W shows true abortion colors

[strandinthewind]

Bush speaks by phone to anti-abortion protesters

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush told abortion foes on Monday he shared their support for "a culture of life" and claimed progress in passing legislation to protect the vulnerable.

"We need most of all to change hearts and that is what we're doing," Bush said as anti-abortion activists marked the 32nd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion with a day of rallies, protests and other activities.

The issue took on new urgency with the likelihood of a high court vacancy.

Bush addressed marchers by phone from the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, where he had spent the weekend.

Every anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision, prompts demonstrations by opponents and proponents of abortion rights. Activists on both sides of the abortion issue marched in demonstrations across the country Saturday, the actual anniversary of the January 23 decision.

This year there is increasing speculation about Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's health. Three other justices have had cancer.

One or more court vacancies would give President Bush the chance to install another justice or justices who oppose the Roe decision, increasing the likelihood that at some point, the ruling could be overturned.

Bush conceded that a society "where every child is welcome...may still be some way away."

Still, he said, he was working with Congress to pass "good, solid legislation to protect the vulnerable." He cited his signing of legislation last year to outlaw certain late-term abortions.

"You know, we come from many, different backgrounds, but what unites us is our understanding that the essence of civilization is this: The strong have a duty to protect the weak," Bush said. He has said he supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, but has not actively pushed for it.

Bush also said that he would continue "seeking common ground where possible and persuading increasing numbers of our fellow citizens of the rightness of our cause. This is the path of the culture of life that we seek for our country."

On Monday, abortion opponents staged a rally before a march from the Ellipse to the Supreme Court. Other groups opposed to abortion rights were holding events on Capitol Hill.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has projected that 19 states would quickly outlaw abortion, and 19 more might follow suit, if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Last week, Norma McCorvey, the woman known as "Jane Roe" in Roe v. Wade, asked the Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/bush.abortion.ap/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Too bad no one was there to ask him about the illegal abortion he procured for Robin Lowman in 1971 after he got her pregnant.
It was good enough for him then.

[estranged4life]

big surprise...Man, if anyone was holding their breath that "W" would change his opinion on abortion you can let yer "blue faced/if not dead yet" mouth open now.

[strandinthewind]

And therein lies (pun intended) the rank hypocrisy of just about everyone I personally know that opposes abortion. Many of them have had one themselves or have had a girlfriend who had one with their blessings. I get that they may now "regret" it - but my point is they sure as hell knew what they were doing when they had it and they did not let any future regret get them out of their little situation at the time. To me, it is hypocrisy and a day late and a dollar short to say YEARS later - oh I made a mistake forgive me, esp. considering they knew about it then and they damn well knew what they were doing because 99/9% of them did it in a hush hush manner so the Jones would not know that they were preggers out of wedlock, which was usually the case in situations I am talking about, which are the only situations I am talking about and I recognize others may have difference experiences, etc.

I nsum, it is sort of like moving in next to the airport runway and then five years later complaining about the noise :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

It's so frustrating. If men bore children abortion would be legal and stay legal.

Here's the Bush abortion story for anyone interested.
http://drunkreport.com/reports/bushabortion.htm

[gldstwmn]

CNN was so freaked when Larry Flynt discussed the abortion on their show Crossfire, they deleted the entire transcript form its' web site.

[SuzeQuze]

CNN was so freaked when Larry Flynt discussed the abortion on their show Crossfire, they deleted the entire transcript form it's web site.

Oh man. :distress: No one wanted to touch that story, just like any story that may shine a harsh light on this president.

[strandinthewind]

Libel is never pretty.

Interestingly, I do not think the Bush family would ever DARE to sue for libel. So, it would have to come from the woman or the hospital where the procedure was performed. But, even then, if this is true, the Bush family most certainly would silence ANY fanning of the flames on this because court cases have a funny way of bringing things out that most with egg on their face would prefer never see the light of day. A good example is the interviews of the witnesses - I can promise you W and associates do not want that repeated over and over again even though if it did happen, Rove would leave no stone unturned and pull out all of the stops to destroy ANY credibility any of these people may have had. Remember, Rove is not above sacrificing the innocent to stay in power no matter what the end result is for the victims.

[strandinthewind]

Oh man. :distress: No one wanted to touch that story, just like any story that may shine a harsh light on this president.

I disagree. I think the facts are out there. I think the stories have been told by the media - perhaps not as much as they sould have been in a subjective sense, but the media reported them. I think the public does not care and the D's have given the public a strong enough candidate for them to care and for them to ignore the Churches' hypocritical stance against the D's for being pro-choice. I say hypocritical because the Catholic Church is also SQUARELY and SOLIDLY against capital punishment and the war in Iraq, both of which are HUGE in the R platform :shrug:

As for the media reporting that W made his GF have an abortion, when the chief witness says it did not happen, you cannot report in the story that it did :shrug:

[tommer]

ooh how i love those threads, i live in such a crazy place, but that reminds me that everything is relative.

[SuzeQuze]

I disagree. I think the facts are out there. I think the stories have been told by the media - perhaps not as much as they sould have been in a subjective sense, but the media reported them. I think the public does not care and the D's have given the public a strong enough candidate for them to care and for them to ignore the Churches' hypocritical stance against the D's for being pro-choice. I say hypocritical because the Catholic Church is also SQUARELY and SOLIDLY against capital punishment and the war in Iraq, both of which are HUGE in the R platform :shrug:

As for the media reporting that W made his GF have an abortion, when the chief witness says it did not happen, you cannot report in the story that it did :shrug:

Sorry, I meant television news. I somehow managed to miss this story myself. :shrug:

[ThePenguin]

It's so frustrating. If men bore children abortion would be legal and stay legal.


Agreed. It would be like a drive through at McDonald's, quick and easy, and no one would question it.

-Lis

[strandinthewind]

Agreed. It would be like a drive through at McDonald's, quick and easy, and no one would question it.

-Lis

Yep!!! I mean Viagra is covered by ins. :shrug:

Here are some interesting article on or related to this:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20010103.html

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0144.html

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/ssc/bcps.htm

http://www.ivillagehealth.com/features/birthcontrolaz/pages/0,,166936_440084,00.html

BTW - If schools taught a class in "How not to get Pregnant" and birth control was readily available, the need for abortion seemingly would significantly wane - but the far religious right will NEVER allow that :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Libel is never pretty.

Interestingly, I do not think the Bush family would ever DARE to sue for libel. So, it would have to come from the woman or the hospital where the procedure was performed.

They had both. She ended up backing out as Flynt was getting ready to go to press with the story because in short, she was paid a visit by James R. Bath.

[gldstwmn]

Agreed. It would be like a drive through at McDonald's, quick and easy, and no one would question it.

-Lis

And they would use anesthesia, which many OB/GYN's do not.

[strandinthewind]

They had both. She ended up backing out as Flynt was getting ready to go to press with the story because in short, she was paid a visit by James R. Bath.

Interestingly, one would think Flynt would have gotten some sort of recording, signed statement, etc. That he did not makes me suspicious. But, Flynt, though a cad, is a straight shooter IMO.

[SuzeQuze]

We got sex ed in health class. There was even a condom demo with a banana.:shocked: I'm sure that helped prevent some pregnancies. Also, some girls do not get that motherhood will be very difficult, they romanticize it. That type of education is important too IMO. Having a young mother talk about her experience and saying she would NOT do it all over if she had the chance would have some impact.

Yep!!! I mean Viagra is covered by ins. :shrug:

Here are some interesting article on or related to this:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20010103.html

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0144.html

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/ssc/bcps.htm

http://www.ivillagehealth.com/features/birthcontrolaz/pages/0,,166936_440084,00.html

BTW - If schools taught a class in "How not to get Pregnant" and birth control was readily available, the need for abortion seemingly would significantly wane - but the far religious right will NEVER allow that :rolleyes:

[Nixxxed]

I've been in several arguments with "pro-life" people. Not because I believe in abortion per se, but because I believe it's none of their freakin' business.

My favorite was the time I got into a shouting match with this really obnoxious woman whose main argument against abortion was that the babies could be adopted instead of aborted.

I said, "Oh yeah? That's a good argument, I agree. So, how many babies have YOU adopted to save them?" She started stammering, "Well, I... Ummm... I can't really afford that..." And I had finally reached my tipping point and screamed, "Then you have no argument, so until you and your holier-than-thou friends adopt a few unwanted babies, SHUT UP already!!!" :laugh: And she did!

[dissention]

Interestingly, one would think Flynt would have gotten some sort of recording, signed statement, etc. That he did not makes me suspicious. But, Flynt, though a cad, is a straight shooter IMO.

He's more than a straight shooter. Just look at his track record when it comes to exposing bastard politicians, he's fantastic.

[dissention]

Yep!!! I mean Viagra is covered by ins. :shrug:


As are size enhancement drugs. :rolleyes:

[SuzeQuze]

Nixxxed, I'll keep your tactic in mind if I need to argue with a pro-lifer. I am not really "for" abortion either but I want it to remain legal and believe women should have the right to choose. I think it should be done as little as possible though. I'm grateful I've never been in a position to have to choose that. Also, I am the product of a teen pregnancy so if my mom had done it I wouldn't be here. :wavey: I think everything she struggled with for me and our family made me allergic to even the idea of getting pregnant young. I'm really sensitive too so I don't think I could ever have one. I would never get over it. I feel for women who have had to make that choice or felt they had to.

[strandinthewind]

As are size enhancement drugs. :rolleyes:

NOW YOU TELL ME :eek:

:laugh: :p :laugh: :p :laugh: :p :laugh:

[dissention]

They had both. She ended up backing out as Flynt was getting ready to go to press with the story because in short, she was paid a visit by James R. Bath.

She went from working as a waitress and living in a studio apartment when she first contacted Flynt to disappearing right before he was ready to go public. When he finally tracked her down, she had just purchased a $500,000 home in Corpus Christi.

So, let's see what we know about Bush:

-He was a drunk for 20 years
-He paid for an illegal abortion
-He weasled his way out of Vietnam
-During his campaign in the late 70s, he lied and said he had served in the Air Force
-He more than likely snorted cocaine at Camp David
-He was involved in insider trading and was subsequently investigated for it
-His oil companies all went belly-up
-He was arrested and taken to jail for drunk driving and later lied about it
-His license was suspended for drunk driving
-He had his cronies change his drivers license number while he was governor in order to hide his arrest from the press
-When called for jury duty in 1994, he committed a felony by lying on his jury form
-He mocked a woman publicly and in front of the press just after she had been executed (Karla Faye Tucker)

And they question Clinton's morality? :lol:

[ThePenguin]

My favorite was the time I got into a shouting match with this really obnoxious woman whose main argument against abortion was that the babies could be adopted instead of aborted.


This might be true of healthy lily-white babies; they'd be snapped right up. Sadly, minority children and those born w/ drug-abuse related affects/fetal alcohol syndrome etc are not quite as desired by the general population. So now that the abortion was prevented, what happens to this little human being who has been born into horrible circumstances and now has an entire life to live and a million odds stacked against them? Where are the pro-lifers then?


--Lis

[gldstwmn]

He's more than a straight shooter. Just look at his track record when it comes to exposing bastard politicians, he's fantastic.

His first breakthrough in investigative journalism was the DeLorean tapes. :nod:
He had all the dirt on Newtie and is largely credited with the demise of Gingrich's career in politics. :nod:

[dissention]

CNN was so freaked when Larry Flynt discussed the abortion on their show Crossfire, they deleted the entire transcript form its' web site.

Have you read the transcript? I especially found funny the part where Novak says "We DON'T censor our guests on Crossfire." :laugh: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

This might be true of healthy lily-white babies; they'd be snapped right up. Sadly, minority children and those born w/ drug-abuse related affects/fetal alcohol syndrome etc are not quite as desired by the general population. So now that the abortion was prevented, what happens to this little human being who has been born into horrible circumstances and now has an entire life to live and a million odds stacked against them? Where are the pro-lifers then?


--Lis

Not to mention babies with terminal illnesses like AIDS. Did you see that sepcial awhile back about those gay couples who adopted something like four or more children living with AIDS and are providing them with healthy and happy (according to all sources including the state ones) homes. I mean that must just he a HUGE burden to carry. Yet and sadly, the state says not both parents (I defy anyone with a heart to say that label does not fit) cannot be on the adoption papers and that gay people should not be allowed to adopt. JERKS!!!! :mad:

[strandinthewind]

Have you read the transcript? I especially found funny the part where Novak says "We DON'T censor our guests on Crossfire." :laugh: :wavey:

Ms. [Donna Rice] Hughes : ... But the commission did hear testimony from schools and libraries who had effectively used technologies with their acceptable use policies, and that it did work well, Bill, so you'll have different viewpoints on that.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following has been removed from the CNN transcript
Mr. Novak : Mr. Flynt, NEVER let it be said that we CENSOR any of our guests here on CROSSFIRE -- and you said you wanted to talk about the election. Tell me what you wanted to say.

Mr. Flynt : Well, during the impeachment debacle, we did an investigation which resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston and others, and we have continued this investigation -- and for eight months we've been looking into George W. Bush's background.

And we've found out in the early 1970s, he was involved in an abortion in Texas -- and I just think that it's sad that the mainstream media, who's [sic] aware of this story, won't ask him that question, when they were able to ask him the drug question without any proof at all -- and we've got all kinds of proof on this issue.

Mr. Novak : Well, you're ...

Mr. Flynt : You know, the guy ADMITTED he was a drunk for twenty years, and if the abortion issue is true, then that puts him lower on the morality scale than Bill Clinton!

Mr. Novak : Mr. Flynt, you said IF it's true and you have no proof of that. I gather you are a very strong ...

Mr. Flynt [ smiling, mind you] : THE HELL WE DON'T HAVE PROOF!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CNN TRANSCRIPT RESUMES HERE
Mr. Novak : Sir, I gather you're a very strong Gore supporter. Is that correct?

Mr. Flynt : I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils -- I don't like either one of them!

Mr. Press : All right! Larry Flynt -- a man who speaks his word. But we remind you, they are Larry Flynt's words and not ours. Larry Flynt, thank you very, very much for joining us ...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh -- we really, really hate to break the news to Mr. Novak, but a comparison of CNN's "official" circumcised transcript to the labors of our own Ms. Callahan are at somewhat strong odds with his assertion that "NEVER let it be said that we CENSOR any of our guests here on CROSSFIRE."

Because CNN did.

But we're more than glad to make sure that the full record of Flynt's hard-hitting allegation remains available to the public despite CNN's attempt to muzzle Mr. Flynt.

'Nuff said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Novak : Mr. Flynt, never let it be said that we censor any of our guests here on CROSSFIRE, and you said you wanted to talk about the election. Tell me what you wanted to say.

Flynt : Well, during the impeachment debacle, we did an investigation which resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston and others and we have continued this investigation and for eight months we've been looking into George W. Bush's background. And we've found out in the early 1970s he was involved in an abortion in Texas, and I just think that it's sad that the mainstream media, who's aware of this story, won't ask him that question when they were able to ask him the drug question without any proof at all, and we've got all kinds of proof on this issue.

Novak : Well, you're ...

Flynt : You know, the guy admitted he was a drunk for 20 years, and if the abortion issue is true then that puts him lower on the morality scale than Bill Clinton.

Novak : Mr. Flynt, you said if it's true and you have no proof of that. I gather you are a very strong ...

Flynt : The hell we don't have proof.

Novak : Sir, I gather you're a very strong Gore supporter. Is that correct?

Flynt : I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils. I don't like either one of them.

Press : All Right, Larry Flynt, a man who speaks his word, but we remind you they are Larry Flynt's words and not ours. Larry Flynt, thank you very, very much for joining us.

This was followed by an online chat, in which Flynt went into greater detail :

CNN : Mr. Flynt, I would like to know how you plan to protect yourself from a law suit by claiming to have the goods on GWBush.

Flynt : Because we have them and the truth is an absolute defense.

CNN : When and where are you going to publish information about George W. Bush?

Flynt : When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that pereformed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because should she say it never happened, then we've got a potential libel suit. But we know we have enough evidence that we believe completely. One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe Vs. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I'd just like the national media to ask him if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America. We're not looking at it as a big issue, we're looking at it as a situation of people not being told the truth. I think the American people have a right to know everything there is to know about someone running for President.

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-abortion.html and MANY more sites like http://bushwatch.net/flyntabortion.htm

[strandinthewind]

He's more than a straight shooter. Just look at his track record when it comes to exposing bastard politicians, he's fantastic.

AND - of all things, LF was "saved" - so the Christian far right cannot really bitch too much about him :laugh: , especially when he exposes The TRUTH :shrug:

My personal fav. is when LF called for a National Prayer day for the following prayer:

"Dear (God/Allah/Buddha/other entity of your choice), we ask you to afflict Bill O'Reilly with a brain aneurysm that will lead to his slow and painful death"

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200308%5CNAT20030805c.html

[dissention]

AND - of all things, LF was "saved" - so the Christian far right cannot really bitch too much about him :laugh: , especially when he exposes The TRUTH :shrug:

My personal fav. is when LF called for a National Prayer day for the following prayer:

"Dear (God/Allah/Buddha/other entity of your choice), we ask you to afflict Bill O'Reilly with a brain aneurysm that will lead to his slow and painful death"

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200308%5CNAT20030805c.html

:laugh:

I got a kick out of when he found out that Barbara Bush (Shrub's kid) had stripped at a frat party at Yale and tried to find the photos.

"The good news is that we have a naked Bush, the bad news is that it's the ugly one."

:eek: :laugh:

[ThePenguin]

Not to mention babies with terminal illnesses like AIDS. Did you see that sepcial awhile back about those gay couples who adopted something like four or more children living with AIDS and are providing them with healthy and happy (according to all sources including the state ones) homes. I mean that must just he a HUGE burden to carry. Yet and sadly, the state says not both parents (I defy anyone with a heart to say that label does not fit) cannot be on the adoption papers and that gay people should not be allowed to adopt. JERKS!!!! :mad:

Yes I remember that. These poor guys are good enough to take in four kids that no one else wants and give them loving homes, but not good enough to be given the legal title of parents. truly sickening. Wasn't that in Florida?

-Lis

[gldstwmn]

Have you read the transcript? I especially found funny the part where Novak says "We DON'T censor our guests on Crossfire." :laugh: :wavey:

Novak was probably drunk. :laugh: I'd like to see his bank accounts after the last four years.

[gldstwmn]

One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe Vs. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time.

Larry's a little off on his dates there a Roe was passed in '73.

ON EDIT: Oops, nevermind. On rereading that, he's saying the abortion took place in '70, right?

[strandinthewind]

Yes I remember that. These poor guys are good enough to take in four kids that no one else wants and give them loving homes, but not good enough to be given the legal title of parents. truly sickening. Wasn't that in Florida?

-Lis

I believe it was. When I saw that and the truly INSPIRATIONAL effort and kindness of those two guys I started crying. Then, when I found out how maliciously the State of Florida treated them, allegedly in the name of God, I threw up. Here is a synopsis of what happened:

Florida's puzzling case against gay adoptions
The choice for many adoptable children in Florida is between being adopted by homosexuals or not being adopted at all

Published January 16, 2005


The state of Florida is not ridiculously selective when it comes to letting people adopt children--and with some 4,200 kids in need of adoption, it can't afford to be.

It allows single adults to adopt. It accepts people with serious illnesses and disabilities. It leaves the door open to drug addicts. It is even willing to consider people who are known to have neglected, abandoned or abused children.

It doesn't accept homosexuals.

That's the law in Florida, the only state that singles out gays and lesbians in this way. And apparently it's going to remain the law. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a constitutional challenge to the ban on gay adoptions, which has the effect of upholding the policy. This decision also prevents a 13-year-old boy from securing a permanent home with the two men who have been his foster parents since he was an infant.

At birth, the boy had cocaine and marijuana in his system and tested positive for HIV (though he no longer does). He was taken in by Steven Lofton, a registered pediatric nurse whose two other foster children have AIDS, and his partner, Roger Croteau. Lofton has taken care of the kids full-time for the past decade, efforts that earned him an Outstanding Foster Parenting award from the Children's Home Society. He also has been a foster parent to five other kids with HIV or AIDS.

But his exceptional devotion doesn't impress the state of Florida. When Lofton applied to adopt the boy 10 years ago, the Department of Children and Families, which had previously said he was perfectly suitable to serve as a foster parent, was not allowed to consider him as an adoptive parent.

Normally, the state assesses applicants individually, on the crazy assumption that it should focus on what's best for the child. But when the prospective parent is gay, the interests of the child go out the window. Despite everything Lofton has done for the boy, the state is trying to place him in another home.

This approach is not the preference of the people charged with looking after the needs of kids. When the state's chief adoption official was asked under oath if there is any "child-welfare reason at all for excluding gay people from adopting children," she answered: "No."

The original impulse, it turns out, was not to protect children but to penalize gays. The measure, passed in 1977, was an offshoot of singer Anita Bryant's successful campaign to repeal a Dade County ordinance banning discrimination against homosexuals. The bill's chief sponsor explained it as a valiant effort to open lines of communication with gays: "We're trying to send them a message, telling them: `We're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet.' "

The state now insists it has perfectly pure motives for the ban. It claims that a child is best served in a stable home that includes a married mother and father. This kind of family, it argues, gives a child good gender role models and spares her from "social stigmatization" about her parents.

If the state really wanted to avoid such stigmatization, it might stop treating such parents as if they are a menace and a disgrace. Expressing moral disapproval of homosexuality, after all, is one of the reasons Florida gives for the ban.

As for gender role models, it's not clear how important they are in a child's development. Almost all gays grow up with heterosexual parents and nonetheless adopt a different "gender role." Sexual orientation aside, Steven Lofton looks like a pretty decent role model. If Florida thinks gender role modeling is so critical, why does it let children spend years living with gay foster parents like him?

The state's supposed preference for married couples is not exactly fanatical. The law specifically allows unmarried adults to adopt, and some 25 percent of state-approved adoptions are by singles.

At any rate, the choice for many adoptable children in Florida is not between a homosexual couple and the ideal heterosexual household, but between being adopted by homosexuals and not being adopted at all. This policy is one reason so many Florida youngsters are growing up without a permanent home.

The policy handed down by policymakers in Florida has two components, which can be summarized as follows: Kids are better off with no parents than with gay parents, and if there is evidence to suggest otherwise, we don't want to hear it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0501160377jan16,0,4222939.column

here are some other sites:

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=461
http://www.adoptionflorida.org/

AND here are Christ's words:

"Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?" He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Matthew 25:44,45; see also http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savj1.htm

These religious fanatics are just sick :mad:

[strandinthewind]

AND - mind you, these guys are taking care of these kids knowing full well that the state wants to take them away from them as soon as possible solely because they are gay. How heart wrenching is that. I honestly know of very very few who would so selflessly give of themselves and put the interest of children not legally their own in the face of such clear discrimmination. Yet, these guys do. It just makes me concerrently angry and want to cry at this expression of faith.

[amber]

I really don't understand how Bush has the colossal f***wad nerve to talk about the "culture of life" considering the war he is waging. I really can't. And the frickin democrats better not allow a religious right wing fu**tard on the Supreme Court when that comes up.

[dissention]

I really don't understand how Bush has the colossal f***wad nerve to talk about the "culture of life" considering the war he is waging. I really can't. And the frickin democrats better not allow a religious right wing fu**tard on the Supreme Court when that comes up.

Republicans? Democrats? I didn't know there was a difference. :shrug: :laugh:

[amber]

Republicans? Democrats? I didn't know there was a difference. :shrug: :laugh:
You know, I was gonna say that, but...
I read an interesting article in our paper today about the different styles of Feinstein v. Boxer. Basically, as if i didn't already, it made me really hate Feinstein... she worked with Bush for his "safe logging" bill or whatever, that allowes massive logging under the guise of "fire control". She helped get it passed. :mad:

[dissention]

You know, I was gonna say that, but...
I read an interesting article in our paper today about the different styles of Feinstein v. Boxer. Basically, as if i didn't already, it made me really hate Feinstein... she worked with Bush for his "safe logging" bill or whatever, that allowes massive logging under the guise of "fire control". She helped get it passed. :mad:

:nod:

The Sierra Club sent me a huge book about it. It makes me ill. People like Feinstein are the reason I not only don't support the Democrats anymore, but I'm not a registered Democrat anymore. When the whole party gets some balls like the pair Barbara Boxer has, I'll consider supporting them at some point.

And I still find it rather shocking that Feinstein can be such a Republican in Democrat clothing, especially after the Milk/Moscone tragedy.

[strandinthewind]

:nod:

The Sierra Club sent me a huge book about it. It makes me ill. People like Feinstein are the reason I not only don't support the Democrats anymore, but I'm not a registered Democrat anymore. When the whole party gets some balls like the pair Barbara Boxer has, I'll consider supporting them at some point.

And I still find it rather shocking that Feinstein can be such a Republican in Democrat clothing, especially after the Milk/Moscone tragedy.

:laugh: Diane F. a Republican :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I would LOVE to hear your tell Fox News that one :eek:

[dissention]

:laugh: Diane F. a Republican :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I would LOVE to hear your tell Fox News that one :eek:

You can bet your ass. Right alongside every Republican posing as a Democrat these days. She was a moderate to begin with, but she's gotten very conservative over the years. Might as well just cross party lines and annoint herself Olympia Snowe #2.

[strandinthewind]

You can bet your ass. Right alongside every Republican posing as a Democrat these days. She was a moderate to begin with, but she's gotten very conservative over the years. Might as well just cross party lines and annoint herself Olympia Snowe #2.

She may not be the screaming communist you would like for her to be, but a Republican she most definintely is not :laugh: Of course seeing as how you like O. Snowe - would that be such a bad thing :shrug:

[amber]

:nod:

The Sierra Club sent me a huge book about it. It makes me ill. People like Feinstein are the reason I not only don't support the Democrats anymore, but I'm not a registered Democrat anymore. When the whole party gets some balls like the pair Barbara Boxer has, I'll consider supporting them at some point.

And I still find it rather shocking that Feinstein can be such a Republican in Democrat clothing, especially after the Milk/Moscone tragedy.
what'd she do, there?
She's been skilled at being sneaky and slithery for years. Got her contractor husband a bunch of building jobs around SF, I think, can't remember if it was when she was mayor of SF or what. She's just one of those people *cancers :mad: * Who is a very, very, skilled politician and speaker. In the bad way. I imagine she does things to make all the right people happy while placating others and just never making anyone mad, those kind of people are very dangerous. She makes me sick, really. I'm suprised she has seemingly been able to fool people for so long. Or maybe she hasn't. But i think she has.

[amber]

She may not be the screaming communist you would like for her to be, but a Republican she most definintely is not :laugh: Of course seeing as how you like O. Snowe - would that be such a bad thing :shrug:
She's a Republocrat if ever there was one. If you look that up in the dictionary, I think there's a picture of her next to it. :mad:

[strandinthewind]

She's a Republocrat if ever there was one. If you look that up in the dictionary, I think there's a picture of her next to it. :mad:

well, her position supporting the assault weapons ban would be enough to keep her out of the R Club :shrug:

[dissention]

She may not be the screaming communist you would like for her to be, but a Republican she most definintely is not :laugh: Of course seeing as how you like O. Snowe - would that be such a bad thing :shrug:

I don't like Olympia Snowe's politics, I simply have respect for her because I find her to be a rarity: honest and up front about her beliefs and her politics. She doesn't bull**** and hse doesn't pussyfoot. Democrats could take a cue from her instead of polluting their "beliefs" with polls and focus groups.

Feinstein is too much of a moderate for me. You can have her, but I don't want her. Especially considering the fact that she's helping Shrub rape and pillage the environment.

[dissention]

well, her position supporting the assault weapons ban would be enough to keep her out of the R Club :shrug:

You would think The Gropenfueher's support for same sex marriage would keep him out of the R Club, too, eh?

[amber]

well, her position supporting the assault weapons ban would be enough to keep her out of the R Club :shrug:
Not quite enough for her not to be a Republocrat, though.

[GypsySorcerer]

She's a Republocrat if ever there was one. If you look that up in the dictionary, I think there's a picture of her next to it. :mad:

She voted for that disaster they called the Medicare bill. :eek:

[dissention]

what'd she do, there?

Nothing. A die-hard conservative Republican killed her boss and co-worker because her co-worker was gay and proud of it. You would think she would have seen what those people are all about, not help them further their causes.

[dissention]

She voted for that disaster they called the Medicare bill. :eek:

The one Jason holds in such high regard? :eek: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

You would think The Gropenfueher's support for same sex marriage would keep him out of the R Club, too, eh?

I think ordinarily it would be - well that and the fact that he, as a self-described Republican Montague, married the "Juliet Capulet" of the D party :laugh:

Actually, I think the R's were so desp. to attach a foot hold in Cali. that they took anything they could get. Also, by most accounts, Arnold has not been the disaster that many thought he would be :shrug:

[amber]

She voted for that disaster they called the Medicare bill. :eek:
A-HA!! :mad:
Nothing. A die-hard conservative Republican killed her boss and co-worker because her co-worker was gay and proud of it. You would think she would have seen what those people are all about, not help them further their causes.
well, sure, but no. One of her greatest skills as a republocrat is reading the ins and outs and blowing winds... :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

The one Jason holds in such high regard? :eek: :laugh:

Now now - I said it was a good start that they were trying to do something. Then, after reading the regs implementing it, I said it was a sham. Play fair :wavey:

I believe Trddy K. was, to put it mildly, a great supporter of that sham :shrug: I suppose he is a conservative now :laugh: Now - where is that pic. of W and Teddy K. gloating over the bill :laugh: :wavey:

[amber]

Now now - I said it was a good start that they were trying to do something. Then, after reading the regs implementing it, I said it was a sham. Play fair :wavey:

I believe Trddy K. was, to put it mildly, a great supporter of that sham :shrug: I suppose he is a conservative now :laugh: Now - where is that pic. of W and Teddy K. gloating over the bill :laugh: :wavey:
:distress: :distress:
I always thought Robert was the best of that lot... :cool:

[dissention]

well, her position supporting the assault weapons ban would be enough to keep her out of the R Club :shrug:

Spekaing of playing fair, let's call Feinstein what she truly is: a hypocrite. She's a HUGE proponent for gun control, yet carries concealed weapons on her at all times. There was one point in time where she was the only citizen of San Francisco with a CCW permit. :rolleyes:

[amber]

Spekaing of playing fair, let's call Feinstein what she truly is: a hypocrite. She's a HUGE proponent for gun control, yet carries concealed weapons on her at all times. There was one point in time where she was the only citizen of San Francisco with a CCW permit. :rolleyes:
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:
that's funny!

[dissention]

Now now - I said it was a good start that they were trying to do something. Then, after reading the regs implementing it, I said it was a sham. Play fair :wavey:

:laugh: You spoke incredibly highly of it and then when I called it a sham right before it was enacted, you told me I was loony and that it was fabulous because the AARP approved of it, dear.

I believe Trddy K. was, to put it mildly, a great supporter of that sham :shrug: I suppose he is a conservative now :laugh: Now - where is that pic. of W and Teddy K. gloating over the bill :laugh: :wavey:

He also voted for Iraq. :rolleyes: I would hardly call him a conservative, but surely you would never equate Teddy with a Republican like Dianne Feinstein.

[strandinthewind]

Spekaing of playing fair, let's call Feinstein what she truly is: a hypocrite. She's a HUGE proponent for gun control, yet carries concealed weapons on her at all times. There was one point in time where she was the only citizen of San Francisco with a CCW permit. :rolleyes:

Well, she was the subject of a real threat - I mean they put a BOMB IN HER HOUSE for goodness sake :eek:

Also, and I know you know this but are attempting spin, gun control is not, much to the chagrain of the far far left, no guns at all :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: You spoke incredibly highly of it and then when I called it a sham right before it was enacted, you told me I was loony and that it was fabulous because the AARP approved of it, dear.

Well, you are a loon :p But, I had not read the implementation of it. On its face, the Act was not too bad :shrug:

He also voted for Iraq. :rolleyes: I would hardly call him a conservative, but surely you would never equate Teddy with a Republican like Dianne Feinstein.

First of all, no one ever said the D party was the anti-war party - you said that :wavey: Secondly, Teddy and the rest voted to give W the authorization to chose war as a last resort - interestingly, W did not need Congresses approval - see the War Powers Act :wavey: I suppose Congress could refuse to fund the Pres.' solo implementation of troops, but that would be political suicide.

As to DF and TK - I think they are doin' it :laugh: :eek: :laugh:

[amber]

As to DF and TK - I think they are doin' it :laugh: :eek: :laugh:
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:
hmmm...their signs are compatible...

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:
hmmm...thier signs are compatible...

Well, I always thought Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who is always so well dressed even tough her politics suck :nod: ) and Strom did it - hell to him, she was chicken :laugh: So, Teddy, who is a well known philanderer, could have his finger in that pie :eek: :laugh:

[dissention]

Well, she was the subject of a real threat - I mean they put a BOMB IN HER HOUSE for goodness sake :eek:

And how long has the New World Liberation Front been disbanded? :laugh:

The pint is moot because she's been carrying concealed weapons since '74. The bomb was put there while her husband was dying, which was in '79, I believe.

Also, and I know you know this but are attempting spin, gun control is not, much to the chagrain of the far far left, no guns at all :wavey:

No! Get out!

I never attempted to say that it was, I was simply pointing out what I see as hypocrisy on her part.

[amber]

Well, I always thought Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who is always so well dressed even tough her politics suck :nod: ) and Strom did it - hell to him, she was chicken :laugh: So, Teddy, who is a well known philanderer, could have his finger in that pie :eek: :laugh:
Wouldn't he get a younger, fresher pie? He could probably have anything he wants, i imagine he'd go to a professional before tasting that pie... :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I never attempted to say that it was, I was simply pointing out what I see as hypocrisy on her part.

I am a little unsure of your point here. How does carrying a registered handgun fly in the face of gun control? I could see if she was carrying a gun that had not been controled - controled traditionally is defined as registered, licensing, etc. :shrug:

I hear SPIN :laugh: :p :p

[strandinthewind]

Wouldn't he get a younger, fresher pie? He could probably have anything he wants, i imagine he'd go to a professional before tasting that pie... :laugh:

Bless his drunken heart and pickled liver - I am sure he has been so loaded he has done it with a knot in a tree in a warm Summer evening :laugh:

[dissention]

Well, you are a loon :p But, I had not read the implementation of it. On its face, the Act was not too bad :shrug:

So, you didn't read it before endorsing it? :woohoo:

First of all, no one ever said the D party was the anti-war party - you said that :wavey: Secondly, Teddy and the rest voted to give W the authorization to chose war as a last resort - interestingly, W did not need Congresses approval - see the War Powers Act :wavey: I suppose Congress could refuse to fund the Pres.' solo implementation of troops, but that would be political suicide.

I never said the Democratic party was the anti-war party. My original candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosely Braun, were anti-war candidates. ;) If I ever said the Democratic party was anti-war, I'll eat my shoe right now. Without them, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

And don't give me that "last resort" bull****. It's hogwash and the only thing the spineless cowards have to fall back on.

As to DF and TK - I think they are doin' it :laugh: :eek: :laugh:

Christ, that's a visual that I don't welcome. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

SPIN - I said it was a good start. I neve once said it was the be all and end all of Medicaire reform. Also, HHS ripped it to shreds in implementation :shrug:

Spin Spin Spin :blob1: :blob1: :blob1:

[dissention]

I am a little unsure of your point here. How does carrying a registered handgun fly in the face of gun control? I could see if she was carrying a gun that had not been controled - controled traditionally is defined as registered, licensing, etc. :shrug:

I hear SPIN :laugh: :p :p

Go read some of her Senate comments regarding concealed weapons.

[dissention]

SPIN - I said it was a good start. I neve once said it was the be all and end all of Medicaire reform. Also, HHS ripped it to shreds in implementation :shrug:

Spin Spin Spin :blob1: :blob1: :blob1:

I know you like to spin, you don't have to remind me, darling. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, the "last resort" thing was a brilliant move by Rove. I hate him, but he is a brilliant political strategist. Sadly, the D's and I suspect most R's are too scared of him to stand up to him to any relevant or significant end :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I know you like to spin, you don't have to remind me, darling. :xoxo:

I referred to you alone. That you attempted to drag me into it is, yet again, spin :wavey:

BTW and back to topic - How does carrying a registered handgun fly in the face of gun control? I could see if she was carrying a gun that had not been controled - controled traditionally is defined as registered, licensing, etc. :shrug:

And - I read her comments :nod: I still, however, do not see how carrying a registered gun violates gun control :shrug: :wavey:

[dissention]

And - I read her comments :nod: I still, however, do not see how carrying a registered gun violates gun control :shrug: :wavey:

You've read all of her Senate speeches regarding gun control and you still fail to see her hypocrisy? Methinks you're blowing smoke up my ass. Please stop. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

You've read all of her Senate speeches regarding gun control and you still fail to see her hypocrisy? Methinks you're blowing smoke up my ass. Please stop. :xoxo:

answer the question ya numbskull OR quote from the sections you think support your inane comparison of carrying a registered weapon with a violation of gun control :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Here are some sites on it

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/difiElitist.htm (funny one)

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm

:)

[dissention]

answer the question ya numbskull OR quote from the sections you think support your inane comparison of carrying a registered weapon with a violation of gun control :wavey:

She testified in 1995 that everyone should be able to handle a concealed and registered weapon. She urged everyone who felt helpless to go out, register a weapon, and carry it with them if they felt they needed to do so to feel safe. What she failed to mention is that CCW permits are only issued to politicians, celebrities, and police officers. She's a bull**** artist, simply put.

[gldstwmn]

I really don't understand how Bush has the colossal f***wad nerve to talk about the "culture of life" considering the war he is waging. I really can't. And the frickin democrats better not allow a religious right wing fu**tard on the Supreme Court when that comes up.

How are they going to stop it?

[gldstwmn]

You know, I was gonna say that, but...
I read an interesting article in our paper today about the different styles of Feinstein v. Boxer. Basically, as if i didn't already, it made me really hate Feinstein... she worked with Bush for his "safe logging" bill or whatever, that allowes massive logging under the guise of "fire control". She helped get it passed. :mad:

I don't care for Feinstein.

[strandinthewind]

She testified in 1995 that everyone should be able to handle a concealed and registered weapon. She urged everyone who felt helpless to go out, register a weapon, and carry it with them if they felt they needed to do so to feel safe. What she failed to mention is that CCW permits are only issued to politicians, celebrities, and police officers. She's a bull**** artist, simply put.

Says who? Last I checked any California resident could get a permit to carry a gun :shrug: In fact, here is San Diego's website http://www.sdsheriff.net/mgt_serv/licensing/ccw.html

to wit:

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE

Enclosed is an application for a concealed weapons license. Please review it carefully. If you choose to submit this application, complete all sections with the exception of the two signature areas. Then collect the documentation to support your request and complete the additional safety training class as required by law. The documentation required to support your application is explained below.

Applications must be submitted to Sheriff’s License Division in person. Please call Sheriff’s License Division at 858-974-2020 to schedule an appointment. Appointments may be set between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Fridays. You will need to allow an hour for the interview, fingerprints and photograph.

The Department of Justice and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department are both involved in the processing of this application and each agency requires certain fees. The current fee schedule is as follows:

Initial Application Fees
Cash or check made payable to San Diego Sheriff’s Department for $44.00 plus a money order made payable to DOJ as shown below:

Standard (Two-year) license 100.00 money order

Judicial (Three-year) license 122.00 money order

Reserve Peace Officer (Four-year) 144.00 money order

Renewal Fees
A single payment in the form of cash or check made payable to San Diego Sheriff’s Department shall be submitted for renewal of a CCW permit as shown below:

Standard (Two-year) license 67.00

Judicial (Three-year) license 89.00

Reserve Peace Officer (Four-year) 111.00

Fees are subject to change as allowed by law. They are processing fees and as such are not refundable regardless of the decision made on the application.

Applicants must complete a course of training prior to submitting this application. Enclosed is a list of instructors whose course curriculum is accepted by this Department as meeting the criteria for PC12050(a)(1)(B) and (E). Applicants may contact anyone on the list for this training.

Documentation
All new applicants must demonstrate they are residents of San Diego County, have good cause and good moral character, pursuant to PC 12050. For purposes of this application, applicants must submit proof of residency in the form of two current, unpaid utility bills that list their name, service address and mailing address (or other similar type proof). Three character reference letters are required to assist in substantiating good moral character. These letters must be written by local residents and contain a local address and phone number. Letters will not be accepted from any relatives. The writer must also acknowledge he or she understands the letter is for an application for a concealed weapons permit.

Good cause is an individual issue; however, if applying for business purposes, proof that you are in actual and legitimate business will be required. Business owners must submit proof of business ownership and employees must submit a letter from their employer stating he or she approves of and accepts the liability for the employee carrying a concealed weapon while performing business duties. Valid California identification is also required.

Law Enforcement employees who are required to qualify quarterly are exempt from the requirement of the training class. Call for information on this and exemption of character reference letters.

Other verifications will be requested on an individual basis. Residence verifications, proof of good cause and proof of training class are required with subsequent (renewal) applications.

If there are other questions not already addressed, please call Sheriff’s License Division.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, SHERIFF



Blanca Pelowitz, Manager
License Division



But, even if you are correct, that does not make her a hypocrite against gun control - nice try though :cool:

[strandinthewind]

How are they going to stop it?

they cannot and they know it. I have been thinking lately that the D's want to shed the abortion issue as it is so devisive - maybe by not opposing too hard the pro-life nominee, they can rid themselves of that issue :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I don't care for Feinstein.

she is not my fav. either :cool:

[gldstwmn]

well, her position supporting the assault weapons ban would be enough to keep her out of the R Club :shrug:

Then you would have to include Reagan and Giuliani in that statement.

[strandinthewind]

Then you would have to include Reagan and Giuliani in that statement.

I have always said RR and to a greater extent RG were moderates, esp. compared to the fundamentalist religious right that controls the R party these days. I mean RG lived with two partnered gay guys while his estranged wife lived in the Gov. Mansion and while he was carrying on with his mistress. That is hardly the model for the current moral obsessed R party :laugh:

The R party today wants a free for all when it comes to carrying and buying guns :shrug: They think any legal control is an unontitutional intrusion :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

I believe Trddy K. was, to put it mildly, a great supporter of that sham :shrug:

Wrong. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

He also voted for Iraq. :rolleyes:

HE DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE MEDICARE BILL. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. :)

[strandinthewind]

Wrong. :distress:

Ted Kennedy supported the Medicare Reform Bill :shrug:

I remember seeing W and TK in a photo op congratulating themselves on their bipartisanship in getting the bill through :shrug: If I am remembering something else - then I am wrong and hereso state it :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Here is Ted K. on the issues:

Ted Kennedy on Health Care



Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit.
S. 1 As Amended; Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $400 billion over 10 years to create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients beginning in 2006. Seniors would be allowed to remain within the traditional fee-for-service program or seniors would have the option to switch to a Medicare Advantage program that includes prescription drug coverage. Private insurers would provide prescription drug coverage. Private Insurers would engage in competitive bidding to be awarded two-year regional contracts by the Center for Medicare Choices under the Department of Health and Human Services.Enrolled seniors would pay a $275 deductible and an average monthly premium of $35. Annual drug costs beyond the deductible and up to $4,500 would be divided equally between the beneficiary and the insurer. Beneficiaries with incomes below 160 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for added assistance.
Reference: Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill; Bill S.1/H.R.1 ; vote number 2003-262 on Jun 26, 2003

Voted YES on allowing importation of Rx drugs from Canada.
S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002. Vote to pass a bill that would permit a single 30-month stay against Food and Drug Administration approval of a generic drug patent when a brand-name company's patent is challenged. The secretary of Health and Human Services would be authorized to announce regulations allowing pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers that provide drugs for importation would be required to register with Health and Human Services. Individuals would be allowed to import prescription drugs from Canada. The medication would have to be for an individual use and a supply of less than 90-days.
Bill S.812 ; vote number 2002-201 on Jul 31, 2002

Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages.
Vote to provide federal protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and allow patients to sue health insurers in state and federal courts. Economic damages would not be capped, and punitive damages would be capped at $5 million.
Bill S1052 ; vote number 2001-220 on Jun 29, 2001

Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011. The money would come from the budget's contingency fund. The amendment would also require a Medicare overhaul.
Bill H Con Res 83 ; vote number 2001-65 on Apr 3, 2001

Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
Vote to establish a prescription drug benefit program through the Medicare health insurance program. Among other provisions, Medicare would contribute at least 50% of the cost of prescription drugs and beneficiaries would pay a $250 deductible
Bill HR.4690 ; vote number 2000-144 on Jun 22, 2000

Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction.
The Santorum (R-PA) amdt would effectively kill the Kennedy Amdt (D-MA) which would have allowed self-employed individuals to fully deduct the cost of their health insurance on their federal taxes.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)53; N)47
Reference: Santorum Amdt #1234; Bill S. 1344 ; vote number 1999-202 on Jul 13, 1999

Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions.
This cloture motion was on a bill which would have increased tobacco restrictions. [YES is an anti-smoking vote].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)57; N)42; NV)1
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on a modified committee substitute to S. 1415; Bill S. 1415 ; vote number 1998-161 on Jun 17, 1998

Voted NO on banning human cloning.
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998

Voted NO on Medicare means-testing.
Approval of means-based testing for Medicare insurance premiums.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)70; N)20
Reference: Motion to table the Kennedy Amdt #440; Bill S. 947 ; vote number 1997-113 on Jun 24, 1997

Voted YES on medical savings acounts.
Vote to block a plan which would allow tax-deductible medical savings accounts.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)52; N)46; NV)2
Reference: Kassebaum Amdt #3677; Bill S. 1028 ; vote number 1996-72 on Apr 18, 1996

Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage.
Kennedy sponsored the Nurse Reinvestment Act

Amends Medicare to provide for nurse education training payments to qualified entities.
Amends Medicaid to temporarily increase the matching rate for Medicaid nurse aide training and competency evaluation programs.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for the exclusion from gross income of amounts received under the National Nursing Service Corps Scholarship Program.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to: (1) develop and issue public service announcements that advertise and promote the nursing profession, highlight the advantages and rewards of nursing, and encourage individuals from diverse communities and backgrounds to enter the nursing profession; and (2) award grants to designated eligible educational entities in order to increase the number of nurses.
Establishes a National Nurse Service Corps Scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking nursing education in exchange for service by such individuals in areas with nursing shortages. Authorizes appropriations.
Source: Bill sponsored by 39 Senators 01-S706 on Apr 5, 2001

Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations.
Kennedy signed a letter from 30 Senators to the Secretary of HHS
To: The Honorable Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services

Dear Secretary Thompson:

As you know, prescription drug costs have been surging at double-digit rates for the last six years. The average annual increase 1999 through 2003 was a massive 16%, seven times the rate of general inflation.

These increases fall hardest on senior citizens and the uninsured. Their health needs are often great, and their low incomes often make these products unaffordable. They have no ability to use their combined purchasing power to negotiate reasonable prices. Taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars for the purchase of drugs by Medicaid—an expense that could be reduced significantly if states are permitted to negotiate for the best prices from drug manufacturers.

As you know, the Supreme Court has just ruled that Maine's innovative program to reduce prescription drug costs for the uninsured and senior citizens is not a violation of the Medicaid law. As a result of this decision, Maine can use the combined buying power of Medicaid and individuals purchasing drugs on their own to negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers. Twenty-nine other states supported the position taken by Maine, and there is broad interest in many states in initiating similar programs.

The Supreme Court's ruling, however, left open the possibility that if the Department of Health and Human Services makes a finding that the Maine program violates the Medicaid statute, the Department's action would be upheld by the Court. We urge you not to intervene to block Maine's program or similar statutes in other states that achieve savings for taxpayers, the elderly, and the uninsured. Such programs must be carefully implemented to assure that the poor are not denied access to needed drugs, but there is no justification for the federal government to deny states the ability to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of their neediest citizens.

Source: Letter from 30 Senators to the Secretary of HHS 03-SEN6 on May 20, 2003

Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
Kennedy scores 100% by APHA on health issues
The American Public Health Association (APHA) is the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health. APHA is concerned with a broad set of issues affecting personal and environmental health, including federal and state funding for health programs, pollution control, programs and policies related to chronic and infectious diseases, a smoke-free society, and professional education in public health.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: APHA website 03n-APHA on Dec 31, 2003

End government propaganda on Medicare bill.
Kennedy signed a letter from 6 Senators to Directors of Television Networks
Recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through a public relations firm, distributed Video News Releases (VNRs) to numerous local television news stations across the country. These VNRs contain pre-scripted news story packages and B-Roll designed to influence local news station to run stories complimentary of the new Medicare law recently signed by President Bush. However, these VNRs may mislead many news stations because they do not identify that they are produced by the government. In addition, these materials are currently being evaluated to determine whether they are illegal "covert propaganda."

We urge you to immediately warn stations not to use these materials and pull any stories that use them.

These tapes can be identified as follows: Two English-language versions begin with B-Roll of video slides promoting the new Medicare law, followed by interview soundbites from Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and Leslie Norwalk, Acting Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). Following these soundbites, a complete television news package is run, with a voice-over by a fictional reporter named "Karen Ryan." Following the news package, more B-Roll is provided, including scenes of President Bush's rally at the signing of the bill, scenes from a pharmacy and scenes of seniors playing table games.

It is critical to the credibility of an independent news media that covert government propaganda be rejected for use by news organizations. We also believe that honest government should not resort to such deceptive tactics, and it is our belief that these materials violate the above-mentioned Federal law. Thank you for your cooperation with this request.

Source: Letter from 6 Senators to Directors of Television Networks 04-SEN3 on Mar 15, 2004

Collect data on birth defects and present to the public.
Kennedy sponsored the Birth Defects Prevention Act

Directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out programs to:
collect and analyze, and make available data on the causes of birth defects and on the incidence and prevalence of such defects;
operate regional centers for the conduct of applied epidemiological research on the prevention of such defects;
provide information and education to the public on the prevention of such defects;
collect and analyze data by gender and by racial and ethnic group9/6/2004
collect such data from birth and death certificates, hospital records, and such other sources; and
(3) encourage States to establish or improve programs for the collection and analysis of epidemiological data on birth defects and to make the data available.
Corresponding House bill is H.R.1114. Became Public Law No: 105-168.
Source: Bill sponsored by 35 Senators and 164 Reps 97-S419 on Mar 11, 1997

http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Ted_Kennedy_Health_Care.htm

[gldstwmn]

He also voted for Iraq. :rolleyes:

No sweetheart, he didn't.

[gldstwmn]

Secondly, Teddy and the rest voted to give W the authorization to chose war as a last resort

Senator Kennedy did not vote for the Medicare Bill or for the Iraq War Resolution (114). He voted NAY on both.

[strandinthewind]

No sweetheart, he didn't.

He most certainly did not:

Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:
$5.1 billion for security
$5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
$65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
$1.3 billion for veterans medical care
$10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.
Reference: FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan; Bill S1689 ; vote number 2003-400 on Oct 17, 2003

Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002

http://www.issues2000.org/International/Ted_Kennedy_War_+_Peace.htm

I am wrong :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Ted Kennedy supported the Medicare Reform Bill :shrug:


Sigh.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 1 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 459 Vote Date: November 25, 2003, 09:23 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 1 (Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003 )
Measure Title: An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a voluntary prescription drug benefit under the medicare program and to strengthen and improve the medicare program, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 54
NAYs 44
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Not Voting
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

[strandinthewind]

Ah ha - I was wrong.

BTW - what was the photo op thing - maybe it was educaiton?

[strandinthewind]

It was the education bill

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1.html

Interestingly, that bill is hardly a bastion of liberalism :laugh:

[dissention]

Says who? Last I checked any California resident could get a permit to carry a gun :shrug: In fact, here is San Diego's website http://www.sdsheriff.net/mgt_serv/licensing/ccw.html

to wit:

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE

Enclosed is an application for a concealed weapons license. Please review it carefully. If you choose to submit this application, complete all sections with the exception of the two signature areas. Then collect the documentation to support your request and complete the additional safety training class as required by law. The documentation required to support your application is explained below.

Applications must be submitted to Sheriff’s License Division in person. Please call Sheriff’s License Division at 858-974-2020 to schedule an appointment. Appointments may be set between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Fridays. You will need to allow an hour for the interview, fingerprints and photograph.

The Department of Justice and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department are both involved in the processing of this application and each agency requires certain fees. The current fee schedule is as follows:

Initial Application Fees
Cash or check made payable to San Diego Sheriff’s Department for $44.00 plus a money order made payable to DOJ as shown below:

Standard (Two-year) license 100.00 money order

Judicial (Three-year) license 122.00 money order

Reserve Peace Officer (Four-year) 144.00 money order

Renewal Fees
A single payment in the form of cash or check made payable to San Diego Sheriff’s Department shall be submitted for renewal of a CCW permit as shown below:

Standard (Two-year) license 67.00

Judicial (Three-year) license 89.00

Reserve Peace Officer (Four-year) 111.00

Fees are subject to change as allowed by law. They are processing fees and as such are not refundable regardless of the decision made on the application.

Applicants must complete a course of training prior to submitting this application. Enclosed is a list of instructors whose course curriculum is accepted by this Department as meeting the criteria for PC12050(a)(1)(B) and (E). Applicants may contact anyone on the list for this training.

Documentation
All new applicants must demonstrate they are residents of San Diego County, have good cause and good moral character, pursuant to PC 12050. For purposes of this application, applicants must submit proof of residency in the form of two current, unpaid utility bills that list their name, service address and mailing address (or other similar type proof). Three character reference letters are required to assist in substantiating good moral character. These letters must be written by local residents and contain a local address and phone number. Letters will not be accepted from any relatives. The writer must also acknowledge he or she understands the letter is for an application for a concealed weapons permit.

Good cause is an individual issue; however, if applying for business purposes, proof that you are in actual and legitimate business will be required. Business owners must submit proof of business ownership and employees must submit a letter from their employer stating he or she approves of and accepts the liability for the employee carrying a concealed weapon while performing business duties. Valid California identification is also required.

Law Enforcement employees who are required to qualify quarterly are exempt from the requirement of the training class. Call for information on this and exemption of character reference letters.

Other verifications will be requested on an individual basis. Residence verifications, proof of good cause and proof of training class are required with subsequent (renewal) applications.

If there are other questions not already addressed, please call Sheriff’s License Division.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, SHERIFF



Blanca Pelowitz, Manager
License Division



But, even if you are correct, that does not make her a hypocrite against gun control - nice try though :cool:

Everyone could get a CCW permit when she made those statements? Boy, that's news to me. :D

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf2.jpg

[dissention]

Doncha just love how Miss Gun Control has her finger on the TRIGGER of an AK-47 in that picture? What a twit.

[gldstwmn]

Saying GOP Broke Word, Kennedy Vows New Tactics
by Susan Millian
WASHINGTON -- When the Senate voted last summer to provide Medicare patients with prescription drug coverage, a fiery Senator Edward M. Kennedy hailed the bill as "the greatest action in a generation to mend the broken promise of Medicare."

The senator's readiness to compromise with Republicans has irritated some of his liberal allies, who were baffled by his support of the USA Patriot Act, for instance, and his refusal to back importation of prescription drugs from Canada and Europe.

Now, it is Kennedy complaining about broken promises, after Republican leaders took the bill Kennedy painstakingly negotiated and morphed it into an industry-friendly "Medicare reform" package that opens the 38-year-old entitlement program to competition with private insurers. The senator, who had spent months cajoling Democrats to back his version of the legislation, was back on the floor this week with equal passion, pleading with his colleagues to stop the measure he charged had been "hijacked" by Republicans.

It was the second time Kennedy had seen legacy-building legislation he had crafted become a source of disappointment and division within his own party. No Child Left Behind, Kennedy's signature education reform bill, was underfunded by the Bush administration and is being attacked by teachers for undermining local control of schools.

Some Democrats complain that Kennedy, in a reach for career-capping legislation, has ended up handing two of the party's most potent issues to the Republicans.

Kennedy himself blames President Bush and the GOP, alleging unfair dealing.

"When the president of the United States looks you in the eye and says the resources will be there, I believe it," Kennedy said, referring to the funding for the education bill. But "the resources haven't been there."

In response, Kennedy vowed to change his own tactics, saying he wants to "pre-conference" bills to avoid building support for legislation that, once passed by the Senate, gets rewritten in conference committees with conservative House members.

But in the wake of the Medicare negotiations, many are skeptical of Kennedy's ability to advance his agenda. Lawmakers and analysts are quick to note that Kennedy still carries tremendous clout in Washington, but they question whether the Senate's second-most-senior member can achieve the goals he seeks in education and health care in a brutally partisan Congress.

There is a "much sharper ideological polarization now than when Kennedy did much of his signature legislating," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar with the Brookings Institution. "And the Republicans in the White House and in the majority in Congress are more focused, unified, and tough in pursuing their policy and political objectives than Democrats ever were in a comparable position."

Kennedy carries a national reputation as one of the Democratic Party's most dedicated liberals, a man whose craggy, well-known face raises beloved memories of Camelot among Democrats and stokes the anger of conservative Republicans. But on Capitol Hill, the 71-year-old senator is known as a deal-maker, wheedling what he can get by developing unlikely alliances with such conservative Republican senators as Don Nickles of Oklahoma and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who said he came to Washington "to fight Ted Kennedy" counts his Judiciary Committee colleague as a personal friend; Kennedy's 70th birthday party at his home last year was attended by several high-ranking Republicans and Bush administration officials.

The senator's readiness to compromise with Republicans has irritated some of his liberal allies, who were baffled by his support of the USA Patriot Act, for instance, and his refusal to back importation of prescription drugs from Canada and Europe.

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, was among those perplexed by Kennedy's efforts this summer to pass the original Medicare bill and disappointed by the reality of No Child Left Behind, which imposes performance and testing standards on schools.

"I followed his lead on No Child Left Behind, and I'm sorry I voted for the darn thing," Harkin said in an interview this summer. But Harkin, like many of Kennedy's friends, this week defended Kennedy's efforts on Medicare. Kennedy lined up Democratic support for an initial bill that was hailed as a bipartisan compromise. Then, Republican leaders went behind Kennedy's back to rewrite the bill to their own specifications. When it finally emerged, it was vastly different. The provision exposing some aspects of Medicare to private competition was added completely.

"I can understand why Senator Kennedy is upset," Harkin said.

But it was too late for Kennedy, who mounted a lonely and passionate campaign to kill the bill the senator charged was "a calculated program to unravel Medicare, to privatize it, to voucherize it, and to force senior citizens into the cold arms of HMOs." Defeated Tuesday on one of his most dearly-held issues, Kennedy walked off the floor, politely rebuffing approaches by several of his friends and colleagues who had just voted to transform a program whose creation Kennedy had witnessed from the same chamber nearly four decades before.

"You have to wonder if Senator Kennedy had not gotten out ahead up front on Medicare and prescription drugs, whether the momentum . . . would have ever gotten as strong as it got to be," said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst. "He basically credentialed the Republican effort. By the time he jumped off the train, it had already built up momentum."

Conservatives maintain that for all of his complaints, Kennedy has gotten largely what he wanted: nearly $395 billion in new drug benefits under Medicare, representing the biggest expansion of the Great Society program in its history, as well as a record level of education spending under the still not fully funded No Child Left Behind package.

"Kennedy got Republicans to build the infrastructure of the Medicare entitlement" for prescription drugs, which will probably receive more funding in the future, said Robert Moffet, a health care analyst with the Heritage Foundation. "I don't see this as a loss for Senator Kennedy." Tom Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said he would be "astounded" if Kennedy did not ultimately support the program "when the politics calm down."

Kennedy, for his part, said his experience with Medicare has convinced him to take new measures to protect other bills he has been negotiating with Republicans, including the reauthorization of Head Start and the IDEA program for disabled students. He said he will demand commitments up front that Democrats be included in conference committees, and that major changes are avoided.

On future bills, Kennedy said, he will have to ask himself, "Do we pass this, or not pass this? Will it get hijacked in conference? We may have to have a situation where you don't pass the bill unless you pre-conference it" -- that is, obtain a firm agreement with House leaders in advance.

Looking tired but resolute despite his recent defeat, Kennedy vowed to start fighting for the bills he cares about on next year's agenda.

"We've got a Republican White House, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate -- it's difficult," he said. But "If I were to make up my mind that there's no need to try, I wouldn't remain in the Senate."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1127-04.htm

[dissention]

Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting

Jeezum crow. :laugh:

[dissention]

Dianne Feinstein, 4-27-95: “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Dianne Feinstein on 60 Minutes in 1995: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban…I would have done it.”

[gldstwmn]

Jeezum crow. :laugh:

I know. You think we could have sensed there was a problem then? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Everyone could get a CCW permit when she made those statements? Boy, that's news to me. :D

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf2.jpg

pretty much everyone (save former convicts, etc.) - but you have to apply and pass the background check and other criteria - which is what they mean when they say "gun control" :wavey: - If you know differently, let's see the law :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Dianne Feinstein, 4-27-95: “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Dianne Feinstein on 60 Minutes in 1995: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban…I would have done it.”

well, who the would not. She is saying if she could get rid of all of the guns she would. But that will never happen :shrug: Thus, gun control - which and again is not banning all guns.

You lose so gracefully :rolleyes:

[dissention]

pretty much everyone (save former convicts, etc.) - but you have to apply and pass the background check and other criteria - which is what they mean when they say "gun control" :wavey: - If you know differently, let's see the law :wavey:

You're talking out of your ass and you know it. :xoxo: CCW permits were for the politicians, celebs, and police officers. Go look up the history of CCW permits in California and get back to me. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

You're talking out of your ass and you know it. :xoxo: CCW permits were for the politicians, celebs, and police officers. Go look up the history of CCW permits in California and get back to me. :wavey:

I did - it does not support you.

[dissention]

well, who the would not. She is saying if she could get rid of all of the guns she would. But that will never happen :shrug: Thus, gun control - which and again is not banning all guns.

You lose so gracefully :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Miss Feinstein should have the right to carry concealed weapons, but us peasants shouldn't, eh?

[gldstwmn]

Everyone could get a CCW permit when she made those statements? Boy, that's news to me. :D

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf2.jpg

Please tell me that Representative Diana DeGette is not standing behind her in that photo.

[dissention]

I did - it does not support you.

You obviously didn't and it does. :wavey:

Again, look up the history of CCW permits in California and get back to me.

[dissention]

No sweetheart, he didn't.

I know, I was being sarcastic, dear. :laugh: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

:rolleyes:

Miss Feinstein should have the right to carry concealed weapons, but us peasants shouldn't, eh?

Hmmmmmm - did I just read La Boxer has a CCW permit and her body guards are armed - hmmmmmmmm

[gldstwmn]

I know, I was being sarcastic, dear. :laugh: :xoxo:

We need more emoticons on this board. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I know, I was being sarcastic, dear. :laugh: :xoxo:

SPIN SPIN SPIN

At least I can say when I am wrong :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

We need more emoticons on this board. :laugh:

Yea - one of Diss SPINNNNNNNINNNNNGGGGGGG :woohoo: :p :p :p :xoxo: :angel:

[dissention]

Here's a good informational site on CCW permits in California:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/

In California, a "CCW" ("Carry Concealed Weapons") permit allows
you to legally defend your life with a gun outside of your home or
business.

To get one, you need to pass a background check and get trained.

No problem there.

The problem, and the reason there's only about 39,000 permits in the
whole state, is that you also have to get the personal permission of
your police chief or sheriff, who decides on your "good cause for
issuance".

For some reason, wealthy major campaign contributors tend to have
more "good cause" than others. And minorities consistently have none.

[strandinthewind]

In any even, and leaving the tangent and returning to the topic - With W now completely open in his support for overturning Roe, Scalia as Chief Justice, a pro-life nominee, and spineless D's - Roe is on shaky grounds :eek:

[dissention]

SPIN SPIN SPIN

At least I can say when I am wrong :wavey:

He's my Senator, dear, I think I'd know his voting record before tooting his horn. :p

The :rolleyes: emoticon didn't tip you off?

[strandinthewind]

Here's a good informational site on CCW permits in California:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/

In California, a "CCW" ("Carry Concealed Weapons") permit allows
you to legally defend your life with a gun outside of your home or
business.

To get one, you need to pass a background check and get trained.

No problem there.

The problem, and the reason there's only about 39,000 permits in the
whole state, is that you also have to get the personal permission of
your police chief or sheriff, who decides on your "good cause for
issuance".

For some reason, wealthy major campaign contributors tend to have
more "good cause" than others. And minorities consistently have none.

Boy that site sure is well known and fe facto reliable in its gossip you assert as a factual conclusion :laugh: :rolleyes

It is a county by county standard. That is not what you said. But, blah blah blah - you will never admit you were wrong so what is the point :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

He's my Senator, dear, I think I'd know his voting record before tooting his horn. :p

The :rolleyes: emoticon didn't tip you off?

no - BUT the past billion (sarcasm :wavey: ) times you have been called out on error and claimed sarcasm did :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

you will never admit you were wrong so what is the point :laugh:

Because I'm not. I think I clearly referred to the period of time in which she made those comments: 1995. CCW permits have been issued much more widespread recently, surely you don't think I'm arguing against that. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Because I'm not. I think I clearly referred to the period of time in which she made those comments: 1995. CCW permits have been issued much more widespread recently, surely you don't think I'm arguing against that. :shrug:

I want facts from 1995 - you asserted it - now prove it :wavey:

[dissention]

no - BUT the past billion (sarcasm :wavey: ) times you have been called out on error and claimed sarcasm did :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

If you have a problem distinguishing sarcasm, I suggest paying closer attention to my posts. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

If you have a problem distinguishing sarcasm, I suggest paying closer attention to my posts. :xoxo:

I usually assume they are all sacrcastic, which was sarcasm lest there be confusion :laugh:

[dissention]

I want facts from 1995 - you asserted it - now prove it :wavey:

Actually, I'd go much further back than 1995, I'd go back to the seventies considering that's the period of time in which she first acquired her CCW permit. I wonder how widespread and easy to get they were back then for common peasants with no criminal records. ;) :rolleyes:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It's so frustrating. If men bore children abortion would be legal and stay legal.

Here's the Bush abortion story for anyone interested.
http://drunkreport.com/reports/bushabortion.htm

Thats so false! Why do you guys make it into a womens issue? It has nothing to do with women OR men (If a man were the one to give birth...it STILL would be called MURDER). It has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN and everything to do with LIFE!

[Hawkeye]

Wow it's a busy night. Women's Rights, Animal Rights and Abortion all going simultainiously tonight.

[irishgrl]

interesting article on the CA Gun Law:

Study of California gun law finds blacks most likely to face felony charges
LAST UPDATE: 1/24/2005 8:36:38 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - A study of California's weapons registration law found that blacks were far more likely to be charged with a felony than whites, who were more often charged with a misdemeanor for the same offense.

The study by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer prompted calls for changes from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the lawmaker who authored the legislation defended it.

The study examined data on how the law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2000, is being applied. The law makes it illegal for anyone to possess a gun who is not registered with the state as that firearm's owner. Offenders can be charged with a felony or a misdemeanor, a lesser count.

In 2003, less than 40 percent of whites faced felony charges under the law; more than 70 percent of blacks and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics were charged with felonies.

"Blacks were proportionately most likely to be filed on at the felony level, followed by Hispanics, other race/ethnic groups, and whites. This pattern exists throughout the period shown," the report states.

The law's author, Democratic state Sen. Jack Scott, said he left in the option of a misdemeanor charge in the event an individual has a good excuse for possessing a weapon not registered to him - for instance, if the weapon is properly registered in the name of a spouse or other close relative.

Scott noted many of those charged with felony possession of an illegal handgun also were charged with other felonies at the same time. "Perhaps more dangerous individuals are charged with a felony," he said.

Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State Conference of the NAACP, said her organization will work with the Legislature's black caucus to change the law or its enforcement.

"We know intuitively that we are being dealt with more harshly than whites. This just reinforces it," she said. The overall disparity is such that "I don't know what else it could be other than race," she said.

[irishgrl]

CA Attorney General/DOJ (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/)

actual link to county by county CCW permits:
CCW permits (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances.pdf)

this link is to a page by the Brady Bill suppporters that has FAQs re: CA gun control laws:
FAQs for CA gun control laws (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ca)
aw heck, here's the actual stuff:
ANTI-TRAFFICKING
Is there a one-handgun-per-month limit on gun sales? Yes

California - State law restricts gun-trafficking by limiting the number of handguns that can be purchased at one time. No more than one handgun may be purchased by a person within a 30-day period. This restriction on bulk-buying of handguns helps prevent gun traffickers from buying handguns at gun stores and reselling them on the street to criminals.

[Return to the Menu]

ASSAULT WEAPONS
Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? Yes

California - State law restricts the sale of all semiautomatic assault weapons that have specific military features such as pistol grips and folding stocks as well as a list of assault weapons and their copies such as the AK47 and Uzi. People who owned such assault weapons prior to the law are required to register the weapons and may not sell or give them to anyone else in the state. State law also restricts the sale of rapid-fire ammunition magazines in excess of 10 rounds.

[Return to the Menu]

ATTORNEY GENERAL REGULATIONS
May Attorney General regulate guns? No

California: State law does not clearly authorize the Attorney General to independently regulate firearms or establish gun safety standards as part of the Attorney General?s responsibility to protect consumers.

[Return to the Menu]

BACKGROUND CHECK AT STATE LEVEL
Do state police perform a background check in addition to federal NICS check? Yes

California - State law requires gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check in addition to the federal NICS check. This is the best system since it includes checking both state and federal records to prevent criminals and other prohibited people from buying guns. In addition, in 2002 the state enacted a law to require gun dealers shipping guns into or within California to verify with state law enforcement that the recipient dealer was legitimate. Also see: Licensing and Waiting Period.

[Return to the Menu]

BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING
Must handguns be ballistic fingerprinted prior to sale? No

California - No state requirement that gun dealers or manufacturers provide police with sample bullets/cartridges or digital images of bullets/cartridges prior to the sale of a handgun, ?ballistic fingerprinting,? which would assist police in tracing bullets at crime scenes to the guns that fired them.

[Return to the Menu]

CCW LIMITS
May police limit carrying concealed handguns? Yes

California - State law allows police chiefs and state sheriffs to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons (CCW) in public. Police chiefs and state sheriffs ?may issue" permits that allow people to carry concealed weapons if police believe it is in the interest of public safety. Anyone so approved by local law enforcement must undergo safety training in the legal and safe use of the weapon and there are limits in where they may carry such weapons.

[Return to the Menu]

CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION - CAP
Are gun owners held accountable for leaving guns accessible to kids? Yes

California - State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child under 18 years old and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone or the gun is taken to school. Gun stores are required to post warnings about the law to educate gun owners about their responsibility to safely secure their weapons.

[Return to the Menu]

CHILD-SAFETY LOCKS
Must locking devices be sold with guns? Yes

California - State law requires every gun to be sold with a state-approved child-safety lock to make it easier for gun owners to lock up their weapons. The locks must be of sufficient quality to meet state approval. The state contracts with independent laboratories to test gun locks to make sure the locks will work and cannot be easily removed by unauthorized people. But the law does NOT require gun owners to actually use the safety locks to secure their weapons - the law only says they must be sold with guns. California also prohibits the sale of any gun lock that has not been certified as effective by the state. See also: Safety Standards.

[Return to the Menu]

GUN MANUFACTURER ACCOUNTABILITY
Do cities have authority to hold gun makers legally liable? Yes

California - State law allows cities and local governments to take legal action to hold gun manufacturers accountable if they act irresponsibly in the way they design, market or distribute weapons. In addition, in 2002 the legislature repealed a state law that had given separate legal immunity to the gun industry in certain cases.

[Return to the Menu]

GUN SHOW CHECKS
Are background checks required at gun shows? Yes

California - State law requires people buying guns at gun shows (or anywhere else) to undergo the same criminal background check as is required for sales that occur at federally-licensed gun stores. The state requires gun show sellers to use an authorized federal gun dealer at the gun show to send background check information to the state Department of Justice. All sales at gun shows are also subject to the state's 10-day waiting period. See also: Secondary Sales and Waiting Period.

[Return to the Menu]

JUVENILE POSSESSION
Are minors restricted from possessing guns? Partial

California - State law restricts juveniles under 18 from possessing handguns without parental permission or authorized supervision. But there are no direct restrictions on juveniles possessing rifles or shotguns without parental permission or supervision. See also: Juvenile Sale. can I just say this is about the dumbest law EVER?

[Return to the Menu]

JUVENILE SALE
Is it illegal to sell guns to kids? Yes

California - State law restricts selling or giving handguns to juveniles under 21, and other firearms to juveniles under 18, except for supervised loans of firearms or for limited lawful activities (such as hunting). See also: Juvenile Possession.

[Return to the Menu]

LICENSE OR PERMIT TO PURCHASE
Is a license/permit required to buy handguns? Yes

California - State law requires handgun buyers to obtain a "handgun safety certificate" (like a license) prior to purchasing a handgun. The handgun buyer must pass a written safety test and a hands-on safety demonstration and provide fingerprints and proof of residency. The certificate is also required for anyone who wishes to be "loaned" a handgun outside of the presence of the owner.

[Return to the Menu]

LOCAL GUN LAWS - PREEMPTION
May cities enact laws stronger than the state's? Yes

California - State law allows cities to enact local gun laws to regulate firearms that are stronger than state law or that fill loopholes in state law and many state laws began as city or county ordinances. But local governments are restricted in "licensing" or "registering" firearms.

Many of California's gun laws began as local ordinances. In addition, some local jurisdictions have restricted the sale of ultra-compact handguns, restricted teh sale of 50-caliber sniper rifles, required gun dealers to keep records on ammunition sales, restricted where gun dealers operate, and prohibited gun shows on local government property.

[Return to the Menu]

RECORD KEEPING
May police maintain gun sale records? Yes

California - State law authorizes law enforcement to keep a record of every handgun sold or transferred in the state, but the state does not keep any records on the sale of rifles or shotguns. The handgun sale records are maintained by state law enforcement for use in gun tracing and related criminal investigations. People who move into California with guns must provide a record to state law enforcement. Also see: Registration.

[Return to the Menu]

REGISTRATION
Are all guns registered with law enforcement? Partial

California - State law only requires registration of assault weapons. No state requirement that other firearms be registered. Police do not known how many guns are in the state or where they are. The lack of registration makes it difficult for police to trace guns used in crime, identify illegal gun traffickers or hold gun owners accountable for the illegal use of their weapons. State law enforcement has kept records on handgun transfers (not rifles or shotguns) since 1990, but there is no way of knowing whether the buyers still have those handguns - there is no requirement for reporting of lost or stolen guns. The state does compare the existing handgun sale records with recent criminal convictions to identify gun owners who are no longer allowed to possess handguns. Also see: Record Keeping.

[Return to the Menu]

SAFETY STANDARDS
Are there consumer safety standards on guns? Partial

California - State law requires handguns to meet basic safety standards including a drop-safety test and a firing performance test. All firearms must be sold with a state-certified locking device. State law also requires new handgun models introduced in 2006 to have either a loaded-chamber indicator or a magazine safety disconnect, and by 2007 newly introduced handgun models must have both devices. But the state does not require handguns to have a built-in "childproof" or "personalized" locking device to prevent unintentional or unauthorized use of the weapon. And state law does not provide independent authority for the State Attorney General to establish gun safety standards.

[Return to the Menu]

SAFETY TRAINING
Is safety training required for handgun buyers? Yes

California - State law requires handgun buyers to go through safety training as part of obtaining a handgun license prior to buying a handgun. The safety training involves passing a written test on handgun safety and gun laws and a hands-on demonstration that the buyer can properly operate the handguns safety features such as any locks or firing safeties. Also see: Licensing.

[Return to the Menu]

SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS
Are there limitations on 'junk' handguns? Yes

California - State law restricts the sale of Saturday night specials or "junk" handguns. Handguns must meet two basic safety tests: a drop-safety test and a firing-performance test to prevent accidents. The drop-safety test ensures that handguns won't go off if dropped. The firing-performance test makes sure that handguns won't break apart with repeated use. But there is no restriction on the sale of small, snub-nosed handguns if they meet the two safety tests. In 2002, California strengthened the law to allow the state Department of Justice to "spot-check" handguns on sale in gun stores to make sure they met the standard and to increase DOJ oversight of the safety test procedures. Also see: Safety Standards.

[Return to the Menu]

SCHOOL ZONES
Is it illegal for CCW permit holders to carry guns into schools? No
California - State law does not restrict carrying concealed handguns into public schools or on school grounds if the person has a concealed handgun permit (CCW). Parents should know that people may be carrying guns in and around the schools. But local law enforcement are not required to issue CCW permits and may restrict when and where the permitee may carry a handgun. Also see: CCW Limits.

[Return to the Menu]

SECONDARY SALES
Are background checks required on 'private' gun sales? Yes

California - State law requires people buying or obtaining ownership of a firearm to go through a criminal background check, including a 10-day waiting period (except for a few immediate family exemptions). The background check is required for all gun transfers including those at gun shows.

[Return to the Menu]

WAITING PERIOD
Is there a waiting period on gun sales? Yes

California - State law requires a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales. This 10-day period is used by law enforcement to run a criminal background check to make sure the gun buyer is not prohibited from acquiring firearms. The 10-days also serves as a "cooling off" period to help prevent crimes of passion.

[Return to the Menu]

[irishgrl]

Thats so false! Why do you guys make it into a womens issue? It has nothing to do with women OR men (If a man were the one to give birth...it STILL would be called MURDER). It has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN and everything to do with LIFE!

What a load of horsesh*t! if men were so concerned about LIFE, why wouldnt they stick around to PARENT? why are so many women left to bring up these children alone? Give me a break! it IS a women's issue because it directly involves a womans BODY. only the WOMAN experiences the myriad changes that being pregnant entails! a man's SOLE contribution is the sperm. A woman's contribution is the egg, the womb and nine times out of ten, the sole job of parenting. You arent very old are you?

[irishgrl]

is anyone REALLY surprised that W called the pro-lifers during their demonstrations? Not me, man...........the REAL battle is just beginning, and all those who are PRO CHOICE should visit NARAL (http://www.naral.org)
and take action...

[strandinthewind]

Good Lord Mary :laugh:

Thanks for posting!!!!

Though I do not know the gun control laws in all states, Calif. seemingly has stringent laws.

I would love to get rid of all guns - period - none anywhere in the world. But, like DF, I sadly realize that goal is not reality. Plus, even if they are banned, there is still the black market, etc. So, I accept the sad reality that there will be guns.

But, if we are going to have them, I think they need to be registered and monitored a la the Calif. laws you posted. In fact, I wish more stringent laws existed like if you have a gun, you ought to have to go to the police station every year and reregister it and give an updated balistics test for its signature :nod: I realize that not all people will register guns, but not to have it at all is just wrong. I also think that if the police actually enforced the laws currently on the books, it would be great.

Finally, even if the Second Amend. gives the right to possess arms (which the Ct. has said it does despite the lack of grammatical evidence in the actual language regarding a well organized militia) - that right should be subject to limitations. I mean we limit speech (which is a clearer right in the Const.) for obvious safety reasons, e.g. it is illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater :shrug: Why should guns be different. Don't we all wish that the guns obtained by the Columbine kids were more heavily regulated :shrug: - perhaps such regulation could have prevented our children from being murdered.

Anyway - food for thought and that is my $0.02

Also - I have owned a rifle and a shotgun since I was 12. My father made me take classes to learn how to handle it and we kept it under lock and key. I used them for hunting. So, I do not think it is at all dumb to allow kids to own rifles and shotguns. But, I realize that is a can of worms because people are vehemently opposed to hunting and will never change their minds. So, that is my opinion :cool:

[The Tower]

Also - I have owned a rifle and a shotgun since I was 12. My father made me take classes to learn how to handle it and we kept it under lock and key. I used them for hunting. So, I do not think it is at all dumb to allow kids to own rifles and shotguns. But, I realize that is a can of worms because people are vehemently opposed to hunting and will never change their minds.

:wavey: I think all guns should be banned and possession of them illegal, with the only exceptions being law enforcement and the military. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

:wavey: I think all guns should be banned and possession of them illegal, with the only exceptions being law enforcement and the military. :wavey:

Me too - but sadly it will never happen. In fact, I would make that a world wide ban and include the law enforcement and military, who quite frankly scare me more than ordinary citizens :eek: :laugh:

Aslo, I know this sounds strange to city folk, but there are people that live off of what they hunt and kill on their land and nothing in the Const. prohibits them from doing so :shrug: But, like I said, city folk will NEVER get that - thus the debate rages on :cool:

[amber]

Me too - but sadly it will never happen. In fact, I would make that a world wide ban and include the law enforcement and military, who quite frankly scare me more than ordinary citizens :eek: :laugh:

Aslo, I know this sounds strange to city folk, but there are people that live off of what they hunt and kill on their land and nothing in the Const. prohibits them from doing so :shrug: But, like I said, city folk will NEVER get that - thus the debate rages on :cool:
I get it. :shrug: You shoot it, clean it, then eat it. :shrug: It's your food, and you hunted it. :confused: what's the hard part to get?

[strandinthewind]

I get it. :shrug: You shoot it, clean it, then eat it. :shrug: It's your food, and you hunted it. :confused: what's the hard part to get?

If you ban all guns, how are you going to shoot the bird out of the sky :shrug:

ALso, I should edit that to read "some city folks will NEVER get it" - thus not including you and others who get it :cool:

[amber]

If you ban all guns, how are you going to shoot the bird out of the sky :shrug:

ALso, I should edit that to read "some city folks will NEVER get it" - thus not including you and others who get it :cool:
:lol: :lol: :laugh: :p
yes, i suppose that does exclude people who get it.
I guess if you ban guns, it will finally be more even between man and what man hunts... :laugh: Better get that crossbow ready... :thumbsup:

[The Tower]

Me too - but sadly it will never happen.

Even if it never happens, I will never waver in my desire for the end of firearms. The world is a big place, and hard to unify on one issue- thus, my support for military/law enforcement possession and use.

Aslo, I know this sounds strange to city folk, but there are people that live off of what they hunt and kill on their land and nothing in the Const. prohibits them from doing so :shrug: But, like I said, city folk will NEVER get that - thus the debate rages on :cool:

Sorry, the "hunting" excuse is not good enough for me. Humans have been able to hunt successfully for thousands of years without guns.

[estranged4life]

ya gotta give Shrub some credit...

He wants to spend money to explore Mars after realizing it is a Red Planet (Pres-i-tard must've mistook Mars as Red State!!!)...

I wonder how long before Shrub outlaws abortions, Gay marriage, Searches for those damn pesky WMD's and finally protects the US interests from foreign attacks on the Red Planet????

[gldstwmn]

What a load of horsesh*t! if men were so concerned about LIFE, why wouldnt they stick around to PARENT?

Amen sister. I never received ONE DIME of child support. 18 years and not one damn dime.

[gldstwmn]

is anyone REALLY surprised that W called the pro-lifers during their demonstrations?

No. He's a chickenhawk.
How must it feel to know you are so hated that you can't even go outside?

[estranged4life]

What a load of horsesh*t! if men were so concerned about LIFE, why wouldnt they stick around to PARENT? why are so many women left to bring up these children alone? Give me a break!

see that **** all too often here in Oklahoma (Oklahoma has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the USA), So much so that it why I changed my opinion on abortion and now support a WOMAN'S right to do what the hell ever she wants to do with her body!!!

As for me, If I knew I had a child in the world I would BUST MY ASS for that child...But alas I never played into the BS of "Oh, Well it isnt MY FAULT she got pregnant"!!!

[DrummerDeanna]

see that **** all too often here in Oklahoma (Oklahoma has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the USA), So much so that it why I changed my opinion on abortion and now support a WOMAN'S right to do what the hell ever she wants to do with her body!!!

As for me, If I knew I had a child in the world I would BUST MY ASS for that child...But alas I never played into the BS of "Oh, Well it isnt MY FAULT she got pregnant"!!!

phew - good to see some other state took that lovely statistic away from New Mexico....:rolleyes:

[estranged4life]

phew - good to see some other state took that lovely statistic away from New Mexico....:rolleyes:

my home state has been near the top since the 80's (It's embarrassing if ya want the truth)...

I dont understand why teenagers think sex is the proverbial "Be-All-End-All" :shrug:

[DrummerDeanna]

my home state has been near the top since the 80's (It's embarrassing if ya want the truth)...

I dont understand why teenagers think sex is the proverbial "Be-All-End-All" :shrug:

Because it's portrayed that way in the media :shrug: Because they're not being properly educated about sex ...the reasons go on and on and on...

[estranged4life]

Because it's portrayed that way in the media :shrug: Because they're not being properly educated about sex ...the reasons go on and on and on...

and some of these teens (Who are supposed to be 'individuals who think for themselves' , What a laugh..."Hardy-har-har"!!! This current generation is even worse than my generation of the late 80's!) buy into it "hook-line-and-sinker" nearly everytime.

I have respect for those teens who decide that sex is something that they will wait to have when the time is right as opposed to those who think otherwise (If I have to see anymore teen mother's on Maury Povich's excuse for a show I will projectile vomit a stream 20' vertically!!!)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

What a load of horsesh*t! if men were so concerned about LIFE, why wouldnt they stick around to PARENT? why are so many women left to bring up these children alone? Give me a break! it IS a women's issue because it directly involves a womans BODY. only the WOMAN experiences the myriad changes that being pregnant entails! a man's SOLE contribution is the sperm. A woman's contribution is the egg, the womb and nine times out of ten, the sole job of parenting. You arent very old are you?

I still don't see how murder is a gender baised issue? :shrug:

[DrummerDeanna]

and some of these teens (Who are supposed to be 'individuals who think for themselves' , What a laugh..."Hardy-har-har"!!! This current generation is even worse than my generation of the late 80's!) buy into it "hook-line-and-sinker" nearly everytime.

I have respect for those teens who decide that sex is something that they will wait to have when the time is right as opposed to those who think otherwise (If I have to see anymore teen mother's on Maury Povich's excuse for a show I will projectile vomit a stream 20' vertically!!!)

:nod: :nod: It does seem to be getting worse - and it seems that it's now okay to look like whore in high school :shrug: Perhaps it was because I was a nerdy band girl - but me and my friends wanted nothing to do with sex in high school - simply because of the pregnancy issue...but sex ed also seems to be diminishing and ugh - there are a wealth of things contributing to the rise in teen pregnancy...

[estranged4life]

:nod: :nod: It does seem to be getting worse - and it seems that it's now okay to look like whore in high school :shrug: Perhaps it was because I was a nerdy band girl - but me and my friends wanted nothing to do with sex in high school - simply because of the pregnancy issue...but sex ed also seems to be diminishing and ugh - there are a wealth of things contributing to the rise in teen pregnancy...

is how "great" it is and how if ya dont form a line behind the lemin in front of ya then yer nuthin'...

To which is I say Bull-_____-****!!!!!

[SuzeQuze]

Well, I always thought Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who is always so well dressed even tough her politics suck :nod: ) and Strom did it - hell to him, she was chicken :laugh: So, Teddy, who is a well known philanderer, could have his finger in that pie :eek: :laugh:

Dude, sick, thanks for the visual, NOT! :eek:

[wondergirl9847]

Who the frick wants an STD?! Ewwww!! It's this invincable mentality of "It won't/can't happen to me."

I'm with you, Deanna. I was a quiet, semi-nerdy gal who had crushes on guys, but wasn't interested in dating really. Apparently, I'm STILL not interested. LMAO!! I need to meet someone, but working at home and never leaving the house...yeah, not helping at all. LOL

I don't understand the whole "I want a baby!" at 13, 14, 15 years old! They just had that on Maury (sorry Brian LOL) a couple of weeks ago and I'm SCREAMING at the TV at these lil girls "You are NUTS!" :laugh:

[estranged4life]

I don't understand the whole "I want a baby!" at 13, 14, 15 years old! They just had that on Maury (sorry Brian LOL) a couple of weeks ago and I'm SCREAMING at the TV at these lil girls "You are NUTS!" :laugh:

but that is basically a two-to-three times a week topic for that scum-bag-of-feces a-hole!!!

If I had a teen daughter that became pregnant at 13,14 or 15 she would receive a "mandatory abortion", Which is my foot in her ass so deep when she opens her mouth I will be able to tie my shoe strings!!!!

[SuzeQuze]

and some of these teens (Who are supposed to be 'individuals who think for themselves' , What a laugh..."Hardy-har-har"!!! This current generation is even worse than my generation of the late 80's!) buy into it "hook-line-and-sinker" nearly everytime.

I have respect for those teens who decide that sex is something that they will wait to have when the time is right as opposed to those who think otherwise (If I have to see anymore teen mother's on Maury Povich's excuse for a show I will projectile vomit a stream 20' vertically!!!)

Katie Couric is doing a Dateline special on teens and sex which airs tomorrow. It should be eye opening.

As Deanna said, there are so many reasons that teens think sex is the be-all-end-all. An open discussion about that would be awesome for them. I don't think anyone ever said to me, "Look, it is blown way out of proportion, it's fun but so is eating a pint of ice cream." :laugh: Also, their bodies change so rapidly and hormones rage making the idea of sex not being the greatest thing seem untrue.

Teens are naturally rebellious so certain "taboo" behaviors are going to happen, which is why sex ed is so important, and being completely honest with the kids. No telling them that they'll get pregnant if they hold hands. :distress:

[strandinthewind]

Dude, sick, thanks for the visual, NOT! :eek:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:angel: :angel:

[sodascouts]

As for the media reporting that W made his GF have an abortion, when the chief witness says it did not happen, you cannot report in the story that it did :shrug:

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the girl herself denies having an abortion?

[strandinthewind]

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the girl herself denies having an abortion?

I am unsure she has denied it - I think she just refuses to come forward. here is what Flynt says:

"When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion.

"The young lady does not want to go public, and, without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because, should she say it never happened, then we've got a potential libel suit."

Of course, like almost everything related to W that could be construed as a paper trail to a bad act, there exist no records. Hmmm - wonder why that is :rolleyes:

[SuzeQuze]

Didn't someone also post that she went from a waitress to owning her own $500,000 home? Hush money comes to mind. I'm sure the Bushies paid her off so she wouldn't talk. Am I just stating the obvious there?

I am unsure she has denied it - I think she just refuses to come forward. here is what Flynt says:

"When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion.

"The young lady does not want to go public, and, without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because, should she say it never happened, then we've got a potential libel suit."

Of course, like almost everything related to W that could be construed as a paper trail to a bad act, there exist no records. Hmmm - wonder why that is :rolleyes:

[sodascouts]

I am unsure she has denied it - I think she just refuses to come forward. here is what Flynt says:

"When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion.

"The young lady does not want to go public, and, without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because, should she say it never happened, then we've got a potential libel suit."

Of course, like almost everything related to W that could be construed as a paper trail to a bad act, there exist no records. Hmmm - wonder why that is :rolleyes:

So, Flynt's proof is hearsay from the girl's friends? No wonder no one wants to report it. Pretty flimsy stuff.

[strandinthewind]

So, Flynt's proof is hearsay from the girl's friends? No wonder no one wants to report it. Pretty flimsy stuff.

No - I think he has it from her as well - but W's people, according to Flynt and the evidence Diss cited earlier, got to her and bought her off :shrug:

[sodascouts]

No - I think he has it from her as well - but W's people, according to Flynt and the evidence Diss cited earlier, got to her and bought her off :shrug:

Diss' evidence seems pretty circumstantial to me. You're the lawyer, you tell me how solid it is.

[strandinthewind]

Diss' evidence seems pretty circumstantial to me. You're the lawyer, you tell me how solid it is.

I have no clue where Diss got that. But, if Flynt had what he said he had, that is a pretty solid case :shrug:

Again, everything surrounding any bad act W is accused of is tainted by all these circumstantial things and the records are "lost" or cannot be found" a la his service record. That to me smacks of guilt and a cover up, though it may not be able to be proven in court, which is not the only test :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Here is an article (one of many) on it - judge for yourself :cool:

The Texas Abortion Tango
The unproven scandal that could have sunk George W. Bush
by Howard Blume

In the winter of the Clinton impeachment, Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, was a pornographer on a mission — determined to dig up sex scandals on the Republicans who’d come after Clinton. It wasn’t that Flynt was suddenly against sex or even scandalous sex , but that he considered the anti-Clinton ringmasters to be cynical, partisan opportunists — hypocrites who decried Clinton as morally unfit while being less fit themselves.

In December 1998, shortly before the impeachment trial, Flynt nailed incoming Republican House Speaker Robert L. Livingston, who resigned rather than endure Flynt’s public airing of multiple extramarital affairs. Flynt also contributed to the downfall of anti-Clinton attack dog Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who was a House manager for the impeachment. Barr lost a re-election bid after revelations about his alleged adultery — and about how he allegedly paid for an abortion for one of his wives, even though he later referred to abortion as murder while in Congress.

Flynt helped wound but did not end the political careers of Representatives Dan Burton (out-of-wedlock child) and Henry Hyde (over a “youthful indiscretion” — Hyde’s words — with a married woman that lasted into his 40s). In some of these cases, Flynt’s role was to publicize information first unearthed elsewhere.

Eventually, Flynt set his sights on the biggest prize, George W. Bush, once again offering up to a million dollars for definitive dirt. He sent investigative reporters to the heart of Texas, first in 1999. They would look into an allegation that in 1971, George Bush, then about 25 years old, got a girlfriend pregnant and paid for her illegal abortion. Flynt got tantalizingly close to documenting such an episode, but never confirmed enough to justify a press conference. He would have loved to prove it. Flynt’s hatred of Bush is both visceral and principled. He’s a bona fide supporter of First Amendment rights and mainstream Democratic principles, and is commercially pragmatic — he knows that Bush and his anti-sin crowd would shut down Flynt’s business if they could.

So what was Flynt to do on the eve of the 2000 presidential election?

Lacking proof, Flynt instead dropped broad hints about the alleged abortion. He didn’t name names — other than Bush’s — because his lawyer told him he risked a libel suit from the woman in question. The mainstream press chose to ignore the story — which is a story in itself.

Flynt’s account finally gets told in the book Sex, Lies & Politics: The Naked Truth, scheduled to hit shelves late this month. Flynt avoids risk of libel by keeping the players anonymous and by avoiding flat-out claims. He offers instead an account of the investigation. Flynt provided additional information in interviews with the Weekly, as did people involved in the investigation, who spoke off the record.

The Texas tango remains something of a page turner. In 2000, Flynt thought the revelation, if true, ought to push some voters away from Bush based on what it revealed about his character. The alleged events of 1971 do say something about the privileges and purview of Bush and his family and, courtesy of Flynt and some of those involved in the investigation, you get to read it here first.



“Back in 2000, I got a phone call from an attorney from Houston,” begins Flynt in a passage about two-thirds of the way through his book. “He represented a woman we’ll call ‘Susan,’ who supposedly could prove that, back in the early ’70s, George W. Bush had arranged an abortion for his girlfriend.”

Flynt was immediately interested; here was ammunition to sink Bush in an election too close to call. It would be damning enough for Bush to have arranged an abortion, but, even worse, abortion was illegal in 1971, before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Laws didn’t stop abortions, of course, though they did make them dangerous and even life-threatening for most women. The wealthy or well-connected were frequently luckier; they could often find doctors willing to perform abortions safely in a hospital or clinic setting. That is what allegedly happened here.

All of this mattered in the year 2000 because “Bush was successfully slipping past allegations of cocaine use, drunk driving and being a useless rich boy,” writes Flynt. “But arranging for an abortion was a more serious matter. Bush’s own supporters said that abortion is murder.”

At the time, in 1971, Bush had been living for about two years in the Chateaux Dijon apartment complex, a Houston gathering place and party scene for the young and beautiful as well as the offspring of the rich and politically potent. Bush was three years out of Yale, where he’d been an unremarkable student. Soon after graduating, he’d joined the Texas Air National Guard, an escape valve for sons of the powerful seeking to avoid service in Vietnam.

The National Guard experience has been covered extensively elsewhere; long-established evidence suggests Bush jumped a lengthy waiting list to get in, with helpful intervention from friends of his father. The elder Bush, who became president in 1988, was prominent even then. He’d been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 and served as ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to 1972, after losing a 1970 race for the Senate. Papa Bush also had a background as a Texas oilman.

The young George W. Bush of the 1970s was a partier, a drinker and — by his own hints in later remarks — a recreational-drug user. There’s long been speculation that he might have skipped a mandatory National Guard physical, in August 1972, to avoid a possible drug test. There’s also doubt about whether he actually completed his service in the Guard.

But that’s getting ahead of the story. In 1971, according to the account, an “agitated” young Bush supposedly called an older family friend. (Flynt calls the friend by the made-up name “Clyde.”) Bush allegedly confessed that he’d gotten his girlfriend pregnant. It was natural that Bush would call Clyde, because Clyde had been “loosely assigned to keep the family black sheep, young W., out of trouble,” as Flynt puts it.

Flynt’s source, “Susan,” told Flynt’s investigators that she was Clyde’s girlfriend at the time. She said she was in the room when the call came from Bush. Clyde allegedly told Bush he’d take care of it, which meant arranging for an abortion. Susan named the hospital, and she named the doctor.

Flynt’s researchers found the doctor and confronted him. The doctor denied having performed an abortion, they reported to Flynt, but oddly enough, he did remember the woman from his own social visits to Chateaux Dijon. He described her “as the best-looking woman” who showed up for parties at the apartment complex.

“My reporters were unable to gain any evidence from the hospital,” writes Flynt. “The institution had been sold several times over the years and their records were spotty.”

Flynt’s account is seconded by some of those involved in the investigation. Flynt’s researchers spent about three months total in Texas trying to obtain documentary confirmation. In interviews with the Weekly, sources who took part in the investigation supplied details not in Flynt’s soon-to-be-published account. They told, for example, how his investigators tracked down Bush’s former girlfriend. They say the woman acknowledged, through her husband, that she had dated Bush for six months. But she also insisted to a friend (who spoke with Flynt’s investigators) that she and Bush never had sex. She said to the same friend that she’d been in the hospital for a dilation and curettage, or D&C, which is surgery involving a scraping of the wall of the uterus. It was a common form of doctor-supervised abortion in the early 1970s. But the woman maintained that her D&C was not an abortion, but for another medical purpose. A D&C is sometimes performed after a miscarriage or in non-pregnant women who have abnormal bleeding, fibroids or polyps.

In other words, the researchers found intriguing circumstantial support, but no proof. The investigators then tried a different tack. “Susan, in an effort to jump-start the investigation, contacted Clyde, told him that some reporters were bugging her about the incident, and asked for his help,” writes Flynt. “She told us that he first casually denied any knowledge of what she was talking about, then in a later conversation, threatened her and told her to keep her mouth shut.”

In interviews with the Weekly, Flynt said he is convinced that the former Bush girlfriend had been bought off. He said that before his investigation, the woman had a low-wage job and her husband was unemployed. After his researchers started poking around, said Flynt, the husband emerged with a well-paid federal law-enforcement job and the family moved into an expensive house in a Texas resort area.

That’s not exactly how some others involved in the investigation analyzed the evidence. The husband was a veteran law-enforcement officer, they said. In other words, it was neither peculiar nor improper that he would hold a job with a federal law-enforcement agency. In addition, the couple was not demonstrably living beyond their economic means. The woman’s husband also seemed surprised to hear about his wife’s alleged 1971 trip to the hospital when confronted, the sources said. This reaction was inconsistent with having been bought off.

You get the sense that Flynt wanted the story out so desperately that his own remembering became a bit skewed. He did, however, ask his researchers to fact-check the details that actually appear in the book. And the allegation about the woman being paid off is not in there.

The researchers finally told Flynt they felt they could take the investigation no further. “They said they didn’t want to waste my money,” said Flynt in an interview, “and I appreciated that.”

As one person directly involved in this investigation said to the Weekly, “Circumstantially, the story made a lot of sense, but none of the major figures were really talking.”

Flynt hoped the national media would take the matter further, perhaps by launching their own probes, or even by just asking Bush a pointed question during a press conference. Flynt called Tim Russert of NBC News, which sent a reporter to Flynt’s office to look over his material. This reporter, said Flynt in an interview, was David Bloom, the same reporter who died of a pulmonary embolism at age 39 while covering the war in Iraq in April 2003. Flynt said Bloom declined to pick up the baton. “He said, ‘Larry, I just can’t do it. Something like this could change the outcome of the election.’”

An NBC spokeswoman essentially confirmed Flynt’s account in an e-mailed response to a series of questions. “No discussion about the substance of the rumor took place with Mr. Russert,” said Barbara Levin. Flynt “contacted Mr. Russert, NBC News’ Washington Bureau Chief, and as is often the case, Russert simply passed the information on to a reporter to follow up. As you note, David Bloom did follow up and used his editorial judgment that the rumor was not solid enough to go with a story.” Levin commented that Flynt “called several news organizations, including NBC News,” but she declined to address why NBC reporters elected not to question Bush about the subject.

An exasperated Flynt decided to get the message out himself, though time was running short. Howard Stern interviewed him, but the segment ran only once, writes Flynt, on Stern’s live show. He also appeared on KROQ-FM’s Kevin and Bean Morning Show in August.

Then, on October 20, 2000, Flynt appeared on CNN’s Crossfire. The subject of the show concerned porn and the Internet, but Flynt took advantage of live TV to launch his spiel. Conservative host Robert Novak challenged Flynt as having “no proof.”

“The hell we don’t have proof,” Flynt retorted. (Of course, Flynt didn’t have proof.) Novak then asked Flynt if he was a Gore supporter. Flynt responded that he didn’t like either candidate and that he’d vote for the lesser of two evils.

The camera cut from Flynt, never to return. Liberal but skeptical co-host Bill Press sardonically remarked, “You never know. Live television.” Flynt claims that CNN expurgated this exchange from its transcript, and at the time, some online wags came to the same conclusion and quickly posted alerts. Currently, two versions of the transcript appear on the widely used Nexis database. One version has the full exchange about the alleged abortion. The other omits the discussion entirely. It’s identified as a “rush transcript” that “may not be in its final form and may be updated.”

Syndicated gossip Liz Smith finally picked up the story, with a few details off-
kilter, on November 6, the day before the election. She wrote:



Hot on the heels of the George W. Bush DUI revelation (in Maine, it’s called OUI — Operating Under the Influence), comes word that porn-king muckraker Larry Flynt is charging that a girlfriend of W.’s, back in 1970, had an abortion. But that’s not the story, as there’s no evidence that Bush even knew about the pregnancy. The real story — according to the Internet’s About.com — is that Flynt’s remarks were apparently censored from CNN’s Crossfire, and the entire transcript of the show vanished from the CNN Web site. The media has been willing to crucify Bill and Hillary Clinton with the worst sort of specious rumor-mongering, so why was this sleazy tidbit too hot for the “responsible” press to ask about?



Her item on Bush was cut from her column everywhere, in more than 100 papers, except for the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Flynt then contacted Daily Variety’s gossip columnist Army Archerd, who wrote on November 7, the day of the election:



FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? Larry Flynt says his comments about a hush-hush 1970 Houston abortion, on a rumored girlfriend of George W. Bush, have been stifled by the mainstream media. (Flynt claims knowledge of the identity of the girl, the hospital, etc. He never printed it, “because she’d deny it; you’d have egg on your face and you’d face a libel suit.”) Still, he’s more concerned with the fact that the media is ignoring the rumors . . . “My whole focus,” said Flynt, “was on the lack of investigation by the media — in other words, they never asked Bush.”



The story did get some international play just before the 2000 election in newspapers in England. And that was pretty much the end of it. Bush claimed the presidency unbesmirched by this particular tale. Eventually, Flynt decided to include the episode in his book.

The subject first came up at the Weekly, in recent times, when Flynt stopped by last fall to tout his vanity candidacy for governor during the campaign to recall Governor Gray Davis. Flynt took advantage of the interview to promote a proposed initiative that would permit non-tribal casino gambling — he owns a casino — as a way both to get personally richer and to help solve the state’s budget crisis. An editor asked offhandedly whatever happened to his investigation into Bush. That got Flynt going:

“We worked that story for six months,” he said. “We had everybody, including the hospital that performed the abortion, the doctor who did it, you know, affidavits from four of her friends. You know, we, we had it all. But at the last minute she stopped cooperating, and this was just about a month before the election.”

Flynt was shooting from the hip, without reviewing his own investigators’ files. The Weekly asked for documentation, but Flynt and his representative never provided it, though Flynt did discuss the matter at length in a late-April interview, after he reviewed his documentation. His book publicist said there were still libel concerns regarding the release of original documents. She said she also didn’t want articles to appear before they could assist book sales. Obtaining Flynt’s files became less necessary after people directly involved in the investigation agreed to talk freely and separately about their work, provided that their names not be disclosed. They were willing to share the real names, confidentially, of all the persons involved. The Weekly has not independently verified their accounts, which is why real names aren’t used here either. But their chronicles are believable, especially because they acknowledge that they ultimately failed to deliver the goods. There could be no hedging the evidence on a story like this, they said, especially when their employer was Flynt, whose credibility would be questioned.

Even though his book was still months away, Flynt finally couldn’t contain himself during a February 2004 interview with New York’s Daily News.

“I’ve talked to the woman’s friends,” Flynt is quoted as saying. “I’ve tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion . . . I got the story nailed.”

The anecdote got some airing, especially after it was repeated by pop musician Moby. But the attention came almost entirely from the British and Australian press. They played it up as an example of mudslinging, sometimes pairing it with unsubstantiated rumors of a John Kerry affair.



In 2000, if the story had taken off, would it have mattered? Should it have mattered?

In the razor-thin 2000 election, it’s hard to deny that anything that could change votes could have made a difference. Flynt hoped the abortion account would paint W. as a hypocrite. Bush already looked every inch a hypocrite to critics who saw him ally with rich corporate interests, while savaging the poor behind a façade of “compassionate conservatism.”

But Bush supporters see the world and Bush so differently. Many are drawn by his appeal to traditional values and free enterprise, regardless of his actual policies. And many of Bush’s die-hard religious-right supporters had ample reason to forgive Bush, even for an abortion. His entire story, from their perspective, is one of a sinner redeemed, the type of soul who can, in an odd way, sometimes shine brighter than the less fallible person who never required such redemption. It didn’t matter so much, therefore, if Bush had been a drunk, if he had used cocaine, if he’d had premarital sex — if he’d been the wayward prodigal son. At one level, such behavior made him an ordinary guy, just like ordinary people everywhere. At another, his reform underscored his exemplary born-again identity and his unwavering commitment to conservative Christian values. For many Christians, Bush stands on the upright side of the before-versus-after divide intrinsic to a belief system in which a person must be personally saved from his sins by Jesus. Indeed, to the religious right, George W. Bush is more the real deal than his better-behaving, high-achieving father ever was.

How about the fence sitters of 2004? Should the alleged incident matter to them?

Maybe, but its relevance stacks up weakly compared to that of the Iraq invasion, the ballooning federal deficit, the erosion of civil liberties and the ongoing subjugation of environmental protection to corporate interests. It is with such matters that even Flynt’s own book is primarily concerned, though he does spare a few words to discuss his boyhood experience of sex with a chicken.



Flynt’s investigators weren’t bloodhounding this one anecdote alone. Along the way, they also met with author J.H. Hatfield, who alleged that, in 1972, George W. Bush was arrested for possession of cocaine and, with the help of his father, got the charges erased in exchange for performing community service.

Hatfield cited anonymous sources in his book Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President. Hatfield’s first publisher got cold feet and ultimately destroyed its copies of Hatfield’s book.

Flynt’s investigators met with Hatfield and repeatedly pressed him for additional details. They wanted to pursue the story further. But Hatfield finally stormed out of their meeting. Hatfield died, an apparent suicide, in July 2001.

The researchers also checked out rumors of a Bush cocaine binge in the early 1990s that were called into Flynt. If true, it would mean Bush lied about when he’d given up drugs. When asked in 1999 about drug use, Bush was quoted as saying, “As I understand it, the current [FBI] form asks the question, ‘Did somebody use drugs within the last seven years?’ and I will be glad to answer that question, and the answer is no.” He also said, “Not only could I pass the background check of the standards applied in today’s White House, I could have passed the background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States, a 15-year period.”

Once again, the researchers came up with nothing that met journalistic standards of proof, although their entire chasing-Bush experience would make a heck of a plot for a buddy movie.

“Flynt was interested mainly in two things: pussy and drugs,” noted one researcher, who now considers that preoccupation quaint and ironic. “Here we were looking at Bush’s personal life and the whole Enron scandal was happening right under our noses.”

Larry Flynt will sign copies of Sex, Lies & Politics: The Naked Truth, at Brentano’s, in the Century City Shopping Mall, 10250 Santa Monica Blvd; Wed., June 30, 7 p.m. And at Hustler Hollywood, 8920 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood; Thurs., July 1, 7 p.m.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/30/news-blume.php

[sodascouts]

Here is an article (one of many) on it - judge for yourself :cool:


Great - I will. :)

Eventually, Flynt set his sights on the biggest prize, George W. Bush, once again offering up to a million dollars for definitive dirt. He sent investigative reporters to the heart of Texas, first in 1999. They would look into an allegation that in 1971, George Bush, then about 25 years old, got a girlfriend pregnant and paid for her illegal abortion. Flynt got tantalizingly close to documenting such an episode, but never confirmed enough to justify a press conference. He would have loved to prove it. Flynt’s hatred of Bush is both visceral and principled. He’s a bona fide supporter of First Amendment rights and mainstream Democratic principles, and is commercially pragmatic — he knows that Bush and his anti-sin crowd would shut down Flynt’s business if they could.

A million dollars could motivate some people to fib a bit. Including "Susan."


So what was Flynt to do on the eve of the 2000 presidential election?

Lacking proof, Flynt instead dropped broad hints about the alleged abortion. He didn’t name names — other than Bush’s — because his lawyer told him he risked a libel suit from the woman in question. The mainstream press chose to ignore the story — which is a story in itself.

Flynt’s account finally gets told in the book Sex, Lies & Politics: The Naked Truth, scheduled to hit shelves late this month. Flynt avoids risk of libel by keeping the players anonymous and by avoiding flat-out claims. He offers instead an account of the investigation. Flynt provided additional information in interviews with the Weekly, as did people involved in the investigation, who spoke off the record.



If it's the truth, why the concern about libel?


"Back in 2000, I got a phone call from an attorney from Houston,” begins Flynt in a passage about two-thirds of the way through his book. “He represented a woman we’ll call ‘Susan,’ who supposedly could prove that, back in the early ’70s, George W. Bush had arranged an abortion for his girlfriend.”

Flynt was immediately interested; here was ammunition to sink Bush in an election too close to call. It would be damning enough for Bush to have arranged an abortion, but, even worse, abortion was illegal in 1971, before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Laws didn’t stop abortions, of course, though they did make them dangerous and even life-threatening for most women. The wealthy or well-connected were frequently luckier; they could often find doctors willing to perform abortions safely in a hospital or clinic setting. That is what allegedly happened here.

All of this mattered in the year 2000 because “Bush was successfully slipping past allegations of cocaine use, drunk driving and being a useless rich boy,” writes Flynt. “But arranging for an abortion was a more serious matter. Bush’s own supporters said that abortion is murder.”

At the time, in 1971, Bush had been living for about two years in the Chateaux Dijon apartment complex, a Houston gathering place and party scene for the young and beautiful as well as the offspring of the rich and politically potent. Bush was three years out of Yale, where he’d been an unremarkable student. Soon after graduating, he’d joined the Texas Air National Guard, an escape valve for sons of the powerful seeking to avoid service in Vietnam.

The National Guard experience has been covered extensively elsewhere; long-established evidence suggests Bush jumped a lengthy waiting list to get in, with helpful intervention from friends of his father. The elder Bush, who became president in 1988, was prominent even then. He’d been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 and served as ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to 1972, after losing a 1970 race for the Senate. Papa Bush also had a background as a Texas oilman.

The young George W. Bush of the 1970s was a partier, a drinker and — by his own hints in later remarks — a recreational-drug user. There’s long been speculation that he might have skipped a mandatory National Guard physical, in August 1972, to avoid a possible drug test. There’s also doubt about whether he actually completed his service in the Guard.

But that’s getting ahead of the story. In 1971, according to the account, an “agitated” young Bush supposedly called an older family friend. (Flynt calls the friend by the made-up name “Clyde.”) Bush allegedly confessed that he’d gotten his girlfriend pregnant. It was natural that Bush would call Clyde, because Clyde had been “loosely assigned to keep the family black sheep, young W., out of trouble,” as Flynt puts it.

Flynt’s source, “Susan,” told Flynt’s investigators that she was Clyde’s girlfriend at the time. She said she was in the room when the call came from Bush. Clyde allegedly told Bush he’d take care of it, which meant arranging for an abortion. Susan named the hospital, and she named the doctor.

Flynt’s researchers found the doctor and confronted him. The doctor denied having performed an abortion, they reported to Flynt, but oddly enough, he did remember the woman from his own social visits to Chateaux Dijon. He described her “as the best-looking woman” who showed up for parties at the apartment complex.

“My reporters were unable to gain any evidence from the hospital,” writes Flynt. “The institution had been sold several times over the years and their records were spotty.”

Flynt’s account is seconded by some of those involved in the investigation. Flynt’s researchers spent about three months total in Texas trying to obtain documentary confirmation. In interviews with the Weekly, sources who took part in the investigation supplied details not in Flynt’s soon-to-be-published account. They told, for example, how his investigators tracked down Bush’s former girlfriend. They say the woman acknowledged, through her husband, that she had dated Bush for six months. But she also insisted to a friend (who spoke with Flynt’s investigators) that she and Bush never had sex. She said to the same friend that she’d been in the hospital for a dilation and curettage, or D&C, which is surgery involving a scraping of the wall of the uterus. It was a common form of doctor-supervised abortion in the early 1970s. But the woman maintained that her D&C was not an abortion, but for another medical purpose. A D&C is sometimes performed after a miscarriage or in non-pregnant women who have abnormal bleeding, fibroids or polyps.

In other words, the researchers found intriguing circumstantial support, but no proof. The investigators then tried a different tack. “Susan, in an effort to jump-start the investigation, contacted Clyde, told him that some reporters were bugging her about the incident, and asked for his help,” writes Flynt. “She told us that he first casually denied any knowledge of what she was talking about, then in a later conversation, threatened her and told her to keep her mouth shut.”

In interviews with the Weekly, Flynt said he is convinced that the former Bush girlfriend had been bought off. He said that before his investigation, the woman had a low-wage job and her husband was unemployed. After his researchers started poking around, said Flynt, the husband emerged with a well-paid federal law-enforcement job and the family moved into an expensive house in a Texas resort area.

That’s not exactly how some others involved in the investigation analyzed the evidence. The husband was a veteran law-enforcement officer, they said. In other words, it was neither peculiar nor improper that he would hold a job with a federal law-enforcement agency. In addition, the couple was not demonstrably living beyond their economic means. The woman’s husband also seemed surprised to hear about his wife’s alleged 1971 trip to the hospital when confronted, the sources said. This reaction was inconsistent with having been bought off.

You get the sense that Flynt wanted the story out so desperately that his own remembering became a bit skewed. He did, however, ask his researchers to fact-check the details that actually appear in the book. And the allegation about the woman being paid off is not in there.

The researchers finally told Flynt they felt they could take the investigation no further. “They said they didn’t want to waste my money,” said Flynt in an interview, “and I appreciated that.”

As one person directly involved in this investigation said to the Weekly, “Circumstantially, the story made a lot of sense, but none of the major figures were really talking.”

Flynt hoped the national media would take the matter further, perhaps by launching their own probes, or even by just asking Bush a pointed question during a press conference. Flynt called Tim Russert of NBC News, which sent a reporter to Flynt’s office to look over his material. This reporter, said Flynt in an interview, was David Bloom, the same reporter who died of a pulmonary embolism at age 39 while covering the war in Iraq in April 2003. Flynt said Bloom declined to pick up the baton. “He said, ‘Larry, I just can’t do it. Something like this could change the outcome of the election.’”

An NBC spokeswoman essentially confirmed Flynt’s account in an e-mailed response to a series of questions. “No discussion about the substance of the rumor took place with Mr. Russert,” said Barbara Levin. Flynt “contacted Mr. Russert, NBC News’ Washington Bureau Chief, and as is often the case, Russert simply passed the information on to a reporter to follow up. As you note, David Bloom did follow up and used his editorial judgment that the rumor was not solid enough to go with a story.” Levin commented that Flynt “called several news organizations, including NBC News,” but she declined to address why NBC reporters elected not to question Bush about the subject.

An exasperated Flynt decided to get the message out himself, though time was running short. Howard Stern interviewed him, but the segment ran only once, writes Flynt, on Stern’s live show. He also appeared on KROQ-FM’s Kevin and Bean Morning Show in August.

Then, on October 20, 2000, Flynt appeared on CNN’s Crossfire. The subject of the show concerned porn and the Internet, but Flynt took advantage of live TV to launch his spiel. Conservative host Robert Novak challenged Flynt as having “no proof.”

“The hell we don’t have proof,” Flynt retorted. (Of course, Flynt didn’t have proof.) Novak then asked Flynt if he was a Gore supporter. Flynt responded that he didn’t like either candidate and that he’d vote for the lesser of two evils.

[......]

“We worked that story for six months,” he said. “We had everybody, including the hospital that performed the abortion, the doctor who did it, you know, affidavits from four of her friends. You know, we, we had it all. But at the last minute she stopped cooperating, and this was just about a month before the election.”


In his book, Flynt says the doctor DENIES it and there are no hospital records, yet here he claims he "has" the doctor and hospital. Misleading, to say the least.



Flynt was shooting from the hip, without reviewing his own investigators’ files. The Weekly asked for documentation, but Flynt and his representative never provided it, though Flynt did discuss the matter at length in a late-April interview, after he reviewed his documentation. His book publicist said there were still libel concerns regarding the release of original documents. She said she also didn’t want articles to appear before they could assist book sales. Obtaining Flynt’s files became less necessary after people directly involved in the investigation agreed to talk freely and separately about their work, provided that their names not be disclosed. They were willing to share the real names, confidentially, of all the persons involved. The Weekly has not independently verified their accounts, which is why real names aren’t used here either. But their chronicles are believable, especially because they acknowledge that they ultimately failed to deliver the goods. There could be no hedging the evidence on a story like this, they said, especially when their employer was Flynt, whose credibility would be questioned.

Even though his book was still months away, Flynt finally couldn’t contain himself during a February 2004 interview with New York’s Daily News.

“I’ve talked to the woman’s friends,” Flynt is quoted as saying. “I’ve tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion . . . I got the story nailed.”




Thanks for this informative article, Jason. So we have the world of Susan (the girlfriend of a friend of George Bush who apparently doesn't even know the girl) and, if Flynt did not "misremember" as he seems to have done several times according to this article (ie. having the information from the doctor), the word of four of her friends. That's assuming these affidavits even contain "my friend had an abortion" - he could have affidavits that simply say "my friend dated George W. Bush," for all we know.

As I said before.... pretty flimsy stuff.

[strandinthewind]

Well, ALL of Flynt's scandals in the past have proven to be exactly what he said they were :shrug: I think W did pay this woman off and she did havbe the abortion. I think where there is smoke there is fire. Plus, I would put nothing past W and his cronies who just destroy records and then lie their way out of everything and the idiotic public believes them. So, if we are going on W's credibility, I think history demonstrates that although he is a sexual weirdo, Flynt's is heaps better than W's, which is nonexistent :shrug:

I mean name one thing W has not lied about or tried to cover up.

Here are some sites to some:

http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm

http://www.bushlies.com/book.php -

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/

But, the biggest whopper of all and one for which he can never be forgiven as far as I am concerned is here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-23.html - almost everything in that speech was later disproved - yet he said it anyway and now our children and Iraqi children are dead.

Thus, I conclude W is a liar - in fact, if his mouth is open he is lying. Yet, in general people support him and think he is doing the Lord's work :rolleyes: He and his ilk make me sick to my stomach.

P.S. as of today, the news reports the US projects an 855 TRILLION dollar deficit over the next 10 years. How are we ever expected to overcome that. How can any economic recovery possibly pay for that. AND - that number does NOT include any Social Security reform or the Defense Budget.

Yet, people support this bozo and actually defend him - I will never get it.

Here is the AP article on the deficit:

10-Year Federal Deficit Estimated at $855 Billion

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

WASHINGTON — As Congress started to digest a new Bush administration request of $80 billion to bankroll wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its top budget analyst on Tuesday projected $855 billion in deficits for the next decade even without the costs of war and Bush's Social Security plan.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration would outline its request for more money for Iraq and Afghanistan later Tuesday. He would provide no detail, but congressional aides said the package would total about $80 billion and be mostly for U.S. military operations in the two countries.

Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion. That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

McClellan said the administration would request what is needed for U.S. troops and "to support the Iraqi people as they move forward on building a democratic and peaceful future."

Amid the White House's preparations, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the government will accumulate another $855 billion in deficits over the next decade.

The projection, for the years 2006 through 2015, is almost two-thirds smaller than what congressional budget analysts predicted last fall. But the drop is largely due to estimating quirks that required it to exclude future Iraq and Afghanistan war costs and other expenses. Last September, their 10-year deficit estimate was $2.3 trillion.

The CBO also projected this year's shortfall will be $368 billion. That was close to the $348 billion deficit for 2005 that it had forecast last fall. The two largest deficits ever in dollar terms were last year's $412 billion and the $377 billion gap of 2003.

The budget office estimated if U.S. troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan declines gradually after 2006, those wars would add $590 billion to deficits over the next decade. Including war costs, this year's shortfall should hit about $400 billion, the budget office said.

Besides lacking war costs, the budget office's deficit estimates also omitted the price tags of Bush's goal of revamping Social Security, which could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion and dominate this year's legislative agenda.

Also left out were the price of extending Bush's tax cuts and easing the impact the alternative minimum tax would have on middle-income Americans, which could exceed $2.3 trillion, the report said.

When those items are included, Bush is a long way from his goal of cutting deficits in half by 2009, Democrats said.

"Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House, but they can't control the budget and they can't escape responsibility for its dismal condition," said Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Republicans used the deficit figures to underscore the need to find budget savings this year, including from popular benefit programs, which include Medicaid.

"If we do nothing, our kids and grandkids will be overwhelmed by the costs of our inaction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

Bush won't send the war financing package to Congress until after he unveils his full 2006 budget on Feb. 7, congressional aides said.

White House officials declined to comment on the war package, which will come as the United States confronts continued violence in Iraq leading up to that country's Jan. 30 elections.

Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, estimated to cost $1.5 billion.

One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan government combat drug trafficking. It might also have money to help two new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko.

The aides said the package Bush eventually submits to Congress will also include money to help Indian Ocean countries hit by the devastating December tsunami.

The forthcoming request highlights how much war spending has soared past initial White House estimates. Early on, then-presidential economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs at $100 billion to $200 billion, only to see his comments derided by administration colleagues.

By pushing war spending beyond $300 billion, the latest proposal would approach nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.

The White House had not been expected to reveal details of the war package until after the release of the full budget.

But lawmakers, as they did last year, want to include war costs in the budgets they will write. They argue that withholding the war costs from Bush's budget would open it to criticism that it was an unrealistic document, one aide said. Last year, the spending plan omitted war expenditures and received just that critique.

[irishgrl]

But, if we are going to have them, I think they need to be registered and monitored a la the Calif. laws you posted. In fact, I wish more stringent laws existed like if you have a gun, you ought to have to go to the police station every year and reregister it and give an updated balistics test for its signature I realize that not all people will register guns, but not to have it at all is just wrong. I also think that if the police actually enforced the laws currently on the books, it would be great.

On the links I provided, its mentioned that Law enforcement's job would be easier if people had to re-register, it would help in crime solving, etc...we give transfer of ownership info to the freakin DMV why not guns?


on a side note: Brown eyes, what part of "its a WOMAN's body" do you not get?

The fact that you pro-lifers CONTINUALLY discount the woman as a factor PROVES TO ME that your TRUE agenda is further erosion of a Woman's basic rights.

The sexual revolution of the 60's with the advent of the pill, freed many women to join the workforce, and fill the college campuses and educate themselves so that they could earn a decent wage (though still less per hour than a man! and I can provide proof *trust me*) and we became competitors for jobs that men used to monopolize. Unfortunately, the establishment refused to acknowledge qualified women and wouldnt hire them until forced to do so by Affirmative Action but thats a discussion for another day....at any rate, there has been a HUGE backlash against women that dates back to the Nixon campaign (Try reading Tanya Meilich, The Republican War Against Women. Tanya, btw is a die hard Republican, who HATES the direction her party is taken and can document the takeover by the "Moral Majority" and their ilk. Another book along these same lines is Backlash, by Susan Faludi

[gldstwmn]

So, Flynt's proof is hearsay from the girl's friends? No wonder no one wants to report it. Pretty flimsy stuff.

It worked for Ken Starr. :)

[strandinthewind]

It worked for Ken Starr. :)

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

it sure did!

[wondergirl9847]

It's such an extremely touchy subject. I see both sides. I can see where pro-lifers are coming from (well, SOME of them) in that they only wanna protect those with no voice/choice. On the flip side, I see the pro-choicers stance too regarding the woman having the choice on what to do with her body.

My friend was 19 when she got pregnant out of wedlock and her parents tried to talk her into getting one. She brought me and another friend of ours together one night to tell us. We all cried and talked about the pros and cons. I was VERY pro-life then and begged her not to because I knew she would regret it. I just knew she would. She didn't wanna go against her mother (she's Chinese) because of the strong family thing, but yet she wanted to have the baby. She had a very diffucult decision to make. She married the dad, had the baby and has 2 little girls now. :)

My mom worked for a lady who's daughter was VERY promiscuous and had LOTS of abortions when she was in high school. Her mom has mental issues and her dad is not a nice man. :( Sad.

It's a difficult issue. :(

[irishgrl]

A million dollars could motivate some people to fib a bit. Including "Susan."
I believe Larry Flynt DID have the goods on W, but without the cooperation of the principal woman HERSELF, he had nothing. Apparently, her silence netted her more. plus, I wouldnt be at all surprised if she or her hubby or her kids would have wound up missing or worse....Only a FOOL would go up against that kind of network without SOLID backing. And Larry doesnt strike me as a fool...(tho I must say that a man who makes his living exploiting women is an arse of the worst order)

IMO, the Bush Dynasty is every bit as orchestrated as the Kennedy Dynasty was. No price to big to pay, no sacrifice too great, no detail too small. This is a family with a plan IMO, and as I told Jason last year on BN, Bush Jr. had an agenda going into the White House. There are layers upon layers here, and the whole thing makes me SICK. And now, with the rape of the land, global warming a fact (btw, the window of opportunity to reverse the damage has passed), the attack on the rights of half the population, the concerted effort to force the ENTIRE nation to adhere to the moral tenets of ONE Group, the spectacular financial debacle that will haunt our GRANDCHILDREN or worse, these 8 miserable years will forever stand as the lowest point in American history in MY mind.

[SuzeQuze]

It worked for Ken Starr. :)

That man should forever be ashamed of himself. :distress: I wouldn't read a page of his "report". Idiot.

[SuzeQuze]

It is a difficult issue. That's why I think the families involved should make their own choice about it and it's no one else's business, IMO. I do think girls/women should be thoroughly informed before they do it, not with scary bullsh*t but with the facts. Perhaps even discouraged from having an abortion, maybe with the stories of other women who've done it. My mom had me at 17 (barely 17) and would have never considered an abortion. She was going to give me up for adoption due to pressure from her father but he eventually told her to take me home, after which I became the apple of his eye (well, as much "apple" as a gruff man can have).

I knew a couple of girls in high school who each had 2 abortions which was scary to me. Someone I know had one and the got pregnant a year later and had the baby. She felt pressured into having the abortion to begin with because of her family. She was extremely immature and the father is an ass. But it's what she wanted. :shrug:

It should always be legal because the back alley abortion is just horrendous, IMO. Also because the woman needs to have rights over her own body.

It's such an extremely touchy subject. I see both sides. I can see where pro-lifers are coming from (well, SOME of them) in that they only wanna protect those with no voice/choice. On the flip side, I see the pro-choicers stance too regarding the woman having the choice on what to do with her body.

My friend was 19 when she got pregnant out of wedlock and her parents tried to talk her into getting one. She brought me and another friend of ours together one night to tell us. We all cried and talked about the pros and cons. I was VERY pro-life then and begged her not to because I knew she would regret it. I just knew she would. She didn't wanna go against her mother (she's Chinese) because of the strong family thing, but yet she wanted to have the baby. She had a very diffucult decision to make. She married the dad, had the baby and has 2 little girls now. :)

My mom worked for a lady who's daughter was VERY promiscuous and had LOTS of abortions when she was in high school. Her mom has mental issues and her dad is not a nice man. :( Sad.

It's a difficult issue. :(

[sodascouts]

The fact that you pro-lifers CONTINUALLY discount the woman as a factor PROVES TO ME that your TRUE agenda is further erosion of a Woman's basic rights.


Mary, there are plenty of WOMEN who are pro-life. I am one of them.

It's not about politics, it's about whether or not you believe a fetus "counts" as a human being. I know you care about children, Mary, and if you believed that the fetus was a baby, you'd stand up for the baby's rights. It's just that you don't see the fetus that way. Can't you understand, though, how someone who DOES believe that the fetus is a baby would be against abortion? Can't you see there's more to it than some kind of power plays and politics?

[strandinthewind]

. . . Can't you see there's more to it than some kind of power plays and politics?

ITA - and I also think that the pro-choice people shoot themselves in the foot with their slippery slope arguments. But having said that, the politicians and the Catholic Church (and other churches) put abortion on the level of power plays. As I have said before, why is it the Catholic Church spread the word from the pulpit and in the media that a vote for Kerry was sacreligious because Kerry and the D's support abortion, which is a sin. Yet, that same entity did not also point out that a vote for W and other R's was two similar sins as the RCC was solidly against the unholy war in Iraq and it considers the death penalty a sin. I mean they chose to make abortion more of a sin than two other sins, both of which claimed innocent lives (innocent people have been put to death). So, I have to conclude that while abortion remains a huge moral dilema for which I know of no solution other than individual choice (which is why it is called pro-choice) - the politcos of the world use abortion as a tool to get into power and the reason they use it is because they can prey on peoples' religious beliefs to their advantage :shrug: AND - both sides do it :nod:

The same thing applies for gay marriage. With all that is going to hell in a handbasket in the world, all the war, famine, and pestilence - the prime concern was whether two people of the same sex can have access to the same rights automatically afforded a heterosexual couple and sometimes to the exclusion of all others, e.g., spousal benefits in Social Security cannot be willed to anyone yet a spouse may have access to them just because they were married. I mean who, in the end, really cares about that when all of this other horrid stuff is happening. Who would not say, I vote to expend my resources to end world hunger? Yet, politicians and the Churches prey on peoples' hate of gay people to drive a wedge their way in the voting masses.

Anyway - food for thought and I am speaking in general terms and not assigning these atributes to you :cool:

[dissention]

Diss' evidence seems pretty circumstantial to me. You're the lawyer, you tell me how solid it is.

She goes from living in a studio apartment and making $13,000 as a waitress to buying a $500,000 home in Corpus Christi six months later. Sounds fishy to me.

[strandinthewind]

She goes from living in a studio apartment and making $13,000 as a waitress to buying a $500,000 home in Corpus Christi six months later. Sounds fishy to me.

Do you see the hypocisy and the irony of getting live in the "Body of Christ" by being bought off and lying about an abortion :eek:

[sodascouts]

ITA - and I also think that the pro-choice people shoot themselves in the foot with their slippery slope arguments. But having said that, the politicians and the Catholic Church (and other churches) put abortion on the level of power plays. As I have said before, why is it the Catholic Church spread the word from the pulpit and in the media that a vote for Kerry was sacreligious because Kerry and the D's support abortion, which is a sin. Yet, that same entity did not also point out that a vote for W and other R's was two similar sins as the RCC was solidly against the unholy war in Iraq and it considers the death penalty a sin. I mean they chose to make abortion more of a sin than two other sins, both of which claimed innocent lives (innocent people have been put to death). So, I have to conclude that while abortion remains a huge moral dilema for which I know of no solution other than individual choice (which is why it is called pro-choice) - the politcos of the world use abortion as a tool to get into power and the reason they use it is because they can prey on peoples' religious beliefs to their advantage :shrug: AND - both sides do it :nod:


Well, politicos use any and all issues as power plays, so I'm not sure why abortion is getting set apart here.

[strandinthewind]

Well, politicos use any and all issues as power plays, so I'm not sure why abortion is getting set apart here.

Well, it is the issue de jour :shrug: and has ben since Roe, though IMO more so now - I mean the RCC specifically told people that a vote for Kerry was a sin - but did not apply the same standard to Bush. I have never seen that before :shrug:

In the end, it really is a poverty thing. History xclearly demonstrates the middle class and rich will always be able to pay sone doctor to hide the scandal. The poor however, will not have that option. Thus, they will more likely die from a hatchet job than the middle class or rich.

[irishgrl]

I was WAITING for someone to say this, and I mighta known it'd be YOU Nancy!
Mary, there are plenty of WOMEN who are pro-life. I am one of them.

here's where I draw the line: Im not saying a fetus doesnt have the right to live, Im saying only the pregnant mother HERSELF has the right to say what she can do with HER OWN body. You, as a woman, can choose to keep YOUR baby. Just as any other pregnant mother can do. But the minute ANYONE tells me what I should do with MY body, its clobberin' time :nod:
and if you forget the MOTHER's needs/rights/situation and ONLY think about the baby then YOU are as guilty of tunnel vision as the MEN who are legislating this.

For you, because you ARE a woman, you have an innate maternal instinct. Abortion goes AGAINST a woman's NATURAL inclination, HOWEVER: There are going to be circumstances and situations and issues that each particular woman weighs before she EVER goes into an abortion clinic. Believe me, abortion is not a day in the park. it is painful, it is scary and you live with the knowledge that THAT fetus will never BE. But that is just IT! if a woman is THAT desperate that abortion is her only answer (the last resort) then there is something terribly WRONG in that woman's life and bringing a new life into a less than optimal situation is just as bad if not worse then preventing it from being. My position is that its not MY place (or ANYONE'S place) to tell another person how to live their life.

[irishgrl]

Well, it is the issue de jour :shrug: and has ben since Roe, though IMO more so now - I mean the RCC specifically told people that a vote for Kerry was a sin - but did not apply the same standard to Bush. I have never seen that before :shrug:

In the end, it really is a poverty thing. History xclearly demonstrates the middle class and rich will always be able to pay sone doctor to hide the scandal. The poor however, will not have that option. Thus, they will more likely die from a hatchet job than the middle class or rich.

I previously mentioned on another thread that the legislation TARGETS the poor. it denies federal monies to PUBLIC clinics who perform abortions, such as Planned Parenthood and the like. The sad fact of the matter is the group least able to afford MORE children will continue to have MORE children. especially if birth control is limited or costly and sex education doesnt EDUCATE.

[Sugar]

In the end, it really is a poverty thing. History xclearly demonstrates the middle class and rich will always be able to pay sone doctor to hide the scandal. The poor however, will not have that option. Thus, they will more likely die from a hatchet job than the middle class or rich.

Which kinda of brings me to something I've been thinking about for a while...if the pro-lifers TRUELY want to bring about a "culture of life" (or however it is that they put it), why are they not fighting for ways to take the economical impact out of the childbirth situation.

For example, fight for the Family Leave Act to include some sort of pay. After all, if every woman who concieves will be forced to give birth it seems really crappy to subject her to up to three months with no pay. What if she's single? What if her husband is an alcoholic with no job?

I believe there are states who don't allow welfare recipiants to get any more money if they have children after they are on the system. Seems like that needs to go away if women have to have the child.

I'm sure there are other examples, but these are the ones that always come to mind first. It really bugs me that the entire abortion discussion ends at the ninth month.

Abortion is not an easy or an enviable choice to most people. If a woman decides it's what has to happen, that's between her and her God. If the state can't offer her equal protection (loss of benefits or pay qualifies, IMO), then the state has no business being in it. And if the state isn't prepared to deal with ALL of the ramifications of overturning Roe V. Wade, then the state shouldn't be talking about it. Isn't that reasonable?

[DrummerDeanna]

Mary, there are plenty of WOMEN who are pro-life. I am one of them.

It's not about politics, it's about whether or not you believe a fetus "counts" as a human being. I know you care about children, Mary, and if you believed that the fetus was a baby, you'd stand up for the baby's rights. It's just that you don't see the fetus that way. Can't you understand, though, how someone who DOES believe that the fetus is a baby would be against abortion? Can't you see there's more to it than some kind of power plays and politics?

You know - my sister explained the abortion thing to me that way once - and I've never looked at the issue the same again.

I was going on some tiraid about politics and abortion - and she said simply, "well if you believe abortion is the murder of a child, then nothing else really matters" or something to that effect (she put it much more eloquently) - and I just sort of saw where she was coming from - my sister is very pro-life, I am pro-choice - but in my mind it's an issue that can be debated until everyone is blue in the face....her views did not make me change my own - but they did make me see things in a different light and understand where some people are coming from.....so count her as a woman who is pro-life...

[amber]

Abortion is not an easy or an enviable choice to most people. If a woman decides it's what has to happen, that's between her and her God. If the state can't offer her equal protection (loss of benefits or pay qualifies, IMO), then the state has no business being in it. And if the state isn't prepared to deal with ALL of the ramifications of overturning Roe V. Wade, then the state shouldn't be talking about it. Isn't that reasonable?
Extremely reasonable. So-obvious-that-everyone-should-realize-it reasonable.
:nod:

[irishgrl]

abortion became a political issue when the Religious Right began expecting payback for their political presence (think of the last election when the pundits all declared that the Churchgoing "base" won the election for W)

The history of abortion would surprise you! The State's ORIGINAL interest was in the protection of the MOTHER'S life, due to the fact that the procedure resulted in the deaths of MOTHERS--and the alternative was even worse: Backalley abortions killed hundreds of mothers as well. Women kept going to Doctors anyway, and eventually the Supreme Court could see that the old reasoning of it being dangerous to the mother no longer applied. The Court also saw a connection to a woman's right to have autonomy over her person and characterized it as within the "penumbra of the bill of rights" in other words, included in its SHADOW.

It wasnt until Reagan's rise to power that the Republican party began to get aggressive about this issue. it was also as a direct result of the newfound collaboration with the Moral Majority. In a Patriarchal society (which all Desert Religions adhere to) Women are second class citizens. Childrearing keeps them busy AT HOME where they cant interfere and muck up things by taking jobs away from men. What do they need educations for anyway? Think about it. Today's women are lucky because they have had the freedom to choose. Suppose that freedom were taken away? what would your future be then?

[estranged4life]

I try to visualize what George Carlin said in one of his standup routines on HBO:

"If people had their way they would arrest any woman that had an abortion, But if that was the case then every female who ever had a menstral cycle would be locked up and the key thrown away." :shrug:

I remember just this past year when the doctor warned Deb & myself that it would not be wise to try to have a child due her chemo/radiation treatments, (He suggested waiting at least a minimum of 5 years) and said if she was to become pregnant it would be recommended to have an abortion because she would be looking at the severe possibility of losing her own life.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Today's women are lucky because they have had the freedom to choose. Suppose that freedom were taken away? what would your future be then?

I think that statement is too simplistic and it puts to many people in the same benign boat. I think a great deal of abortions are done on woman who refused to make the birth control choice ahead of time and knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, I think that is what people think when they think about abortion.

I think everyone gets that rape, mistakes (condom breaks), and other things like that occur and I think most think abortion is mostly acceptable for those incidences. But I think it is hard for most people to see past the girl they envision that has had five abortions just because she could not be bothered with birth control, etc. People do not want to give that kind of person a choice :shrug:

That is a hard picture to overcome :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

Well, imagine the cost of giving birth in a hospital while uninsured. Good point, Sug.

Which kinda of brings me to something I've been thinking about for a while...if the pro-lifers TRUELY want to bring about a "culture of life" (or however it is that they put it), why are they not fighting for ways to take the economical impact out of the childbirth situation.

For example, fight for the Family Leave Act to include some sort of pay. After all, if every woman who concieves will be forced to give birth it seems really crappy to subject her to up to three months with no pay. What if she's single? What if her husband is an alcoholic with no job?

I believe there are states who don't allow welfare recipiants to get any more money if they have children after they are on the system. Seems like that needs to go away if women have to have the child.

I'm sure there are other examples, but these are the ones that always come to mind first. It really bugs me that the entire abortion discussion ends at the ninth month.

Abortion is not an easy or an enviable choice to most people. If a woman decides it's what has to happen, that's between her and her God. If the state can't offer her equal protection (loss of benefits or pay qualifies, IMO), then the state has no business being in it. And if the state isn't prepared to deal with ALL of the ramifications of overturning Roe V. Wade, then the state shouldn't be talking about it. Isn't that reasonable?

[sodascouts]

You know - my sister explained the abortion thing to me that way once - and I've never looked at the issue the same again.

I was going on some tiraid about politics and abortion - and she said simply, "well if you believe abortion is the murder of a child, then nothing else really matters" or something to that effect (she put it much more eloquently) - and I just sort of saw where she was coming from - my sister is very pro-life, I am pro-choice - but in my mind it's an issue that can be debated until everyone is blue in the face....her views did not make me change my own - but they did make me see things in a different light and understand where some people are coming from.....so count her as a woman who is pro-life...

Right - there's the fundamental difference. If you see the fetus as a separate life, then you can't justify abortion, any more than you could any other ending of innocent life. Therefore, arguments about economic / social circumstances, while reasonable, don't cut it in the face of that fundamental fact.

[irishgrl]

I think that statement is too simplistic and it puts to many people in the same benign boat. I think a great deal of abortions are done on woman who refused to make the birth control choice ahead of time and knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, I think that is what people think when they think about abortion.

I think your opinion on WHY "a great deal of abortions are done" is simplistic! and it is just an opinion, it is not based on any statistics. Birth control fails, and there may be other extenuating circumstances that neither you nor I are aware of. On the other hand, my statement is not simplistic at all. It is a projection based on the underlying agenda of the Relious groups. The Desert Religions (Christianity/Judaism/Muslim) are Patriarchal. In these societies Women ARE second class citizens. Their main purpose as stated in the religious writings and in practical application THRU HISTORY has been to clearly delineate the roles of men and women, where men go out and be breadwinners and women stay at home and care for the house. women have been chattel THRU HISTORY up to the 19th century/turn of the 20th century.
this is fact. The practical fact of the matter is this: if a woman is pregnant or has young children at home, she is not as free to pursue her OWN dreams or career. issues of childcare and transportation are HUGE. not to mention coordinating school schedules. Yes it can be done but only with assistance from family or friends or an outside agency. and often, the mother has to postpone her own future plans until her children are grown. I know I had to.

There are things that scare me: the recent Washington State divorce case where a pregnant woman was denied a divorce from her physuically abusive husband solely due to her pregnancy. if she cant abort, and cant get a divorce, she is trapped in an abusive marriage. the fear is that an abusive husband can keep her captive merely by keeping her pregnant. I dont want to see women EVER go back to that miserable type of existence.

[strandinthewind]

The "benign boat" referred to the women who are raped or had an actual accident despite precaution. I think most, even a great number of pro lifers, get that these women, esp. the former, are in a relatively benign situation at least regarding accountability for their actions or the actions another imposed on them.

I think the foregoing people are in a different and more sympathetic boat than the women who had the choice not to get pregnant via consenual sex but did not choose that for whatever reason. These are the people that the pro lifers and IMO most pro choicers cannot stand. They are the ones that people think are horrible because they are having multiple abortions as a means of birth control when all they had to do was get on the pill or make the guy wear a condom.

I personally make no comment on the latter. But, I do note that these people are what many have a hard time condoning when they opt for pro-choice. I also get that it is impossible to offer the choice for the former but not the latter.

So, in the end it must be pro choice for all and that burns people up :shrug:

On edit because you edited:

I think your opinion on WHY "a great deal of abortions are done" is simplistic! and it is just an opinion, it is not based on any statistics.

I think you know that such people exist. I think you do not want to talk about it because it is easier to point to the more sympathetic rape victim. But, clearly many women are having multiple abortions because they cannot be bothered with birth control. I know a few and I imagine many others do as well. That is a hard pill to swallow for almost all :shrug:

Also, you well know that statistics and abortions and the reasons for them are hard to access because not everyone tells the truth sort of like the rape statistics are hard to access because not all rapes are reported.

[irishgrl]

Right - there's the fundamental difference. If you see the fetus as a separate life, then you can't justify abortion, any more than you could any other ending of innocent life. Therefore, arguments about economic / social circumstances, while reasonable, don't cut it in the face of that fundamental fact.

Nancy, you just nailed it: the fetus IS NOT A SEPARATE LIFE--it is WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE MOTHER'S BODY! The MOTHER didnt go away here (hello?) A fetus will NOT survive outside the womb before a certain stage of development and even then, it takes tremendous medical equipment to keep a very young fetus alive! I should know I was a 24 week baby! 24 weeks is pretty much the cutoff for viability. it is this fact that I mentioned in another thread: that the developing fetus DRAWS the raw materials it needs to develop directly from the mother, many times to the mother's detriment (again I remind you of lost teeth, bone density loss, hair loss, onset of pregnancy related medical conditions such as diabetes, not to mention chemical incompatibilities and so on) To me, this fact ALONE makes it imperative that ONLY the mother make the decision: hers is the body, hers is the risk, only she knows what sort of world the baby will be coming into....(why does EVERYONE overlook the MOTHER? does she not COUNT? When did she become INVISIBLE?)

and THAT is where the Supreme Court justified its trimester reasoning (yes I know Jason, you think they created it out of whole cloth but it is medically sound for the time being) Even if, as Jason suspects, medical science can someday push back the viability line, it would be cost prohibitive on any type of large scale.

[irishgrl]

However I dont talk about rape victims because no one disputes their right to an abortion.

and I am not condoning abortion as a means of birth control and Ive said so many times. But I also know that birth control can fail and those individuals should not be denied because their very act of taking birth control showed they didnt intend to have a baby....

no. I think abortion should be a last resort. Ive said so over and over. its not an easy choice, and one that Im sure no one makes lightly. it is not an experience I would wish to have. but again, I am not in any of those other women's shoes and neither is anyone else, therefore, its none of our business.

[strandinthewind]

However I dont talk about rape victims because no one disputes their right to an abortion.

and I am not condoning abortion as a means of birth control and Ive said so many times. But I also know that birth control can fail and those individuals should not be denied because their very act of taking birth control showed they didnt intend to have a baby....

no. I think abortion should be a last resort. Ive said so over and over. its not an easy choice, and one that Im sure no one makes lightly. it is not an experience I would wish to have. but again, I am not in any of those other women's shoes and neither is anyone else, therefore, its none of our business.

But, the world does not see it that way. All they see is what they deem as some whore screwing around and killing babies because she cannot be bothered with birth control. The image of that person, and they most certainly exist, taints the perception of the other more benign reasons like rape, failed birth control, etc.

We are on the same page here - I am just saying why I think people see abortion as horrible, etc.

[irishgrl]

We are on the same page here - I am just saying why I think people see abortion as horrible, etc.

I think the viewpoint that sees all abortion seekers as wanton whores is simplistic. Most women I've known who have done it have cried and agonized and cast about for other solutions....its NOT an easy choice to make and I really feel bad about the women who have had to make it. :(

[strandinthewind]

I think the viewpoint that sees all abortion seekers as wanton whores is simplistic. Most women I've known who have done it have cried and agonized and cast about for other solutions....its NOT an easy choice to make and I really feel bad about the women who have had to make it. :(

LOL- you keep either missing or spinning my point :laugh:

I am not saying people see "all abortion seekers as wanton whores." I am just saying that such people who have abortions as a means of birth control do exist. I know so because I know more than one woman who has done it :shrug: I think alot of people are loathe to condon this behaviour and, thus, are loathe to condon abortion because it is impossible to separate the two events leading to the choice. Thus, they want to ban abortion for all rather than let these "wanton whores" get away with it.

[irishgrl]

that the number of girls/women who have abortions as a method of birth contol is far far less than the number of girls/women who come in for other reasons.

I read your posts very carefully, btw, Its not my way to spin, Ill leave that up to you and Diss!

[strandinthewind]

that the number of girls/women who have abortions as a method of birth contol is far far less than the number of girls/women who come in for other reasons.

I read your posts very carefully, btw, Its not my way to spin, Ill leave that up to you and Diss!

Again, I think statisitics regarding abortion are a little suspect. I think most people lie regarding the reasons because of the shame involved. That makes sense to me :shrug:

[irishgrl]

but Im not even sure these women are questioned about WHY they need the abortion. :shrug:

I considered abortion myself and even made an appointment, and the only question that I was asked was "when was your last period" so that they could determine my window of opportunity. they didnt say ANYTHING to me about "did your birth control fail?" or "did you even USE birth control?"

its just not done.....at least it wasnt for me...
and btw: I never went to my appointment, and I have a beautiful 4yr old who is the love of my life. His FATHER on the other hand, is a scourge, a blot on the landscape! :blob1: :lol: :nod:

[Sugar]

Therefore, arguments about economic / social circumstances, while reasonable, don't cut it in the face of that fundamental fact.

Perhaps the arguments don't "cut it", but are you prepared for the economic ramifications of what it would mean to be a pro-life nation? Do you see nothing that should be done BEFORE the overturn of Roe v. Wade, since that is your desire?

Are you prepared for the toll on the welfare system and other social programs? The toll on the workplace? The toll on health insurance? Not to mention the toll on the role of women (God help the woman stuck in an abusive relationship repeatedly raped by her husband to keep her dependent).

Maybe all those prices are worth it to some in order to save the life of the unborn, but those prices will have to be paid. And what drives me crazy is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned it will take YEARS to figure out how to pay that price. And while the government is trying to figure out how (if) to change the welfare laws and other work related laws it will be pregnant women left holding the bag, perhaps without income and/or health insurance.

Lest we forget, that's not a very good environment to raise a child in.

[strandinthewind]

but Im not even sure these women are questioned about WHY they need the abortion. :shrug:

I considered abortion myself and even made an appointment, and the only question that I was asked was "when was your last period" so that they could determine my window of opportunity. they didnt say ANYTHING to me about "did your birth control fail?" or "did you even USE birth control?"

Then how do they get the statistics? I am curious. I am not being snarky :cool:

[irishgrl]

I think I should pay a visit to NOW website and see what I can dig up...
all I can say is what MY experience was...as for statistics I think I was recalling something I read but if I cant find it, Im going to delete that pesky comment!

[strandinthewind]

I think I should pay a visit to NOW website and see what I can dig up...
all I can say is what MY experience was...as for statistics I think I was recalling something I read but if I cant find it, Im going to delete that pesky comment!

well no need - I was not saying you were wrong (I HAVE SEEN WHERE THAT HAS GOTTEN ME :laugh: :p :laugh: :p :laugh: :wavey: ) - I was just curious. I always assumed the clinics kept some kind of record :shrug:

[irishgrl]

Then how do they get the statistics? I am curious. I am not being snarky :cool:

here you go: (PS please ignore the ?? it apparently doesnt copy/paste well!)

From CANOW:

There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding abortion in our culture. Many of these myths relate to questions of why women have abortions, when do abortions most likely occur and how many abortions take place. According to the National Abortion Federation, every year more than 50% of all pregnancies are unintended and about half of these unintended pregnancies are ended by abortion. The vast majority of abortions, 90%, take place in first trimester (under 12 weeks). And over half of all abortions occur within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Fewer than 1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks. California's legal limit for elective abortion is 24 weeks. Women who access abortion services come from a variety of racial/ethnic, cultural, economic, and religious backgrounds. The reasons why women have abortions are as diverse as the women themselves.

and this is the most telling of all:

Reproductive Rights Fact Sheet (http://www.canow.org/issues/fact_repro.html)

Reproductive Rights Fact Sheet

* Women pay 68% more than men in out-of-pocket medical costs, primarily due to lack of coverage for contraception and other reproductive health costs. (Women?s Research and Education Institute, 1994)
* More than 4 out of 10 young women become pregnant at least once before the age of 20 ? nearly one million young women a year. (National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity)
* Approximately 95% of teenage pregnancies are unintended. (Institute of Medicine, 1995)
* Today, abortion is 10 times safer than childbirth. Legal abortion has been associated with decreases in both maternal and infant mortality. However, 86% of counties across the U.S. do not have an abortion provider. (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1998)
* 12 million women of reproductive age are uninsured, and the proportion of women covered by Medicaid is dropping, from 12.6% in 1994 to only 9.9% in 1998. Mothers on welfare are often given medical coverage only for childbirth, without pre- or post- natal care. (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1998)
* Almost two-thirds of STDs (Sexually Tranmitted Diseases) occur in people less than 25 years old (Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The National Women?s Health Information Center, 1999.)

Abortion BEFORE Roe V. Wade
(From the National Organization for Women)

* The Supreme Court?s historic Roe v. Wade ruling did not create abortion in the United States.
Whether legal or illegal, abortion has been a part of life in the United States since the Colonial period.
* From the colonial period to the 1800s, abortion was legal before ?quickening,? which occurred approximately during the fourth month of pregnancy. During that period, primitive methods?such as jumping on or hitting a pregnant woman?s abdomen, introducing foreign objects into the uterus, or using concoctions made from easily found herbs?were used to cause abortion, frequently killing or injuring the women.
* Abortion was not a crime, and was quite common, in the United States during the 1700s and early 1800s. The mid-1800s campaign to criminalize abortion stemmed from the medical profession?s desire to establish the supremacy of physicians over midwives and homeopaths, an increasing resentment towards the growing women?s rights movement, and a racist reaction to the growing number of nonwhite and non-Protestant immigrants.
* Laws passed across the country between 1860 and 1880 prohibited abortion at any point in pregnancy. However, abortion remained widely available throughout the next century. According to some late-nineteenth century sources, approximately two million abortions were performed annually.
* Until the 1940s, women could obtain abortions from doctors and midwives, although many times these procedures were unsafe, in addition to being illegal. It was after the 1940s that abortions became increasingly difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million.
* It is impossible to determine the full impact of illegal abortion on women?s lives before Roe v. Wade. Reliable statistics are not available for either the total number of abortions performed or the total number of deaths resulting from botched abortions, since the cause of death was often misreported.
* In 1965 alone at least 193 women died form illegal abortions, with illegal abortion accounting for nearly 17% of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth that year.
* During the 1950s and 1960s, before abortion was legalized in the United States, every year at least 160 to 260 women died from illegal abortions, while thousands more were seriously injured.
* During the first half of the century, illegal abortion counted for about 50% of all maternal deaths. By 1980, however, the percentage of maternal deaths due to abortions dropped to nearly zero.
* Many women injured and killed due to unsafe self-induced or ?back alley? abortions were poor and low-income women. Women with greater economic means were able to afford better health care and less dangerous?although still illegal?abortion services.

Abortion AFTER Roe v. Wade
(From the National Organization for Women)

* Safe and legal abortion saves women?s lives, benefits existing families and serves society as a whole. Important advances have been made in the lives of women and families since the 1973 legalization of abortion in the United States.
* Each year, half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and half of these are terminated by abortion. It is estimated that 1.33 million abortions were performed in 1997, approximately a 15% decrease from the 1990 level.
* An estimated 43% of all women will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
* Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions, while teenagers obtain 20%.
* Forty-seven percent of all unplanned pregnancies occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception. Half of all women having abortions in 1995 had used a contraceptive during the month they became pregnant.
* Eighty-six percent of all counties in the United States have no abortion provider, and approximately 32% of all women aged 15-44 live in the these counties. The number of abortion providers decreased from 2380 in 1992 to 2042 in 1996.
* First trimester abortion is taught as part of gynecology in only 12% of medical schools in the United States.
* In 1973, the risk of dying from an abortion was 3.4 deaths per 100,000 abortions. Today the death rate from legal abortions is 0.6 per 100,000 at all stages of gestation and 0.2 per 100,000 abortions performed before eight weeks of pregnancy. This is 11 times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.
* More than half of all abortions are performed at or before eight weeks of pregnancy and 88% occur during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Approximately half of all women having abortions beyond 15 weeks say their delay was caused by problems in affording, finding or getting to the abortion services.
* Roe v. Wade did not dramatically affect the number of abortions desired or performed. The marked change occurred in the number of abortions reported. Even when abortion was illegal in the United States, abortions were performed by both skilled medical personnel and untrained individuals commonly known as ?back alley butchers.?
* States that have stringent anti-abortion laws are also states that provide women with the lowest levels of education and where women suffer the highest levels of poverty.
* Since the legalization of birth control and abortion, unwanted pregnancies and births have decreased dramatically. From 1961 to 1995, the number of unwanted births to married women dropped from 20% to 6.5 percent.

[strandinthewind]

good lord :eek:

thanks for posting!!!!!

ALSO - I thought always thought "Roe v. Wade did not dramatically affect the number of abortions desired or performed. The marked change occurred in the number of abortions reported. Even when abortion was illegal in the United States, abortions were performed by both skilled medical personnel and untrained individuals commonly known as ?back alley butchers.?" Thus, Roe just made them safer :nod:

[irishgrl]

ask and ye shall receive! I am the Q.U.E.E.N. of research. I EXCELLED at legal research Ill have you know! I LOVE research! I wish there was a job where I could research all the livelong day.....

[strandinthewind]

ask and ye shall receive! I am the Q.U.E.E.N. of research. I EXCELLED at legal research Ill have you know! I LOVE research! I wish there was a job where I could research all the livelong day.....

me too - I esp love it now that we have a comp. as opposed to digests LOL

[irishgrl]

good lord :eek:

thanks for posting!!!!!

ALSO - I thought always thought "Roe v. Wade did not dramatically affect the number of abortions desired or performed. The marked change occurred in the number of abortions reported. Even when abortion was illegal in the United States, abortions were performed by both skilled medical personnel and untrained individuals commonly known as ?back alley butchers.?" Thus, Roe just made them safer :nod:

yes, I was a bit surprised to learn that it was the medical profession that pushed the procedure to gain advantage over midwives...hmmmm dang doctors!
and did you also see the very last statistic? the one that says abortions are down to 6.5% from 20%? pretty good!
:woohoo:

[irishgrl]

me too - I esp love it now that we have a comp. as opposed to digests LOL
there's something to be said about the smell of paper....and the HUSH of the library....
and I kinda LIKED having all the different digests at hand so I could switch from one publisher to the other and lay them ALLLLL out on a table and take bunches of notes....ah well...they only let fresh law school graduates do research now, what a shame for sherlocks like me who would work our hearts out...I wish I could have finished law school, but alas, my daughter needed me....those were tough years between 14 and 18...and my dream is gone because now I have a new baby to raise (not that Im complaining mind you but I wonder what might have been, I had dreams of becoming a big enviro (I know, no $$ in it) atty...)
man, I cant type tonight...

[strandinthewind]

yes, I was a bit surprised to learn that it was the medical profession that pushed the procedure to gain advantage over midwives...hmmmm dang doctors!
and did you also see the very last statistic? the one that says abortions are down to 6.5% from 20%? pretty good!
:woohoo:

I think that is due to the net. I think the net, which almost all have access to in one way or the other - though some do not, has helped. I think kids that have questions can avoid embarassment by looking it up on the net. Also, most AIDS task forces and other places hand out free condoms. Finally, the threat of AIDS has hopefully increased condom useage :shrug:

[irishgrl]

thats an original theory my dear! not one I would have come up with to be sure! but maybe it is a factor, who knows?

oh well, got to sign off for now, or I'll be useless tomorrow and we cant have THAT now can we? (dont answer that!)
tune in tomorrow:
same bat-time
same bat-channel

[strandinthewind]

. . . otherwise I will seek out and throw eggs at every American who has ever had the audacity to tell the world how they lead the way with democracy and the importance of the individual.

I prefer a pie - which, of course, has eggs in it :cool:

[irishgrl]

wrong about the amount of time. There is a FEDERAL 60 month LIFETIME time limit (60 months on aid EVER) and each State runs their own programs as they see fit. In CA we require everyone to participate in Welfare to Work, and we used to have a 2 yr time limit (which ruled out getting a Bachelor's degree) but that has recently been scrapped and we now allow individuals to go to school as part of their participation. I think there's more to it but I dont work in that department, I monitor my caseload for continued eligibility month after month.
(wages, household composition etc) In CA, medi-cal DOES cover pre and post natal care. I had medi-cal for all 3 of my kids, and its a good thing I did because I had no other health care coverage. Its tough finding a doctor who accepts medi-cal because they complain about payment. (Apparently the Doctors forgot about the Hippocratic Oath...)

[amber]

Well that's a bit better then. I don't agree with the Welfare to Work system. We have a similar thing over here, Work for the Dole, but this one of a few choices one can take and it exists as a temporary programme one must complete if they've been on the dole for a certain period of time (assuming their income is below the required amount). You can hardly be seeking out work and improving your skills and chances of work by spending your time working for the welfare (the dole) which is supposed to support you in your attempts to find work.

Jason, I'll be my own guest and take up that offer.
It's worse than you think. Welfare is barely enough to live on. Oh, and I don't know about your dole, but of course, here, you can mainly only get welfare if you have children. And again, you can barely support them on it. It doesn't pay for school or child care while you are working/going to school. Of course, you can usually get more financial aid from school if you have kids...when I was young, you couldn't work even a little when you were on it, else they'd take it out of your funding - so no part time jobs. I think it is different now..

[estranged4life]

It's worse than you think. Welfare is barely enough to live on. Oh, and I don't know about your dole, but of course, here, you can mainly only get welfare if you have children. And again, you can barely support them on it. It doesn't pay for school or child care while you are working/going to school. Of course, you can usually get more financial aid from school if you have kids...when I was young, you couldn't work even a little when you were on it, else they'd take it out of your funding - so no part time jobs. I think it is different now..

in Oklahoma, If you have a child and you apply for assistance you're "A-OK", But if you do not have children you're pretty much on your own.

When Deb was finally released from the hospital (After her lengthy stay) we had to apply for 'temporary food stamps' because all the $$$$ we had was used to pay our everyday bills/basic everyday needs & her medical/prescription bills, There was no money left at the end of the day for food, So we had no choice...Either apply or starve.

Even then there was no guarantee since our income was above the "cut-off line" for assistance, If Deb had any other medical problem except for cancer DHS (Dept.Human Services...or better known here in OK as "Destroyer of Home Situations") they werent going to help us whatsoever (Deb having cancer was the ONLY way they were going to help us), But if we had "several children" then they would kiss our asses from sun-up to sun-down, And even told us that at point blank.

The system in OK has been abused to the point where if you truly need assistance your basically f**ked.

[amber]

Woah. I can get assistance while I live with my parents, have no kids (obviously) and have a part time job. They do deduct 50 cents for every dollar you earn so there's an incentive to work more but they realise a part time job isn't enough to survive so they don't deduct dollar for dollar. The particular programme is for letting young people get a start in life and it makes it so much easier to move out of home and get your finances together. There's many programmes for the ranges of needs but this is the one that everyone I know has. It's not for the 'poor', although they certainly use it too. All of my friends are on it and they're all from well-off families.
Jesus, that sure would have made my life a lot better and different!

[dissention]

It's worse than you think. Welfare is barely enough to live on. Oh, and I don't know about your dole, but of course, here, you can mainly only get welfare if you have children. And again, you can barely support them on it. It doesn't pay for school or child care while you are working/going to school. Of course, you can usually get more financial aid from school if you have kids...when I was young, you couldn't work even a little when you were on it, else they'd take it out of your funding - so no part time jobs. I think it is different now..

Blame it on Clinton. His Welfare Reform Act is a despicable piece of **** and showed how out of touch he was when it came to reality. If there's no one can find a reason to dislike him, that's one.

[amber]

Blame it on Clinton. His Welfare Reform Act is a despicable piece of **** and showed how out of touch he was when it came to reality. If there's no one can find a reason to dislike him, that's one.
I sure will blame him, but it was also bad during the Reagan years...baaaad.... :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Blame it on Clinton. His Welfare Reform Act is a despicable piece of **** and showed how out of touch he was when it came to reality. If there's no one can find a reason to dislike him, that's one.

I think everyone agrees that Welfare Reform is greatly needed as the system is out of date and widely abused. But, what is the solution? It is easy to say that program was bad, etc. But, no one is willing to offer a solution everyone can agree on :shrug:

Here are some articles on the Clinton era welfare plan for those interested:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9605/19/clinton.welfare/

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/welfare/010822.welfare.html

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/welfare.htm

:cool:

[SuzeQuze]

Jesus, that sure would have made my life a lot better and different!

Same, I could have gotten out of my 'rents house a lot sooner than I did and maybe wouldn't have felt pressure to move in with someone when I didn't really want to. Crazy. I was making just under $8 an hour out of college. Damn bachelors in psych. What a kick in the pants that was.

[irishgrl]

It doesn't pay for school or child care while you are working/going to school.
actually, Amber, it does. it doesnt pay much, but it pays. and it also pays a per mile transportation expense or provides bus tickets.

Blame it on Clinton. His Welfare Reform Act is a despicable piece of **** and showed how out of touch he was when it came to reality. If there's no one can find a reason to dislike him, that's one.

Diss, Clinton didnt author that, and he DID try to soften it, but with a new Republican majority in Congress mid-term, Clinton's hands were tied.

more later, I am at work.

[amber]

actually, Amber, it does. it doesnt pay much, but it pays. and it also pays a per mile transportation expense or provides bus tickets.



Diss, Clinton didnt author that, and he DID try to soften it, but with a new Republican majority in Congress mid-term, Clinton's hands were tied.

more later, I am at work.
It didn't used to. :)

[irishgrl]

there have been quite a few changes just since I started working for social services 2 1/2 years ago...its so hard to keep up with new changes for each program....and the CALWORKS component is different than what most people think of when they think of "welfare worker" ....That is actually the "eligibility worker," and the Calworks worker is the one you work with to get yourself groomed to eventually become self sufficient. This can now include going to school up to a Bachelor's degree (which is different from MY days on welfare)
and the old two year time limit is no more. If you are already in school, your classes can now count toward your work requirement. I think this is a step in the right direction because an EDUCATED population is a working population.

unfortunately, the funding for things like car repairs so people can GO to work has dried up (Thank YOU Bush) and childcare funds are also scarce. Depending upon where you live, the only way you can make it is if you get on the waiting list for section 8 housing assistance (thru HUD) or have multiple roommates...but THAT has drawbacks too IMO!

[strandinthewind]

I just do not know how to solve the welfare problem and clearly there exist many problems such as abuse, neglect, time constraints, etc. I think no one wants to use tax dollars for able bodied people who just do not want to work, At the same time, many people cannot work because they cannot get a job because they have no education or a criminal record, which sadly is prevelant at this level (I think there is a direct causation - but that is another argument :cool: )

In the end, I think some sort of work study program is the best - though how it would be implemented is beyond me. I mean how long can someone "stay on the teet" before it becomes abuse.

Food for though and meant to be thought provoking not antagonistic :cool:

[irishgrl]

Jason, there are two good things that came out of welfare reform, namely
time limits (60 month LIFETIME limit for EVERYONE) and the Maximum Family Grant Rule (no extra money for extra kids) Some states continue to carry the kids when the adults reach their 60 months and some dont. but the upshot is, people know there is a LIMIT, and they wont get extra $$$ by having more babies. I also think our borders need to be stronger, and our public assistance limited to LEGAL RESIDENTS. (I know there are people that wont agree with that but in CA there is a HUGE amount of $$ being spent on illegal aliens and it makes me sick when I see the prevalence of homelessness of our own citizens, some of them former Vietnam vets....ah well....

The good thing is that the 2 yr limit in CA for educational goals has been eliminated. NO ONE is going to be competitive with an AA/AS degree...
There are some things I think the government should re-implement: does anyone remember the ambitious road and bridge and dam building projects this country embarked on to pull America out of the Depression? I think that would be a useful thing to restart...give workers a trade, rebuild our roads/bridges/dams etc and its a win/win situation all around! I also think we should reopen our old manufacturing plants, or build new ones. its a grave mistake for us to be outsourcing so much. Corporate GREED has crippled this nation...I only hope its not too late to change the present course...

[strandinthewind]

Oh ITA - the govt. should use FDR Depression Era work projects or similar things. Sometimes I just look around and think "why the hell doesn't the govt. fix this road or that building, etc."

In sum, I think the system we have in place is for the most part working - it just neess to be tweaked to meet the needs of those really in need a little better :cool:

[irishgrl]

people who begin working (or restart!) develop pride in self sufficiency. there is a good feeling getting those paychecks and knowing that YOU are taking care of your own family. sometimes people DO need help and single women especially are vulnerable and behind the 8-ball regarding skills/education. They are already discriminated against (its subtle but it is STILL happening, and there is STILL a glass ceiling, and a disparity in wages between the genders) so, every woman owes it to herself and her children to better herself anyway possible....

[GypsySorcerer]

I think abortion will remain legal. As long as it is, it will remain a rallying cry for Republicans to keep their base.

What I do worry about is the further restricting of abortion, as we have already seen beginning.

[dissention]

I think abortion will remain legal. As long as it is, it will remain a rallying cry for Republicans to keep their base.

I've been thinking the same thing. I think it's more of a power play than anything else. They'll never try to strike down abortion, they'd stand to lose too much politically. They wouldn't have that card to play anymore. But, if they did strike it down, they could always use the threat of liberals coming back to reinstate it. :laugh:

[amber]

I've been thinking the same thing. I think it's more of a power play than anything else. They'll never try to strike down abortion, they'd stand to lose too much politically. They wouldn't have that card to play anymore. But, if they did strike it down, they could always use the threat of liberals coming back to reinstate it. :laugh:
Dang! So sneaky, so smart, so evil :mad: