Is Bush sabotaging McCain?
It’s starting to look that way. McCain’s “strength” is supposedly Foreign Policy. It’s all he has. So why is Bush undermining the Republican nominee’s platform?
McCain says no timeline. Bush says “Time Horizon”.
McCain calls Obama an appeaser. Bush begins talks with Iran.
And just for fun, since McCain is trying to woo Hillary voters… Bush proposes labeling birth control as abortion.
So, I’m thinking Bush is voting for Obama… Cause he sure ain’t helping McCain!
A truism is that Appeasers will eventually get caught up in contradictions. We’re seeing it now more than ever.
Conservatives, Bush voters, and week-kneed Dems have been played. Shame on them for their gullibility, then and now.
Birth control = Abortion? what an idiot!
McCain doesn’t need any help messing up. He seems to be just fine on his own.
True, but Bush isn’t helping. In fact, he’s hurting.
Should be fun to watch McCain flip-flop again!
I’ll admit to getting a perverse satisfaction from watching McCain’s uncomfortable, evasive body language when pressed on whether he supports insurance coverage of birth control.
Birth control = abortion.
Gosh back in the 40’s 50’s and 60′ this was the stand and may now be still the position of the Catholic Church. Did Bush convert????? But the fact that he only has 2 twin daughters he either practiced birth Control or only laid Laura once. maybe the answer to this question is also blowing in the wind.
Bush is a Methodist. Birth control isn’t against their religion.
You might want to check the story at Politico.com for a slightly less biased article. Regarding birth control:
“To be clear, this proposed rule will not prohibit any reproductive services from being offered at clinics, hospitals or facilities that receive federal grants. Further, the rule is only in a draft stage and still has to go through weeks, if not months, scrutiny as part of a public comment period.
But like any reproductive rights policy question, Democrats are quick to jump on anything that seeks to define abortion.”
Lots of hysteria.
SHARON
The reason that us Dem’s jump on stupid statements is that the Repuks are always having Hysteria fits over private bedroom matters . And then go out into men’s rooms and declare wide stance defense or molest pages in the capitol and when their leader’s were informed of this conduct covered it up at the expense of the children
But this proposed rule does still seek to redefine the definition of abortion in order to fit this into their so-called conscience clause. And expanding that definition isn’t the government’s job.
This is a proposed rule, that if there is lots of pushback on, is likely to be withdrawn.
And, of course, McCain will be figuring out where he is flip flopping on this shortly.
Yes, they are trying to redefine the start of a pregnancy as fertilization rather than implantation so that some organizations can exercise a “conscience clause” to deny birth control to women.
Fertilization is actually not something that can be measured scientifically. Implantation is the generally accepted method which can be measured.
In my personal opinion it’s interesting to me that the anti-women sorts want to define the beginning of pregnancy as when the sperm meets egg, really the only contribution of the man.
TT,
Democrats want to legislate morality, as well. It’s just different morality. So, for example, liberals think it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that your kids are indoctrinated the way they think (NCLB–Ted Kennedy’s bill). They want to regulate what cars you drive, where you can live, where you smoke or don’t smoke. They like ordinances regulating all sorts of things that would be called morality if they were conservatives. The fact is, both sides like to legislate morality. It just depends on whose morality is getting regulated.
And I agree that it’s disgusting when politicians cover up the molestation of pages. Of course, I thought it was outrageous when Democrats were in charge of the pages, too.
But this proposed rule does still seek to redefine the definition of abortion in order to fit this into their so-called conscience clause. And expanding that definition isn’t the government’s job.
The idea that some pharmacists, doctors, and nurses don’t want to perform abortions or be involved with them is freedom of conscience–which goes to the heart of the 1st Amendment. It’s not “redefining” abortion. And be honest: you don’t want any definition of abortion because that might cause a few more not to be allowed.
Yes, they are trying to redefine the start of a pregnancy as fertilization rather than implantation so that some organizations can exercise a “conscience clause” to deny birth control to women.
Life begins at conception. You can argue that it isn’t “viable,” but if you don’t think life begins with a single cell, then it’s pretty hard to explain where it goes from there. Yes, there are people and organizations who do not want to distribute birth control that interferes with implantation. That should be their right to do so.
BTW, being pro-life isn’t anti-woman. After all, women started as those single cells, too!
I would also argue that liberals want to regulate the bedroom, as well. They want to ensure that 13-year-olds can get birth control and abortions without their parents knowledge or consent. They want unfettered access to abortion. They want taxpayers to pay for the abortions of poor women. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Actually, what I’d like to see regulated… Pro-lifers have to adopt all (and I mean all) of the unwanted babies. Seems you guys have a lot to say before they’re born, after… not so much.
From the Politico article that Sharon did not link to:
HHS is proposing that abortion be defined as any drug or procedure that “that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation,” the Times reported. The last part of the definition could include birth control pills or emergency contraception, which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
This qualifies as redefining abortion, Sharon.
Medical professionals who refuse legitimate medical care because their religion knows better than the needs of the patient need to find another profession.
Hmmm. Not to pick nits, but I thought that birth control pills prevent ovulation. This would exclude them from the definition of abortion.
It would, however, include IUD’s.
Quick Biology lesson: The main way that oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy is by keeping an egg from ripening fully. Eggs that do not ripen fully cannot be fertilized. In addition, birth control pills thicken mucus in the woman’s body through which the sperm has to swim. This makes it more difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. Oral contraceptives also change the uterine lining so that a fertilized egg cannot lodge there to develop.
Okay, the last sentence states that an egg can be fertilized. Seems a bit of a stretch, but I have faith in Bush’s reach.
You are right about birth control pills, LG, but lots of people think that they prevent a fertilized egg from attaching. Even though these people are wrong,that does not stop them from talking about the pill as something that takes life away.
Facts aren’t exactly the point for these people.
Actually, what I’d like to see regulated… Pro-lifers have to adopt all (and I mean all) of the unwanted babies. Seems you guys have a lot to say before they’re born, after… not so much.
This isn’t true, either. Many (if not most) pro-life organizations provide services for mothers after the birth of babies. This isn’t even discussing the pro-life organizations which provide services for babies and mothers and adoption.
On top of that, it’s a bad argument that unless you are willing to adopt all “unwanted” babies that you should be for abortion on demand. I don’t like drug testing on animals, either. Does that mean I have to adopt all the rats, rabbits, and monkeys of the world?
And Cassandra, I didn’t bother linking to the Politico article because I’d already had one comment eaten for using a link. The information you quoted doesn’t negate the information I quoted.
BTW, I believe many years ago, preventing implantation was one of the ways birth control pills worked. That may not be true today, in which case, it is a bogus argument.
As for “doctors who don’t want to perform abortions should seek another profession,” get real. Not wanting to perform abortions or participate in them does not prevent one from being a good doctor in other respects. You can be a good pediatric nurse and not want to help perform abortions.
I kill cells with every step I take. Does that make me a murderer?
The pill affects the level of certain hormones (FSH & LH) which are used to control ovulation. So there isn’t even a chance to commit MURDER….sorry to disappoint you evil libs!
If the anti-choice crowd can’t even make that connection, then why should we consider anything that they dream up?
But why should you care about abortion anyway? It’s not like Lindsay Lohan’s abortion is going to affect your life in any plausible way…..
Lindsey Lohan not procreating could be viewed as a good thing!
So in the conservative mind, P, making sure that all children and expecting mothers have health care is the moral equivalency of Lindsay Lohan’s abortion or Ted Haggard giving Larry Craig a Hot Karl?
I just want to get it straight. 😉
You always get it straight! And don’t even get me started on Brittany Spears!
Sharon, if you ever want to understand why folks don’t take you too seriously here, you can start with the fact that you are arguing against something you just made up. And why you need to recreate what I said when it is plainly available for you to read:
Medical professionals who refuse legitimate medical care because their religion knows better than the needs of the patient need to find another profession.
SHARON
NCLBH was Praised and supported by non other Than president Bush
I’m a newbie to this blog but I thought I would just chime in a bit. I’m a firm believer in the right to life as well as women’s rights and people rights for that matter. I’m also a firm believer in responsibility.
Life begins at conception. We have the right to engage in sex or not. That’s our right. However, if we choose to engage and exercise that right… and a child is conceived.. that child has rights too.. living being a pretty basic right. We have the right to make choices, but choices have consequences and bring responsibility.
(Obviously there are an abundance of people having children who have no concept of responsibility but that’s a topic in and of itself.)
Welcome Beach Bum!
I’m pro-choice. I feel if you don’t believe in abortion, you shouldn’t (and no one should make you) have one, however I do not believe that your beliefs should dictate other’s.
I respect your opinion… do you respect mine?
and a child is conceived.. that child has rights too
I agree as soon as that fetus get’s its ass slapped by the doctor the minute it shoots out that vagina it should have rights
I kill cells with every step I take. Does that make me a murderer?
Unless the single cell in question would grow and develop into a baby, I doubt anyone would call you a murderer. Notice, I’m not calling pro-abortion supporters murderers, but you jumped at the chance.
The pill affects the level of certain hormones (FSH & LH) which are used to control ovulation. So there isn’t even a chance to commit MURDER….sorry to disappoint you evil libs!
I didn’t make the argument that birth control pills are abortifacients. I said that I thought at one time (early BCPs) did prevent implantation. That’s not talking about modern pills.
If the anti-choice crowd can’t even make that connection, then why should we consider anything that they dream up?
Your utter lack of respect for the beliefs of others is problematic. Not all pro-life supporters believe BCPs cause abortions.
But why should you care about abortion anyway? It’s not like Lindsay Lohan’s abortion is going to affect your life in any plausible way…..
Why should I care about giving needles to drug addicts (for or against)? It’s not like some drug addict getting diseases affects me. Or what about using animals in cosmetics testing? I don’t buy their products.
The reason I should care about abortion is that if you consider human life to be important, you should try to protect innocent human life as much as possible. It isn’t necessarily a perfect answer, but the question isn’t really serious, either.
Sharon, if you ever want to understand why folks don’t take you too seriously here, you can start with the fact that you are arguing against something you just made up. And why you need to recreate what I said when it is plainly available for you to read:
After having read several of the arguments presented here, I’m not sure I should be worried about whether you “take me seriously” or not. Your argument is a strawman, highly insulting to medical professionals who, yes, DO know more than patients. That’s why people go to doctors in the first place.
I understand that it infuriates you that a doctor can say, “I’m sorry, but I don’t perform abortions” and still be a doctor. But it is not a requirement–nor should it be one–that a doctor who, it happens, does know more, determines that he/she isn’t going to do abortions. If you want an abortion, go somewhere else. Planned Parenthood will always take the money.
NCLBH was Praised and supported by non other Than president Bush
Did you just discover that fact or did you assume that because I pointed out that it was Ted Kennedy’s bill that I didn’t know it? I was making the point that most of the Left doesn’t like about NCLB: it was a Democrat’s bill, signed by a Republican president.
I feel if you don’t believe in abortion, you shouldn’t (and no one should make you) have one, however I do not believe that your beliefs should dictate other’s.
That’s not really true. You probably think, for instance, that it is good to have zoning laws that restrict industries from being located in residential areas. Or health codes. Or smoking bans. Or seatbelt laws. Yet there are people who would most likely disagree with you about any and all of these things. And we want our representatives to pass laws that support our ideas rather than someone else’s with whom we disagree.
I agree as soon as that fetus get’s its ass slapped by the doctor the minute it shoots out that vagina it should have rights
Well, there are wrongful death laws which disagree with you there. At least, if the child is wanted.
Zoning laws? You’re really reaching here. Abortion is a morality issue, and I respect people (like you) who feel strongly about it, BUT you may not inflict your beliefs/morality on me. You don’t want to have an abortion. Fine, don’t have one.
Thanks for the welcome! I absolutely respect your opinion..If we all thought the same way life wouldn’t be so interesting 🙂
I don’t believe that my beliefs.. nor your beliefs should be forced on anyone… including an unborn child.
So, I guess the real difference between us is when that child or fetus is considered life. According to Delaware’s Toughest Blogger a baby doesn’t qualify as life until it..”shoots out that vagina” Yikes!!! Obviously written by a man! I wish those babies just shot out like that… You make it sound so easy!! lol
Pandora,
Citing zoning laws isn’t “reaching.” It’s pointing out that in a whole variety of areas, you and I are both willing to impose our beliefs on the public. This includes things such as public intoxication laws, speed limits, billboards, etc.
The fact is, Pandora, they are ALL morality laws because it is one person determining they think something is right/better/ best for society at large. Abortion is no different in that way. I have no problem with you having your abortion, provided the baby ok’s it.
After having read several of the arguments presented here, I’m not sure I should be worried about whether you “take me seriously” or not. Your argument is a strawman,
So if you don’t care about being taken seriously, what are you doing here then?
Yet you continue to trot out a completely dishonest non-reading of my comment, in order to rush right off to argue your strawman. It is the usual wingnut rhetorical strategy — if you can’t argue the point at hand, just make up the one you want to argue — but that’s OK. As long as all of that dishonesty is right where we can see it.
Zoning laws, etc affect everyone in the community. My abortion doesn’t affect you at all. Okay, maybe it makes you a little sad, but that’s about it.
a very sensitive man
So if you don’t care about being taken seriously, what are you doing here then?
I’m providing a thoughtful counterbalance to your argument, Cassandra.
Yet you continue to trot out a completely dishonest non-reading of my comment, in order to rush right off to argue your strawman.
No, I provided an honest counterargument to your silly argument. Not all doctors have to perform abortions, including doctors you obviously believe should be forced to do so or stop practicing medicine. I was trying to be polite by pointing out that you can find someone to perform an abortion other than a doctor who doesn’t want to. What I should have said was that it’s really quite disgusting to argue that because someone disagrees about killing babies for a living that they should have their livelihood destroyed or stripped from them.
Zoning laws, etc affect everyone in the community. My abortion doesn’t affect you at all. Okay, maybe it makes you a little sad, but that’s about it.
Tell me about that when we have the next discussion about paying for Social Security.
Thoughtful counterbalance to my argument, Sharon, presumes that you’ve exercised some basic reading comprehension skills to even know what my argument is.
Which you haven’t done.
Let us know when you’re ready for Prime Time.