourselves and others is needed to progress towards the goal and I see a lot of us WBF'ers in that struggle. These freedoms aren't worth much when poorly practiced.

Just my view.

That said, keep us posted on the tug front.

:)

[Bob Smalser]

What's most amusing to me are folks from countries with a great (false?) sense of history and tradition, yet have no respect at all for religion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?ref=politics

Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 16, 2008

SCRANTON, Pa. — Until recently, Matthew Figured, a Sunday school teacher at the Holy Rosary Roman Catholic Church here, could not decide which candidate to vote for in the presidential election.

He had watched progressive Catholics work with the Democratic Party over the last four years to remind the faithful of the party’s support for Catholic teaching on the Iraq war, immigration, health care and even reducing abortion rates.

But then his local bishop plunged into the fray, barring Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, from receiving communion in the area because of his support for abortion rights.

Finally, bishops around the country scolded another prominent Catholic Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, for publicly contradicting the church’s teachings on abortion, some discouraging parishioners from voting for politicians who hold such views.

Now Mr. Figured thinks he will vote for the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona. “People should straighten out their religious beliefs before they start making political decisions,” Mr. Figured, 22, said on his way into Sunday Mass.

A struggle within the church over how Catholic voters should think about abortion is once again flaring up just as political partisans prepare an all-out battle for the votes of Mass-going Catholics in swing-state towns like Scranton.

The theological dispute is playing out in diocesan newspapers and weekly homilies, while the campaigns scramble to set up phone banks of nuns and private meetings with influential bishops.

Progressive Catholics complain that by wading into the history of church opposition to abortion — Mr. Biden brought up St. Thomas Aquinas, Ms. Pelosi discussed St. Augustine — Democratic officials are starting a distracting debate with the church hierarchy.

“Getting into Augustine and Aquinas — it is just not helpful,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, a progressive Catholic group running television commercials that emphasize the church’s social justice teachings. “It would be wise for them to focus on how policies they are going to implement as leaders are going to move forward the church teachings they say they believe in.”

Catholic conservatives, in turn, until recently had worried about a resurgence of the progressive forces in the American church. Now they are reveling. “The Democrats have actually given back some of the progress they had made,” said Deal Hudson, a Catholic conservative who worked with President Bush’s campaign and is now advising Mr. McCain’s.

Once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, Catholics have emerged as a pivotal swing vote in recent presidential races. Evenly divided in a New York Times-CBS News poll over the summer, Catholics make up about a quarter of the national electorate and about a third in the pivotal battleground states of Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. “Whoever wins the Catholic vote will generally win our state and, most of the time, the nation,” said G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa.

And Scranton, a city dominated by the kind of white working-class Catholics who have often defected from the Democrats in presidential elections, is a focus of special attention this year. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who generally underperformed with Catholics in the Democratic primary, lost the surrounding Lackawanna County by a margin of three-to-one to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has family in the area. Now, the Obama campaign often highlights Mr. Biden’s local roots — he was baptized and spent his early years in Scranton — in a bid for Pennsylvania voters.

Dozens of interviews with Catholics in Scranton underscored the political tumult in the parish pews. At Holy Rosary’s packed morning Masses on Sunday in working-class North Scranton and the Pennsylvania Polka Festival downtown that afternoon, many Clinton supporters said they were planning to vote for Mr. Obama, some saying they sided with their labor unions instead of the church and others repeating liberal arguments about church doctrine broader than abortion.

“I think that one of the teachings of God is to take care of the less fortunate,” said Susan Tighe, an insurance lawyer who identified herself as “a folk Catholic, from the guitar-strumming social-justice side” of the church.

But more said they now leaned toward Mr. McCain, citing both his experience and his opposition to abortion. Paul MacDonald, a retired social worker mingling over coffee after Mass at Holy Rosary, said he had voted for Mr. Kerry four years ago and Mrs. Clinton in the primary but now planned to vote for Mr. McCain because of “the life issue.”

The choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as Mr. McCain’s running mate had clinched it for him, Mr. MacDonald said. “She is anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, anti-Big Oil, a lifetime member of the N.R.A., she hunts, she fishes — she is the perfect woman!”

One parishioner ruled out voting for Mr. Obama explicitly because he is black. “Are they going to make it the Black House?” Ray McCormick asked, to embarrassed hushing from a half dozen others gathered around the rectory kitchen. (Five of the six, all lifelong Democrats who supported Mrs. Clinton in the primary, said they now lean toward Mr. McCain.)

Mr. Madonna, the political scientist, said of the Catholic vote in white, working-class Scranton, “This is a tough area for Obama and some of it is race.”

Both campaigns have dispatched teams of operatives and high-profile allies to help fire up like-minded Pennsylvania Catholics. The McCain campaign also disclosed last month that the senator was meeting privately with Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia. He met with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver shortly before the Democratic convention. Both were outspoken critics of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden.

Former Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, a director of Catholic outreach for the McCain campaign, said the meetings Mr. McCain has held with bishops around the country were “strictly ceremonial.” But the campaign welcomed the bishops’ comments about the Democrats and abortion, Mr. Keating said, as “statements of affectionate support” for Mr. McCain.

Both sides say that Mr. Obama has a broader grass-roots turnout operation than Mr. McCain. In Pennsylvania, the campaign has trained organizers to talk about Catholic doctrine on abortion and other issues, held about two dozen “brunch for Barack” events after Sunday Mass and organized what the campaign calls “nun banks” to call lists of Catholic voters.

Catholic Democrats outside the campaign have also worked hard to avoid repeating the experience of 2004, when a small group of outspoken bishops dominated news coverage of the church with criticism of Democratic Senator John Kerry focused on the single issue of abortion.

Many parishes distributed a voter guide, produced by an outside conservative Catholic group called Catholic Answers, which identified five “nonnegotiable” issues for faithful voters: abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

After the 2004 election, progressive Catholics started to organize and appeared to win some victories. In 2006, the bishops’ conference all but banned outside voter guides from parishes. And last fall, the bishops revised their official statement on voting priorities to explicitly allow Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights if they do so for other reasons. And it also allowed for differences of opinion about how to apply church principles. The statement appeared to leave room for Democrats to argue that social programs were an effective way to reduce abortion rates, an idea the party recently incorporated into its platform.

Their revisions set the stage for a clash of voter guides. Catholic Answers is again promoting its “nonnegotiables” voter guide; a new group, Catholics in Alliance for Common Good, has produced a chart comparing the candidates’ views on the war, taxes, the environment and other issues as well as abortion.

The same debate is already playing out almost every day in the letters section of Scranton’s newspaper, said Jean Harris, a political scientist at the Jesuit-run University of Scranton. “It is a running debate between Catholics saying ‘abortion is the only issue’ and others saying ‘you have to look at the whole teaching of the church,’ ” she said.

[LeeG]

that Catholic church sure knows about family values.

[Milo Christensen]

. . . Do you understand me?

No, not at all, quite frankly, I never have. Maybe if you told me precisely what happens during the switch (SNAP! Just like that) from abortable blob to protected human being at the end of the first trimester?

[cats..paw]

Many Catholics no longer wait for the church to tell them how to think and how to vote.

For one thing, the messengers are tainted. For another, the ambitions of the church are transparent, suspect and outdated to a thinking congregation.

imho.

;)

[LeeG]

One more time Milo, because I think you are a nice guy and contribution to the forum.

I did not call you a coward. I think the presumption to tell women how they should manage their reproductive issues is cowardly.

Regarding YOUR argument you'd like to have characterizing me,,I can't help you. Not all "life" gets to survive. That's "life".

There's a lot of seemingly arbitrary lines drawn designating different situations. Why is a 16yr old able to get a drivers license and not a 14yr old, why does a 21yr old get to drink and not a 20yr old. Why does a 18yr old get to be trained to kill and not a 15yr old. So to with abortion someone decided parameters for abortion so it was legal.

If you want to call a 20cell blastocyst "life" go for it. If you want to call it a baby, go for it. If you want to call abortion murder, go for it.

Hell, you could call the dropping of cluster munitions on people shredding them to bits a liberation. I really don't care.

But if you stand in the way of my daughters access to health care I will be in your face in a heartbeat.

[Keith Wilson]

Well here's some more poll data. Looks like classic overlapping convention bounces to me. OTOH, there are still seven weeks until the election and a lot of things can still happen.

http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvO600.png

[Rick-Mi]

There is no controversy about abortion in the Catholic church. It couldn't be more simple, a person is either a believer or not.



.

[cats..paw]

But if you stand in the way of my daughters access to health care I will be in your face in a heartbeat.




Bingo...Bullseye...Right On, Brother...
:cool:

[Rick-Mi]

But if you stand in the way of my daughters access to health care I will be in your face in a heartbeat.


Planned Parenthood wants to put your daughter under the knife without your authorization or notification.



.

[cats..paw]

Planned Parenthood wants to put your daughter under the knife without your authorization or notification.
.

As our wise and benevolent VP would say......'so?'

[LeeG]

Rick-Mi,

I've volunteered at Planned Parenthood precisely because I had daughters during the time terrorists were bombing the clinics and terrorizing patients and the people who worked there.
It was the experience of caring for my toddler and infant daughters 24/7 during the time of the Reagan administration that motivated me to volunteer.
After caring for and being concerned for a pregnant wife, and doing the same for two babies it became obvious that the old guys in congress had never cared for their children 24/7. How in the world could these guys presume to dictate how women in a vulnerable position should decide their lives.
The disconnect was obvious. They will never suffer the consequences of the political positions they were advocating.

My suggestion Rick-Mi is that you talk about you. Ok?
Your statement is a ludicrous caricature about how people seek, and get medical care. You might as well say I want to take a 2x4 to your head as a sentence communicating an argumentative stance.

[cats..paw]

Planned Parenthood wants to put your daughter under the knife without your authorization or notification.
.

It is about the freedom of choice. What's your question?

:(

[Rick-Mi]

My suggestion Rick-Mi is that you talk about you. Ok?
Your statement is a ludicrous caricature about how people seek, and get medical care. You might as well say I want to take a 2x4 to your head as a sentence communicating an argumentative stance.

Well Lee, you can bet I've never volunteered at a Planned Parenthood clinic and never will. But, it's a free country.....

As for my statement, I'm afraid it stands the test of truth. Planned Parenthood wants access to your daughters bodies without your knowledge or permission. Your example is a fabrication (even though it might be true, lol), mine is fact.


.

[LeeG]

RickMe, what example are you saying that I have fabricated?

[cats..paw]

Planned Parenthood wants access to your daughters bodies without your knowledge or permission.


.


My my Rick Mi, you're quite the wordsmith.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Keith Wilson]

Planned Parenthod has never performed any medical procedure on any person without that person's knowledge and permission.

[Sam F]

Rick-Mi,

I've volunteered at Planned Parenthood ...

I wouldn't exactly brag about that:

Planned Parenthood Sued over Failure to Report Teen’s Incest Pregnancy
By Gudrun Schultz

CINCINNATI, Ohio, May 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Ohio teenager has launched a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood affiliates in Cincinnati for failing to report to authorities that she was a victim of incest, Cybercast News Service reported earlier today.

Filed May ninth, the suit claims that when the girl--who cannot be named--sought an abortion in 2004 at the age of 16, she told staff with Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio that she had been raped by her own father and that the sexual assaults had been occurring since 2000, when she was 12 years old.

The girl accuses Planned Parenthood staff of violating Ohio law by failing to report the situation to authorities, a failure which then led to another 18 months of abuse. She is seeking $25,000 in damages “to compensate her for the severe harm she has suffered as a direct result of [Planned Parenthood’s] breach of their duties owed her.” She is also requesting that the court levy punitive damages against Planned Parenthood.

The incident is the latest in a growing body of accusations against the largest abortion provider in the country over alleged complicity in covering up rape, statutory rape and incest cases against minor girls...

[Sam F]

Planned Parenthod has never performed any medical procedure on any person without that person's knowledge and permission.

That is simply false.

[Robmill0605]

One more time Milo, because I think you are a nice guy and contribution to the forum.

I did not call you a coward. I think the presumption to tell women how they should manage their reproductive issues is cowardly.

Regarding YOUR argument you'd like to have characterizing me,,I can't help you. Not all "life" gets to survive. That's "life".

There's a lot of seemingly arbitrary lines drawn designating different situations. Why is a 16yr old able to get a drivers license and not a 14yr old, why does a 21yr old get to drink and not a 20yr old. Why does a 18yr old get to be trained to kill and not a 15yr old. So to with abortion someone decided parameters for abortion so it was legal.

If you want to call a 20cell blastocyst "life" go for it. If you want to call it a baby, go for it. If you want to call abortion murder, go for it.

Hell, you could call the dropping of cluster munitions on people shredding them to bits a liberation. I really don't care.

But if you stand in the way of my daughters access to health care I will be in your face in a heartbeat.

.......

"access to health care "

Code for abortion.

Your version of " health care" is just that. An attempt to disquise and obfuscate what you really intend to provide under the guise of " health care"

[LeeG]

Hey Rob, how about if I said, "if you stand in the way of my daughters access to the means to kill the baby in her womb safely I will be in your face in a heartbeat"

better?

I have no problem using your language. I got a "vasectomy" at planned parenthood. I doomed the life of millions of sperm to death.

I have to thank you guys.

I'm sending a check to PP right now.

You guys motivate me as much as Pat Buchanan and Ronald Reagan did in 1988 railing about the sanctity of life.

I can FEEEEEEEL your righteousness.

[cats..paw]

.......

"access to health care "

Code for abortion.

Your version of " health care" is just that. An attempt to disquise and obfuscate what you really intend to provide under the guise of " health care"


Rob, health care includes many things for many people.

Freedom of choice means the freedom to choose abortion if needed. You and I can't tell a pregnant woman when it is needed. Only the woman can.

Do you want to tell the woman when it is needed?

:(

[cats..paw]

That is simply false.

Where's your proof?
;)

[Sam F]

Keith knew better than to challenge that one.


Where's your proof?
;)

You can start with Post # 105. Didn't you notice?
But there's a huge documentation available for Planned Parenthood's crimes. Here's another example:


Planned Parenthood Caught on Tape Covering Up Statutory Rape – Threatens Lawsuit to Hide Evidence
By Peter J. Smith

LOS ANGELES, May 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An intrepid student reporter faces the legal hammer of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles (PPLA) after she recorded an abortion clinic employee offering her help to cover-up statutory rape and protect her over-age boyfriend from the police.

Lila Rose, 18, a sophomore at the University of California Los Angeles and editor-in-chief of The Advocate, a pro-life newspaper on campus, entered a PPLA clinic with a hidden video recorder as part of her own investigation into the practices of abortion clinics. Rose posed as a pregnant 15-year-old accompanied by her 23-year-old “boyfriend” played by James O’Keefe.

The video documents a staffer breaking California law, which requires clinics to report sexual abuse, including statutory rape where the victim is under 16 years old. In the meeting between Rose and an anonymous PPLA employee, the staffer told Rose: "If you're 15, we have to report it ... If you're not, if you're older than that, then we don't need to."

Rose: "Okay, but if I just say I'm not 15, then it's different?"

PPLA staffer: "You could say 16 ... Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don't know anything." ...

[Robmill0605]

Rob, health care includes many things for many people.

Freedom of choice means the freedom to choose abortion if needed. You and I can't tell a pregnant woman when it is needed. Only the woman can.

Do you want to tell the woman when it is needed?

:(

No, I do not.
However the idea that you are soverign over your body is false in law. It against the law to put non-percription drugs in your body.
It against the law to attemp or commit suicide.
It is not a woman choice alone. It takes two to tango and only the woman has a choice because it's "her body"?

I do not support outlawing abortion, I suppport limiting abortion and not on demand, and NOT on my dime.
I want to demand that my doc give me herion because it's " my choice" my body.

Why is it manslaughter , or murder in the eyes of the law if I cause a woman to abort because I hit her with my car and she lost the baby?
Did she just lose a bunch of bio-matter and not a child?
If I stab a woman and she lives, and the " matter" doesn't don't I go to jail?
This nonsense about abortion on demand, and that the embryo is just " bio matter" is just that.

Nonsense.

[LeeG]

everyone has different sense Rob.

Check this out, if you go to the Spy Museum in DC they have a whole section on domestic terrorism,,but you know what? NONE of the clinic bombings were mentioned. Ted Kuzinsky was,,but none of the clinic bombings.

Isn't that odd?

[cats..paw]

Rob,

This is about life. There's a debate about the viability of a fetus, but no one debates the vitality of the pregnant woman, she is positively alive and must make choices to stay alive. Very alive or the fetus doesn't have a chance. This is more than a woman's survival, it's about the quality to her life, and a potential baby's quality of life.

What you regret or celebrate in your own lifetime wisens you in your own choices, but gives you no dominion over someone else's.

In a democracy we all pay for the majority choice (I sure don't like a lot of what I have to pay for, either).

Perhaps we differ more than I earlier thought. That's OK too, because I make that choice and say so. Ain't choice wonderful?

;)

[cats..paw]

Sam,

I see you're easily convinced.

How about a source without the word 'life' in it?

And let's be intelligent about this, because you're looking for proof, right? And opinion is not proof.

;)

[cats..paw]

However the idea that you are soverign over your body is false in law.

But not in my law.

My God has dominion over my spirit, my soul; I have dominion over this body, until He decides to call the loan.

;);)

[Milo Christensen]

. . . But if you stand in the way of my daughters access to health care I will be in your face in a heartbeat.

I would never think of standing in the way of anyone's access to legal health care. And I wouldn't blame you for getting in my face.

You talk a lot about not facing the consequences of my position. What are the consequences of 40 million fewer Americans over 35 years? What is the impact of losing tens of millions productive, tax paying, consuming Americans. There's no consequences? You take the individual right to choice (how many different contraceptives are there to choose from anyway?) to your extreme and I guess I'll be guilty of taking society's right to determine who is worthy of the protections afforded by law to humans to an extreme.

I'll can't help, as a person involved with persons with disabilities, thinking of several posters who chimed in that Sarah Palin was irresponsible to have a child with Down's syndrome. I also think of the outrageous outpourings over an indicted dog killer and find many pro-choice posters among the most highly outraged. And I just don't get it, do I? Am I not allowed to show a much milder form of outrage over the ongoing abortion of 800,000 babies a year as many here were outraged over the cruel and inhumane killing of a dog. Really puts inhumane in a very strange light, doesn't? We can be inhumane to dogs but not to babies?

[Sam F]

Sam,

I see you're easily convinced.

How about a source without the word 'life' in it?

I'm always happy to oblige:


Planned Parenthood accused in woman's death
Lawsuit says clinic worker triggered 'raging systemic infection'
...
A lawsuit has been filed against Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties for the death of a woman who died of toxic shock syndrome after a clinic worker found – but did not treat – a serious infection.

The medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit has been brought by Aletheia Meloncon, whose 21-year-old daughter, Edrica Goode, died on Valentine's Day of this year. The Riverside County coroner, in fact, concluded that Goode died of "toxic shock syndrome secondary to retained laminaria cervical dilators."


And let's be intelligent about this, because you're looking for proof, right? And opinion is not proof.


Proof is what I've provided.
It is not a matter of opinion.

[Keith Wilson]

What are the consequences of 40 million fewer Americans over 35 years? What is the impact of losing tens of millions productive, tax paying, consuming Americans. There's no consequences? Oh, if that's what you're really concerned about, no problem. There's no shortage of prospective US citizens, and we can get 'em a lot easier and quicker than making them ourselves. There are plenty of people who would give their proverbial eye teeth to come here; I bet we could make up those millions from China easily, let alone Latin America.

[cats..paw]

Psst....Sam

Turn your telescope around.

It's a wide wide world out here.

;);)

[Robmill0605]

everyone has different sense Rob.

Check this out, if you go to the Spy Museum in DC they have a whole section on domestic terrorism,,but you know what? NONE of the clinic bombings were mentioned. Ted Kuzinsky was,,but none of the clinic bombings.

Isn't that odd?


There are people of good will on both sides of this issue, and though I disagree with you entirely on this, and most of your political views, we can still agree to disagree.
There is no question that this is a moral issue and will not be solved here.The debate continues, and has ever since Roe V. Wade.
The pro-life terrorists who bomb abortion clinics are just that, terrorists.
What bothers me is that this holocaust on the un-born is being done as birth control, and guised as "heath care"
Obama even supports live- birth abortion, and there are doctors like the one in Utah who will abort so late term it may as we be another Auschwitch.
He even has a cremtatorion for the " bio-mass"

Is that " heath care"? or a " woman's choice"?

I think not.

[Sam F]

Psst....Sam

Turn your telescope around.

It's a wide wide world out here.

Don't I know it! There's some wonderful things out there and some genuine horrors hiding just behind your comfortable life-style.
Best not to be reminded of that huh?

[Tom Montgomery]

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/kurtz%20head.jpg

The horror... the horror...

[elf]

Men making decisions for women again.

[LeeG]

Emily, it's our special skill to imbue ideas with totemic powers. The woman in the next county over doesn't exist as much as the IDEA of the LIFE she carries exists.

It's like throwing a rock to hit something. "I did THAT". I hit THAT. Like pissing in the dirt...oh look what I made!

After awhile one can't help but be amazed with the integrity of ones own work.
"you see dear, the way this works....."

There's gotta be a reason it's primarily men running religious orders. We believe in ourselves.

[elf]

Pissing in the dirt is exactly what this conversation is about. Nothing more, nothing more thoughtful, nothing more respectful, nothing more wise, nothing more understanding, nothing more than pissing in the dirt and saying "oh, wow. Look at ME, me, me, me. I, I, I, did that!!!"

The reason men run religious orders is not that they believe in themselves, but that they're so self centered that they have to believe in a superior power in order to control their own behavior.

If they were actually adults, they'd simply not piss in the dirt.

[LeeG]

it's something to do..sending little dust clouds here and there.

Self-centered? Not sure about that, I think its more like our identity has to have a reflection, a product.

I think women are naturally self-centered. As in centered without the same need to manifest oneself in the world.

[TomF]

If you're not going to piss in the dirt with it, what are you supposed to use a penis for the other 90% of the time?