107 Comments - GOP - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:15 am: That’s great news. There are many pro-choice politicians who don’t want our tax dollars to pay for those end of life procedures…and abortion does end a life. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:16 am: Kirk joins a select group of GOPers and Dems — the first Pres. Bush and Dick Gephardt come immediately to mind — who had epiphanies regarding abortion rights that neatly coincided with their upward electoral ambitions. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:19 am: There will be more from Kirk, but I hardly think his flip-flops are surprising. After Porter’s endorsement put him over the top in the crowded GOP primary in 2000, and afterward whenever he was in-district, Kirk embraced the role as protege of John Porter, a moderate’s moderate if ever one existed. Then I went to visit him in Washington in 2002, and was surprised that he showed us the desk he had brought up from Capitol storage. Yep, it was Don Rumsfeld’s desk from his days in Congress. Kirk the Chameleon was clear as day for me then. In DC, he was Rummy’s protege. Back home, he was John Porter’s. None of his recent manuevering is surprising in the least. - fedup dem - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:19 am: Future news accounts of Kirk should identify him as “Mark Kirk, H-IL,” with the “H” standing for Hypocrite! - The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:19 am: Note to GOP - our tax dollars already do subsidize abortions. This amendment will only ensure that those without means will find it nearly impossible to do so. - Where's my money, Giannoulias? - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:21 am: Anyone bother to ask Kirk to comment on this? Or are we just going to listen to his enemies? - ChiTownguy - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:23 am: Incredible. What was he thinking? Forget your personal beliefs on the merits of the legislation for a second. Think just from a political standpoint - how does this possibly benefit Mark Kirk? Once again, he is going completely against what he has stood for and built his reputation on in his entire time in office. Moderate dems and north shore voters like him because he of his moderate stance on social issues. What’s next? A vote to deny foreign aid to Israel? He must be VERY worried about winning the GOP primary, but because he is selling his soul and giving silver bullets to the dems every week. Will the REAL Mark Kirk please stand up? Cannot wait to hear Team America’s take on this! (That’s just some good nature fun TA! no disrespect meant.) - OdysseusVL - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:24 am: Any truth to the speculation that his explanation is that the vote was in the interest of his district, but that if he is elected to the Senate electing the State of Illinois, he would vote the other way? He’s tried that explanation once. Why not roll with it? - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:29 am: Yesterday I called Kirk three things. “Phony” “Weasel” “Puppet for the Israel lobby” Kirk’s supporters basically argued that he was justified in being a puppet for the Israel lobby. They didn’t address whether they agreed that he’s a “phony” and a “weasel”. Kirk supporters: what is one principle Mark Kirk wouldn’t flip-flop on if it would give him a better shot at winning the U.S. Senate race? - shore - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:36 am: Jan Schakowsky voted for the house bill that included the stupak ammendment, is she a flip flopper too? - insider - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:37 am: One can be pro-choice yet not want tax dollars to pay for abortions. I personally do not like abortions, but believe every one should have their own choice. I do not, however, want my tax dollars paying for abortions. - just sayin' - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:38 am: Mark Kirk the Pander Bear - Siwash - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:42 am: Ummm. . . I don’t see defense of life as some kind of right-wing reactionary deal. . . more a human rights issue. Life is sacred and we have to respect it. Bottomline: abortion is barbaric and inhumane. - LincolnLounger - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:46 am: I’m troubled by what appears to be his tendencies these days to pander, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Lots of us who are pro-choice are horrified by the idea that taxpayers would pay for abortions, and nobody wants the courts getting in the middles of this one anymore than they have. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:46 am: ===Bottomline: abortion is barbaric and inhumane.=== Spare us with the Sunday morning talking points. We’re not debating the merits or morality of abortion here. We’re commentating on Kirk’s sprint to the right away from the stances and ideals that helped him get elected over and over in the 10th CD. - shore - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:47 am: 1. Even when Mark Kirk got a pro-choice ranking, the pro-choice crowd still went after him for 1,000 checks he received from republicans that weren’t. They don’t have a lot of credibility. 2. Every HHS appropriations bill in his tenure in congress has not included federal funds for abortion-this isn’t a revelation. 3. Senator Durbin had a revelation on this issue too, only he completely flipped. 4. congresswoman schakowsky and every other democrat in the IL congressional delegation could have told the speaker that this was a deal breaker and prevented floor action. They didn’t. One meaningless republican vote is not a big deal. 5. this doesn’t change the fact that mr.kirk is eminently more qualified than any of his competitors who have more than a few flaws and lack the stature to become senator. - True Observer - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:48 am: “Think just from a political standpoint - how does this possibly benefit Mark Kirk?” The amendment passed, 240 to 197, with 64 Democrats voting with Republicans on the measure. So, that makes Kirk out of the mainstream? - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:48 am: I’m pro-choice, or at least I think I am, but that doesn’t mean that I want to go out and have an abortion and expect taxpayers to pay for it. As a person who is pro-choice, I support a woman’s decision to choose what to do with her body, but I don’t want to pay for HER choice. She makes the choice, SHE should pay for it. Part of being pro-choice should include being pro-active and responsible in the first place. To some extent I see the argument that subsidizing abortion is wrong because it encourages or supports irresponsible action. I believe that whenever we talk about federal government money (taxpayer money)/resources they should be only be used to promote positive outcomes that are in the collective interest of the nation; these monies and resources are finite. Likewise at the state and municipal levels as well. I am so not a feminist, them and their primrose path leads all the way to nowhere! So, I don’t disagree with Mark Kirk or Judy Biggert here. - ChiTownguy - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:51 am: I’m not looking to discuss the merits of the amendment. No one will change anyone’s minds here. Kirk flip-flopped. Shore - Jan did vote for the bill, and led the charge against the amendment. IF she was in a tough general election, it MIGHT be an issue, but still doubtful. On top of that, saying “Jan Schakowsky is a flip flopper too” doesn’t exactly rebutt eh argument against Kirk. Again, how worried is he about a challenge from his right? He’s completely reversing his previous publicly stated beliefs to win an election - exactly what the Dems have accused him of doing. - Responsa - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:57 am: The Stupak amendment was a Democratic sponsored amendment. It was allowed by House leadership to be put forth for the specific tactical purpose of giving 64 democrats (including Lipinski)some cover on the issue and getting enough blue dog democrats temporarily on board to pass the Pelosi HC bill on Saturday night. It never had anything to do with Republicans or to get Republicans to vote en masse for the main bill. Most people who comment regularly on this blog are smart enough to know that this Stupak maneuver was just one more example of how legislative sausage is made. Means little beyond that. IMO the real furor (and contempt) should be reserved for the House leadership which thought opening this can of worms in the middle of the already electric HC debate was a wise idea. Maybe time will show that the ends did not justify the means. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:58 am: As a person who is pro-choice, I support a woman’s decision to choose what to do with her body, but I don’t want to pay for HER choice. She makes the choice, SHE should pay for it. Bravo, Will County Woman. I’m Pro-peace, and share your sentiment. If Republicans want to invade other countries without cause, that’s their choice, but let them send their own sons and daughters and let them pay for it. And as someone who doesn’t drive, I say “Let car owners pay for the roads!” Get it yet? Here’s the foolishness of the Stupak Ammendment from a conservative perspective. The Republicans say they don’t want some government bureaucrat dictating our health care choices. Then they vote overwhelmingly for an amendment that does precisely that. Oh, and by the way, we’re not even talking about health care plans paid for with your tax dollars here. We’re talking about health care plans purchased by private citizens from private companies with 100% private money on kind of an e-Bay for health insurance. P.S. If you don’t like paying for other people’s choices, you really need to ask yourself how much of your private health insurance money is going to pay for someone else’s smoking, drinking, and potato chip eating. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 11:59 am: Where’s my Money, Why do you need to ask Kirk anything about this. Actions speak louder than words. He’s a flip flopping hypocrite. - OdysseusVL - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:02 pm: One note on the merits of the bill – My understanding is that the Amendment would bar payment for a “D&C” at any time before the mother’s life is actually at risk. That hits home for me, since my wife and I lost our first two relatively early in her pregnancies, but her body was a bit slow to discharge the deceased fetus. Having the D&C at that point cut short (to some degree, as a miscarriage is a horrible thing that you really never get over) the trauma of losing the fetus. Having to carry that fetus longer would have prolonged our pain and our loss. A lot of women are going to suffer unnecesarily because of the Amendment. I’m really tired of all this angry rhetoric about “baby killing” when some of the procedures covered have absolutely nothing to do with what most consider an abortion. - shore - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:02 pm: I don’t think kirk has ever said he supports federal funding for abortion. What this is really about is a very weak democrat field and a humbled abortion lobby looking to distract voters and the media from the weakness of their credentials to be Senator and their fury with their own speaker who dropped them like a brick. I gave up on some in the chicago media a long time ago. To them a republican can either be a conservative, in which case he’s trashed for being a wingnut (witness the carol marin attack on proft), or he’s a moderate, in which case he’s a flip flopper. The same standards don’t seem to apply to democrats. When Melissa Bean flip flops on issues like labor and commerce you hear that she’s “principled”, when jesse jackson junior and jan get voter rankings at the extreme ends of their party they’re “liberals fighting the fight”. This double standard is ridiculous. - The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:05 pm: 1. Even when Mark Kirk got a pro-choice ranking, the pro-choice crowd still went after him for 1,000 checks he received from republicans that weren’t. They don’t have a lot of credibility. The rankings from the pro choice crowd notwithstanding, your argument proves that he likes to play it both ways. A rabid Kirk supporter questioning, without support, the credibility of others rings hollow. 2. Every HHS appropriations bill in his tenure in congress has not included federal funds for abortion-this isn’t a revelation. As I said before, federal funds already subsidize abortions. The amendment will essentially prohibit, economically speaking, from those of lesser means access to abortions. And I’ve never heard Kirk make such a distinction. 3. Senator Durbin had a revelation on this issue too, only he completely flipped. So your rationale for his flip-flop is that a liberal democrat that you’ve previously villified did it, so why shouldn’t Kirk? Priceless. 4. congresswoman schakowsky and every other democrat in the IL congressional delegation could have told the speaker that this was a deal breaker and prevented floor action. They didn’t. One meaningless republican vote is not a big deal. A weak straw man argument. It’s far from certain that Schakowsky will vote for the bill with the Stpuak language, and the vote you cited was most likely an attempt to avoid scuttling the bill in its entirety. The same certainly can’t be said of Kirk. Schakowsky’s end game is HCR. Kirk’s is an open senate seat at any cost. 5. this doesn’t change the fact that mr.kirk is eminently more qualified than any of his competitors who have more than a few flaws and lack the stature to become senator. Ah, good ol’ misdirection. Kirk has radically changed his stance on just about every issue, and for reasons that are purely political. It stinks, Shore, and it’s indefensible. - Anon-Number7 - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:06 pm: Rich - Let me see if I have this straight. 1. Mark Kirk was pro-choice. 2. Mark Kirk is still pro-choice. 3. Mark Kirk voted to prohibit federal tax dollars from paying for abortions. And you call this a “major flip-flop”?! Give me a break! And despite the rantings from NARAL, Mark Kirk is still firmly in the middle on this issue and stands with the majority of Americans. - Patriot - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:08 pm: I may be wrong but couldn’t this be more of a pragmatic vote rather than a flip-flop? I.e. Republicans think that a healthcare overhaul passage is imminent and they at least want to ensure that the new system does not perform abortions with publicly funded assistance? Judging from several dems supporting the amendment, coupled with several commenters sentiment, this is not exactly b/w against pro-choice. To echo previous comments, I consider myself prochoice but I don’t believe I should have to pay for the operation due to someones indiscretions. I do think Kirk is a fool if he believes he needs Palins endorsement to win. Put simply, Palin is toxic. And that endorsement will hurt more than it will help in most general elections. He’s got the primary tied up so I think the pandering to Palin may be a little misplaced. - SangamoGOP - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:10 pm: True Observer makes a great point lost on everyone screaming that Kirk is sprinting to the right and that this vote verifies that he has nestled in with the ‘radical right’. If that is the case, NARAL-Pro Choice America should be issuing similar press releases for the other 269 House members and declaring the entire US House under the control of the ‘radical right’. - ChiTownguy - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:14 pm: I’m amazed - somehow we already have the “The liberal media is stacked against us arguemnt.” Come on. ALL of the arguments stated here are too long and nuanced to re-butt the flip flop charge during the campaign. If Mark Kirk has to run a campaign defending himself on charges he is a flip flopper on social issues (REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS) instead of making his Democrat opponent defend his or herself against their own charges - he loses. IMHP - this was a misstep by Kirk. - Anon down south - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:14 pm: Here’s my take on it from a purely political point of view. Kirk has to 1) win the GOP primary and 2) win the general election in a rather heavily Democratic state. The voters he’s appealing to now aren’t the North Shore voters he represents in Congress. To win a general he would need to get the GOP base out while winning over a good chunk of independents/moderates. How many of the “millions of pro-choice voters” would vote for him in the general election anyway? How many independents/moderates are single issue pro-choice voters? Therefore I don’t see it as a major issue for him, it’s the same thing practically every other politician does at one point or another. The people who are going to give him the most grief about it probably wouldn’t vote for him anyways. Now, if the flip-flopping charge starts to stick with independents then he’s got some problems. - pro-choicer - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:17 pm: Actually, the Stupek Amendment isn’t about Federally funded abortions. It’s about abortions under PRIVATE health insurance. Under the Stupek amendment, women who pay for their own private insurance would no longer be able to have abortions covered under their services. There is no tax payer money going to pay for abortions, it is about private insurance, and women who pay out of pocket for it, possibly being denied abortion coverage. - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:18 pm: Oh, YDD. I appreciate your snark. You get the gold/yellow star for today. I am not pro-peace, and I do not share your sentiments there. BTW…neither does Nancy Pelosi. She and I are both very pro-defense. I was in a room with her when she answered a pro-peace person’s concerns, such as yours. From your perspective, I am a Blue Dog. But, I found common ground with Pelosi on some defense issues. Just like I can find some common ground with Kirk and Biggert. The reason being is because the nationalized health care issue is, I believe, an issue of, and in, the collective national interests. That is why I largely support it in theory (and practice), but there are certain aspects that I don’t support. Admittedly and perhaps not surprisingly I am concerned about the cost too. Thanks! - Anon - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:21 pm: Like others here, I am personally pro-life. I wouldn’t have an abortion, but I wouldn’t interfere with another woman’s right to so. On the other hand, I would prefer that no more of my money be used to fund abortions. To me that is blood money, regardless of the income of the woman who “benefits.” Sorry, this isn’t necessarily a flip-flop on Kirk’s part. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:22 pm: Pro-choicer, I’m as pro-choice as anyone here, but the amendment restricts federal subsidies from paying for private insurance that includes abortion services. A minor point to be sure, but subsidies will be paid using federal funds. Still, this is a red herring. The subject isn’t about abortion, it is about Mark Kirk changing positions almost as often as many people change underwear–ie, almost daily. - Patriot - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:30 pm: Re pro-choicer what about the G run public-option? Isn’t that run by our government to bring down costs? And isn’t tax payer money used to run the public option? - The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:38 pm: ==And isn’t tax payer money used to run the public option?== GOP talking point alert… No. HCR is financed entirely by efficiencies wrung out of Medicare, givebacks by health-care related industries, and taxes on so-called “Cadillac” plans and/or high-income earners. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:41 pm: If memory serves, Kirk has been against taxpayer funded abortions in the past. This vote seems to mirror those views. If that’s the case then there is no flip nor a flop. Jan Schakowsky lead the charge against the bill but voted for it? Perhaps she deserves the same ridicule? Her vote was one of expediency and not of principle? Does that make her a “PandaBear” too? - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 12:59 pm: What a lot of people are failing to grasp is that this bill prevents anyone receiving federal subsidies from purchasing insurance from a private company that does provide abortion coverage. Its not as if all of these people want abortion coverage, they may just feel that a particular company provides the best deal and that company covers abortions for those who need them. The Stupak-Pitts amendment limits a persons choice in choosing the best insurance for them based something that may not even factor into their choice. Aside from that, this is also a major flip flop for any of the pro-choice legislators who voted for the amendment. The difference between Kirk and any Democrats who voted for it is that they have different results. Kirk is pandering because he’s seeking to placate the Tea Partiers and make them believe he’s on their side. The Democrats who voted for the amendment have committed a more serious offense to me because they are abandoning their base and principles for no real benefit. - Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:01 pm: Having once lived in Rep. Kik’s district, I remain amazed at how he has nimbly survived as a moderate Republican in an area often better suited for my present Congressperson, Jan Schakowsky. While the abortion issue isn’t a big player in Kirk’s district, it will get play in central and southern IL in a Senatorial race. But Kirk’s got plenty of extra cards to play. His military service and efforts to save the VA’s North Chicago Medical Center will play well statewide. He’s bright and engaging. Frankly, I’m sick of the abortion issue. A society that takes issue with a quick death at the womb but tolerates slow death via lack of healthcare, decent education, crime ridden neighborhoods and the like endured by growing numbers of Americans certainly has a bipolar disorder with serious existential shortcomings. Let him pander the issue all he wants if he can pull it off. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:06 pm: Correct me if I’m wrong, but this amendment would prevent me, as a man, from receiving a federal subsidy for a private health insurance package that may be the best suited and cheapest for me, because it also happens to cover abortions? - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:06 pm: OMG! I actually agree with someone from Cook County. I agree with Cook County Commoner. I would add that in addition to Mark Kirk being “bright and engaging,” he is very gracious as well. - heet101 - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:16 pm: == “…than the support of millions of pro-choice voters in Illinois,” Keenan said. == “…I am committed to working with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 98,000 Illinois activists, members, and supporters to defeat Mark Kirk’s Senate campaign.” So, “millions” of pro-choice voters and only 98,000 activists, members and supporters? I’m confused. - proud vet - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:22 pm: I don’t really see the flip flop here - Pete Giangreco - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:24 pm: JUST TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT Kirk HAS voted for federal funding of abortion in the past, including paying for abortions for women in prison, so his statement is factually inaccurate in two ways — he did not vote pro-choice as he once did and he has supported funding abortions in the past. But Kirk has voted on both sides of so many issues, I’m sure its hard for him to remember the truth at this point. - Secret Square - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:24 pm: I understand the concern about Kirk flip flopping, and I am pro-life myself; but one does NOT have to be a hard core 100 percent pro-life supporter to oppose federal subsidy or coverage of elective abortions. For that matter one does not HAVE to be 100 percent pro life to think that parental notification or a ban on partial birth or other late-term procedures are acceptable restrictions. Activist groups on both sides insist otherwise, but I don’t know that the average voter does. - Amalia - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:30 pm: Will County Woman, every time you post for Dan Hynes I will remember your silly post at 11:48 am re HER choice and SHE should pay for it and the primrose path of feminism. obviously, you have not been listening to Democrats who are pro choice who use language about safe, rare and legal when it comes to abortion and who do not yell about reproductive choice. And, most concerning, you do not take a look at the actual legislation at hand, and the amendment which affects those who have health care with companies which are trying to be a part of the pool for the public option. And how this stupid amendment affects women beyond those who need public money for health care. It’s beyond the Hyde Amendment, get a clue. - First Timer - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:34 pm: This is my first time posting. I agree with most of the discussion here. I consider myself pro-choice; however, I do not like the government paying for an abortion. I have no problem with subsidies going for prevention, ie. Birth Control and condoms. I met a woman who has had five abortions. It seems that abortions is becoming a type of birth control; in which it should not be. I agree in the case of rape, incest that there is a need; in the case of irresponsibility — it’s not so clear. I say this is not a flip flop; but a growing sentiment for the majority of the population. - ZC - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:34 pm: Voting for the amendment and voting for the bill are separate animals. If you’re voting for the bill, you might say, “No, I didn’t like W provision, but I liked X, Y, and Z, and I wasn’t willing to let the whole thing go down because of X. In addition, X might get stripped out of the bill later on, anyways, but not if it dies now in the House.” There are lots of ways for Jan to explain how that is not a flip-flop. On the other hand, the Stupak amendment vote was the Stupak amendment. It was a vote ONLY on the amendment, and not on the broader bill. So I think Kirk has a tougher explanation. He might I suppose say, “I voted for Stupak because I oppose the general bill, and I thought it would be easier to kill, ultimately, if Stupak were part of it.” But I don’t think Kirk has made that argument. - Segatari - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:36 pm: Kirk is a Rhino…his ridiculous strategy of driving away all the conservatives and trying to be attractive to moderates is blowing up in his face. He’s got no convictions and can’t figure out what he stands for. This is the type of person that is destorying the Republican party, and liberals are telling everyone more people like Kirk should run because they’re more “electable” than conservatives…ahem, wrong it’s more “beatable” than conservatives. - Pat collins - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:49 pm: if they are so mad, something good must be going on kirk used Rummy’s desk WAsn’t that Rumsfeld’s district when he was in Congress? Wasn’t Rumsfeld also a Naval Aviator like Kirk? Here’s the foolishness of the Stupak Ammendment from a conservative perspective. You know, if you don’t like the amendment, just don’t regulate insurance Has anyone considered that the bill passed with 5 votes, the amendment with 64? So, if no Stupak, no health care bill? NARAL painting the Commander’s plane Maybe PP ought to think about this: If they dump on Kirk bigtime, and he wins ANYWAY, he has nothing to lose by building a Pro-life record as a Senator? What a truly pleasant prospect…. - Ghost - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:50 pm: Kirk stood for cap and trade, and is now against; he supported pro choice and now opposes meaningful support of that position etc etc. Kirk has made himself stand for everything; and in the end he stands for nothing. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:52 pm: LOL, nice deletions, Rich. That was about to get ugly in a very one-sided manner. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:52 pm: Wow, Shore is doing op research on Giangreco! I love it! Except going after Pete doesn’t change Kirk’s voting record, does it? Changes the subject: check. Refutes the underlying charge: nope. Regardless of which candidate Pete is working for Shore, is his charge accurate? Despite the fact that Paul Simon made Roger Ailes his opponent in 90 (instead of attacking Lynn Martin), rarely does this strategy work. But good luck with that Shore. - Democrat Grrrrl - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 1:57 pm: Does the Kirk campaign know the difference between “reign” and “rein”? Apparently not, as we see the statement from his campaign posted as an UPDATE on this topic. Surely his campaign press office doesn’t rely solely on spell check. Or was this a hastily retyped blurb from the Cap Fax crew? Either way, it’s a Freudian typo, since Kirk behaves as if he is ruler of all he surveys… - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:00 pm: Would you stop with “Kirk is a Naval aviator”? He’s a reservist who is not a pilot and never was a pilot. His job is to read a panel that gives the electronic spectrum details of radars and the like. How many radars and missiles does al Qaeda have? Zero. So, Mark Kirk gets in a plane with three people who actually know what their doing. He stares at a screen that has no information because the Taliban has no radars or missiles that use radar. So, the blow hard comes back to the United States, and implies he did more than he did. Then partisan hacks inflate staring at a black screen to be a war hero. That’s why Mark Kirk is a phony and a weasel. Rumsfeld did a shade more than Kirk. Rumsfeld was actually a pilot and actually served on active duty. Although Rumsfeld served far shorter on active duty than modern Naval Aviators do. It appears he was in a hurry to quit active duty for the reserves himself. - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:03 pm: oh well, amaila doesn’t agree with me. oh well. - heet101 - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:05 pm: Why is Carl Nyberg allowed to take potshots at people for wearing the uniform of our country. I don’t care if the guy peels potatoes or handles the joystick for the predator drone. Quit with the knocks on service to our country. I don’t know how that is going to help you get Alexi elected buddy. - shore - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:05 pm: Having a desk is not a problem. I wasn’t going after pete. He appeared on a program to tout his candidate, I simply cited it. No different than using a memo to get talkings points on palin. If we are going to accuse candidates of voting to federally fund abortions for convicts without sourcing the legislation, I think we should consider the source. Mr. Kirk has been hit on this blog for requesting assitance from ms. palin, we should be able to note the past work of mr. giangreco. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:09 pm: Thank you Doc and Prochoicer! I read the whole thread to make sure someone got the facts in here. Let’s say it one more time (from their posts since you said it so well): Actually, the Stupek Amendment isn’t about Federally funded abortions. It’s about abortions under PRIVATE health insurance. Under the Stupek amendment, women who pay for their own private insurance would no longer be able to have abortions covered under their services. There is no tax payer money going to pay for abortions, it is about private insurance, and women who pay out of pocket for it, possibly being denied abortion coverage. HCR is financed entirely by efficiencies wrung out of Medicare, givebacks by health-care related industries, and taxes on so-called “Cadillac” plans and/or high-income earners. So in sum: there is no tax money in HCR. The Stupak amendment goes way past the Hyde amendment and cuts off legitimate, legal, necessary health services to women. And no one is paying for the abortions from their taxes. OK? - Anon - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:12 pm: I just heard someone from NOW speak and she said this is an out and out attack on Roe v. Wade. Her points was — I have a private insurance plan through BCBS that covers abortion and someone opts into my same plan through the public option, then me and EVERYONE on that plan is denied funded abortions. - MrJM - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:13 pm: heet101, Many of us who have served our country in uniform consider accuracy with regard to service to be very important, e.g. I would not appreciate it if someone equated my father’s tour of duty in Vietnam with Geo. W. Bush’s ’service’ in the Air Guard. It is all worthy service, but it isn’t all equal. – MrJM http://twitter.com/misterjayem - heet101 - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:19 pm: Yeah, well. I think its more than fair to say Carl “snarky” Nyberg is a little over the top with it. “He just stares at a dark screen.” Real classy. Also, Rich, really…he can just continually call him a weasel and a phony? If I tee’d off on Hynes like that my comments would be deleted post-haste. - proud vet - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:21 pm: Anon, that’s absolutely false. Under the amendment, if you opt for a federally-subsidized insurance plan (government or private), the plan cannot cover abortion — that would be federally funding abortion. However, the amendment allowed a person who has the lower-cost federally-subsidized insurance plan to purchase a supplement outside the government exchange that would cover abortions (since it’s not federally funded). In the end, this entire debate sounds like a great reason for the government NOT to take over health care. - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:36 pm: Dear Opposition: I have read your posts and your concerns. However I am not swayed, and I still agree with Mark Kirk, Judy Biggert and Nancy Pelosi. The following are excerpts on Stupak (the healthcare reform/ abortion issue): #1. Under the proposed health care reform, people would purchase insurance from one of several competing private insurers and possibly from a “public option.” The federal government would provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to purchase insurance on their own. The abortion amendment, known as the Stupak amendment, states, “No funds authorized under this Act … may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,” unless the procedure is being used in situations of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. No one who receives any level of federal subsidy to pay for her insurance will be able to choose a plan that covers elective abortion, and the public option will not provide coverage for abortion. Women will have the option to abstain from using federal money and buy a plan that does cover elective abortions… #2. Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies. #3. Her [Nancy Pelosi] attempts at winning them over had failed, and Ms. Pelosi, the first woman speaker and an ardent defender of abortion rights, had no choice but to do the unthinkable. To save the health care bill she had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions. - Abe Froman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:46 pm: Again everyone in a lather because…wait for it… Kirk did absolutely nothing different! Yes, Kirk votes consistently against public funding. It’s not a “move to the right,” or anything else you want to call it. So let all the Kirk bashers (led by you Rich) attack him for a consistent vote. The real attack should be on NARAL for their misrepresentations of Kirk’s positions. Once again, this is more proof that the Dems are scared you-know-what-less of Kirk and while political junkies all get their undies in a twist over the latest nothing story, Kirk continues to lay the groundwork for a strong appeal to moderate and independent voters. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:48 pm: Abe, I don’t think you read the posts above that talk about his record. Kirk DID vote for federally funded abortions. Therefore there is a flip and a flop. Sorry, but you’ll need new talking points. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 2:55 pm: One of the biggest problems in this discussion is in the area of therapeutic abortions. A few years ago, my wife was more than four months into her pregnancy when we found out the fetus had a very serious problem (anencephaly) that would have prevented it from surviving outside the womb. It might or might not have survived in utero to birth. Under Stupek, that therapeutic abortion would NOT have been covered because my wife’s life was not in danger, though her health and certainly her mental health, was. Opponents of abortion only see the world in black and white. We live in a world of gray. Would so called pro-lifers really want to force my wife to carry the fetus to term even though it was guaranteed to die outside the womb? Why torture the mother like that? In short, Stupek was a full frontal assault on abortion rights. Mark Kirk voted for it because he’s afraid of his right. He flip flopped. Period. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:02 pm: –I would add that in addition to Mark Kirk being “bright and engaging,” he is very gracious as well.– What is this, The Dating Game? - shore - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:03 pm: Mr. Giangreco, who we understand worked for governor blagojevich, made an attack on congressman kirk and did not cite his sources. We’d like to see the legislation, as well as the candidate he is working for so we know this isn’t more of the funny business we’ve seen from his side the last 8years. you know it’s tough times on the left bank when democrats are using republican support for democrat legislation against republicans. chicago cynic, I am sorry about your situation, but mr.kirk didn’t write the bill and in a democrat house, it’s the decision of the majority of the majority on issues like this. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:03 pm: Thanks Wordslinger for reminding me of that. Mark Kirk is many things, but gracious he’s not. PLEASE don’t confuse public persona for what someone is really like with his colleagues or even his political opponents. - OdysseusVL - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:07 pm: Shore, First, the party is known as the Democratic Party, and not the Democrat party. Your use of the term is frankly childish. Further, are you arguing that because the Democratic Party introduced the amendment, Kirk was somehow excused for doing the right thing? This bill had nothing to do with government funding. It impacts private insurers. Further, it does not necessarily deal with elective abortions. It barred coverage for the procedures necessary for the wife of Chicago Cynic, and for the D&C that was necessary for my wife. So if you are going to try to “debate” the topic, Shore, please do so with respect and also try to get your facts correct. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:08 pm: Shore, It’s a decision of legislators how they vote. Kirk made a vote at serious odds with his history. Now he has to own it. It’s a pretty basic point. - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:11 pm: chicago cynic, I am sorry to read about your family’s experience. The danger with these types of discussions is that in many cases the issue is personal and very emotional, of course we don’t know that until someone shares his or her personal story. I don’t think that “pro-lifers” are insenstive, but I can appreciate how you or someone who has had your experience may think that. But, as you noted there are shades of gray. I don’t speak for Mark Kirk, or Dan Hynes or anyone else for that matter on this blog, but I can see where/how his, meaning mark kirk’s, position on the abortion issue generally speaking is from a gray perspective. Admittedly the abortion issue is an emtionally-charged issue. From what I have read it was nancy pelosi who to capitulated here to ensure passage of the bill, and I commend her for that. She took into consideration the much bigger picture and what was in collective national interests. when considering the abortion issue under the health care reform context consider the fact that the number of women seeking abortions is small in comparison to the overall numbers of people for whom healthcare reform is intended. it is not unreasonable, and in fact is quite common, for government to look at the greater good and act accordingly. - OdysseusVL - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:12 pm: Correction to my 3:07 note: It should be: “Further, are you arguing that because the Democratic Party introduced the amendment, Kirk was somehow excused from doing the right thing?” - LincolnLounger - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:23 pm: Mark Kirk’s real problem is that he insists on running his own campaigns. Most of the time, he has been very successful, but a statewide is a whole different ballgame. He’s got to stop surrounding himself with yes-men. - Pete Giangreco - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:33 pm: Fair enough Shore, here’s your citation: Kirk voted to use federal funds on abortions in prisons.(HR 2500, House Vote 235, 7/17/01) He also voted at least twice to use taxpayer dollars to fund international family planning, again proving his statement was full of inaccuracies. (HR 1646, House Vote 115, 5/16/01; HR 1950, House Vote 362, 7/15/03) Now would you like to try the “liar liar pants on fire” defense, because that doesn’t work either. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:37 pm: What are you people arguing about? The Stupak Amendment is a fraud to get sufficient votes to pass HR 3200. No one cares at this point cares what it says, because it was always a fiction created to pass a fiction. NARAL is biased. No one should listen to what they say about this issue anymore than they should believe a 1982 Chevrolet Citation car brochure that claims that this car is the latest in auto technology. NARAL sells abortions as birth control without regards to any moral or ethical beliefs. So, what they say about anyone who doesn’t support their belief that a human life isn’t human and has no rights until it takes a breath within the arms of an approving mother, gets smeared! Abortion is a medical necessity, so it shouldn’t be completely outlawed - but as long as the “pro-choice” crowd wants to redefine this medical procedure for it’s use as a replacement for contraception - this group dilutes and corrupts any reasonable discussion regarding it. NARAL knows this. They have expanded this “right” to a point where it has made it perfectly legal to end human life based on the flimsiest excuses. We don’t treat mass murderers as poorly as this group does unborn humans. It is a good thing NARAL isn’t pro-nuclear power, or they’d be trying to shove nuclear powered bottle warmers into everyone’s home. This group recognizes no sanity on this issue. If an abortion is a necessary medical procedure, it should be covered under any Nanny-State Health Care Plan. If abortion was taken as seriously as it should be, it wouldn’t be considered an elective surgical procedure, except in cases of rape or incest - and covered. Abortion shouldn’t be seen as birth control anymore than a forest fire should be seen as a weed killer. Until it is returned to it’s proper medical and moral context and we pull our heads out of the sand regarding what rights humans have before they are born, the very idea of federally funding abortions is as wrong as if we legalized federally funded slavery. It is not a flip-flop to vote anywhichway on the Stupak Amendment, then take a stand anywhichway. Kirk’s views on abortion are too lenient in my opinion, yet he is correct in taking a stand against federally funded abortions. - Kyle Boller's Clipboard - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:48 pm: For someone whose platform purports to get the “g” out of our lives, I’m concerned about Rep. Kirk’s promise to “reign in spending.” Republican voters don’t want to reign in spending; they want to rein in spending. But given how his campaign has gone, I’m sure he’ll move between spelling it correctly and spelling it incorrectly at least half a dozen times between now and election day. - Anon - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:48 pm: LincolnLounger—- I think Kirk stopped surrounding himself with yes-men when he got rid of Doug O’Brien. The team I have seen in Kirk’s operation in 2006 and 2008 were professional and sharp. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:49 pm: How big-D Democratic of you, Vannie. A Republican Congressman’s views on abortion are too lenient? Give me a break. There should be a new category of “Democrats” even further to the right than the Blue Dogs–Purple Dogs if you will–that you can join in pro-life, anti-taxation harmony. That being said, it is refreshing in an odd way to here someone argue against abortion without using the words bible or God. You still managed to fit in the words moral and ethical, however, for which you are deducted a point. I guess my question, and I do pose this respectfully, is whether your objection is based in science (for which you do make an argument, valid or not) or in morals and ethics? You seem to have intertwined both, VanillaFriend. - proud vet - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:50 pm: Pete G - the prison issue is about the right to access an abortion, not to fund the abortion. There have been court cases on this issue — a total ban on funding would prohibit the prison from facilitating an abortion even if the inmate paid for it. The Hyde Amendment, on the other hand, is completely about federal funding of abortion — and that’s what Stupak extended. As for the votes on international family planning: shame on you. Democrats spent a lot of time explaining that such funding could never be used for abortions and could ONLY be used for family planning or contraception. Trying to use those votes shows YOU are the one who blows with the wind for political purposes. Of course, that’s why they pay you. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:53 pm: 2009, and still with the abortion. The direct-mail meisters must be happy at their beachfront homes. - Pat collins - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 3:54 pm: upon further review The USN has always been picky about the term Naval Aviator, officially. It is correct that a naval flight officer is not a Naval Aviator. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:07 pm: - No one cares at this point cares what it says, because it was always a fiction created to pass a fiction. - Speak for yourself. Instead of writing a diatribe against NARAL maybe you could present some arguments that support your claim about the amendment. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:14 pm: I guess my question, and I do pose this respectfully, is whether your objection is based in science (for which you do make an argument, valid or not) or in morals and ethics? You seem to have intertwined both, VanillaFriend. I guess I know this because I am a relatively new dad. Newborns Cry With An Accent We are learning more every day how human we really are while in utero. Pregnant ladies carry human life. Back in the olden days of Rowe V. Wade, we didn’t know these things. Now we do. I sincerely believe that if Rowe V. Wade was happening right now, with the same cast of Supremes as 40 years ago, the final outcome would be different. And yes, this is because of science. Medical science. - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:16 pm: The healthcare reform issue is really more about preventative healthcare than anything else. So, it stands to reason why abortion should not be included in the reform. i agree with the person who posted about Kirk stepping up his campaign. I don’t know the extent to which he has free hands available to do research on his past positions, but there is an appearance of flip-flopping. But, if handled properly, it is not the end of the world. In some ways flip-flopping is justified and explainable, but the Krik campaign is going to have to do a better job than what we see in the Update at the top of this thread. I express this as someone who likes mark kirk for u.s. senate. Some of the criticisms expressed on this thread are not without merit. I think highly of Mark Kirk, so I expect his responses to criticisms to be better and more careful technically speaking. out. - Bubs - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:21 pm: Slow news day, I take it? It’s eally much ado about nothing, as Kirk has all sorts of outs. This bill called for a nationwide coverage plan at the public expense, not a few presion inmates. It is a fiscal conservatism issue not a pro-choice issue. This House bill, for all the hurrahs from the Democrats and the media, is going absolutely nowhere in the Senate, as was abortion funding. I think the more interesting story is that Pelosi was so up against the wall to get this past the House that she sold out a lot of women she supposedly supports. No one is talking about that one, though. Typical. - OdysseusVL - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:24 pm: The comments by the Kirk supporters are pretty funny: “Move along, move along. No story here. No need to read further. Move along.” - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:24 pm: There should be a new category of “Democrats” even further to the right than the Blue Dogs–Purple Dogs if you will–that you can join in pro-life, anti-taxation harmony. I am pro-life. Most living people are. I am also pro-life regarding the death penalty. Life is the most precious gift we have. We shouldn’t allow it to be taken, in my opinion, either before we take a breath in the arms of a loving parent, or even when a jury really really really thinks that a heinous crime was committed by one of us, and that a government agency should be allowed to take it from you. As to being anti-tax, everyone really is anti-tax. Only a total dummy would be willing to pay more to prop up failing governmental policies. And you are no dummy, sir! I am a conservative, because I am an adult male that no longer believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Free Lunches, or that we can get a bunch of super-intelligent saints in office so that we don’t have to be responsible adults. I wasn’t always conservative, but I grew up. - Seriously? - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:33 pm: Segatari - conservatives may be more electable in primaries, but that doesn’t mean squat when the general rolls around. Let’s take a look at the outstanding successes of some of our more conservative candidates over the years: 1996 - Al Salvi, U.S. Senate. Beaten by Dick Durbin. 1998 - Al Salvi, Secretary of State. Beaten by Jesse White 1998 - Chris Lauzen, Comptroller. Trounced by Dan Hynes. 2002 - Jim Ryan, Governor. Defeated by Blago. 2004 - Alan Keyes, U.S. Senate. We all know how THAT turned out. Many of the Republicans holding statewide office most recently (and still not THAT recent, since all the conservatives in recent years got trounced in the general election)were moderates: Judy Baar Topinka, Corinne Wood, Jim Edgar, Loleta Didrickson…. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:35 pm: You forgot Glen Poshard. Why? Because he was a Democrat and you just wanted to point out how Republicans nominate conservatives? And Keyes wasn’t nominated in the primaries. - Brennan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:36 pm: NARAL is going to go broke if they have to primary 219 Democratic incumbents and one Republican incumbent. They may get Joe Cao for free. Kirk didn’t flip here. His position today is the same position he held yesterday, one year ago, two years, etc. Obamarama: Climb down from that ivory tower. Right wing luminaries like George Orwell, Nat Hentoff, and Christopher Hitchens are anti-abortion for the religious benefits. =Under Stupek, that therapeutic abortion would NOT have been covered because my wife’s life was not in danger, though her health and certainly her mental health, was.= Cite please. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:45 pm: VM, =I wasn’t always conservative, but I grew up. = I am still growing up but your posts are on the mark. And enjoyable to read, to boot. - Brennan - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 4:46 pm: Seriously?: Were these moderates prochoice and proponents of using public treasuries to subsidize elective abortion coverage? =I sincerely believe that if Rowe V. Wade was happening right now, with the same cast of Supremes as 40 years ago, the final outcome would be different.= Come on. Really. Do you honestly believe the same cast of characters wouldn’t be able to make up their own history, their own data and hand that mythology to the mainstream media where they would present it as the unquestioned truth? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 5:01 pm: VMan, I’m always fascinated by your self-congratulatory testimonials to your “conservative” philosophy. A union, state-employee “conservative,” who derides the “Nanny State.” Brother, you don’t have a clue. You belong on Fox. Maybe when you get a little older. - Amalia - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 5:05 pm: Vanilla Man, it is absolute nonsense that the pro choice crowd wants to use abortion as birth control. The pro choice crowd is the group promoting the use of actual birth control. As opposed to, oh, say, the Roman Catholic church bishops who oppose contraception, even condoms, even in situations where there’s lots and lots of AIDS around. So please skip your phony rhetorical argument about how if she’d only used birth control she would not be pregnant and now she wants an abortion and those pro choicers are pushing that as birth control and just tell us that you are against reproductive freedom. we get it. we just don’t agree with you. the majority of people are in favor of having the government leave their medical decisions to themselves and their doctor, or haven’t you heard all the bleating about the freakin’ health bill? - scoot - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 5:21 pm: Kirk campaign: Please stop pandering to the right wingers..you’ll never make them happy, so don’t try. Just be yourself and you’ll be fine. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 5:54 pm: Vannie, in this instance, apparently, I am a dummy. I would deal with a tax increase because I can also do math. Whoa a dummy that can do math?! That’s like a pro-life Democrat! I kid, of course, VanillaFriend. - Seriously? - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 6:01 pm: VM, no I didn’t mean to just point out Republicans. I’d forgotten about Democrat Glenn Poshard. But he was defeated, too. Brennan - I don’t know about each of those candidates’ stances on public funding of abortions. I was speaking to the broader implication by Segatari that social conservatives are more electable than moderates. True in a primary, but not in a general. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 6:02 pm: I’m with LincolnLounger on this one. This isn’t a flip-flop no matter how hard Alexi tries to paint it that way. As the Campaign stated it’s been Kirk’s position all along, and it’s also what he’s been telling folks in Town Halls. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 6:47 pm: ==== …his ridiculous strategy of driving away all the conservatives and trying to be attractive to moderates is blowing up in his face. He’s got no convictions and can’t figure out what he stands for. ==== That’s an unusual perspective. I think most are arguing the opposite–that Kirk’s a Moderate who’s trying to draw in Conservatives. But then again, true Moderates are generally more difficult to “pin down”, aren’t they? It’s much easier to apply the “Liberal” or “Conservative” label to someone. And that could be exactly why you think Kirk has no convictions. My guess is that you would think that of all true Moderates. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 7:01 pm: And, 47th, as a Moderate, I totally get the desk thing, too. (That is a great observation though. Thanks for sharing!) - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 7:38 pm: Carl, in addition to what MrJM and heet101 have said, could you also keep in mind that much of the stuff that’s being posted here re: Kirk’s military service ISN’T being posted by Kirk? Seriously, please take a breath before you wind up insulting some really great people who certainly don’t deserve it. It’s just a bad place to go, Carl. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 7:50 pm: =========== –I would add that in addition to Mark Kirk being “bright and engaging,” he is very gracious as well.– What is this, The Dating Game? =========== I’d say a 10!!! (Just playing along, guys. lol) - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 8:19 pm: Nancy Pelosi and “national collective interests”? Hmmm. - Ann T. Kirk - Wednesday, Nov 11, 09 @ 9:00 am: I morally disagree with war and I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for it. How is that different from those how morally disagree with abortion and don’t want their tax dollars to pay for them? However, because I am an obedient taxpayer, I am forced to pay for immoral wars. And why are men so determined to make decisions for what we women want to do to our bodies? You don’t want us to have abortions, but you want your Viagra. A very relevant quote: No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother. ~ Margaret Sanger - Obamarama - Wednesday, Nov 11, 09 @ 9:26 am: Sketical, does that go for Cheryle Jackson too? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.