Time to Drop The Hyde Amendment

No. This is not a post advocating a pro-choice position on abortion. Nor is it a post advocating a pro-life position. This is simply a post asking for consistency.

In 1973, Roe v Wade made abortion legal in the United States. In 1976 an amendment, or rider, to an appropriations bill, called the Hyde Amendment prohibited federal funding of abortions, specifically via Medicaid. This rider has been applied to bills ever since.

The logic behind the amendment is that pro-life tax payers should not be forced to pay for abortions. To this I say nonsense. There are a great number of things my tax dollars fund to which I might object (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind) but I don’t get to decide what my taxes pay for. Or to put it differently, if I don’t want my taxes to pay for something because I consider that something to be unethical or immoral, then I get to lobby my legislators to outlaw that “something” to which I object. Abortion is legal. Why should we treat it from a funding perspective as if it were illegal?

Why do I bring this up now? We just came dangerously close to a government shut down Friday night. Everyone agreed on the budget numbers but the sole stumbling block was a Republican attempt to drop Title X funding, specifically funding of Planned Parenthood. Advocates of Planned Parenthood say the organization provides valuable pre and post-natal care to mothers and babies as well as birth control options to women who wish not to have children. Advocates (including the organization itself) claim that only a small part of Planned Parenthood’s mission involves providing abortions. Opponents of Planned Parenthood call it an abortion mill.

The only reason why we should care who is right about Planned Parenthood’s mission is whether or not they use government funding for abortions, in violation of the Hyde Amendment. Again, advocates of Planned Parenthood say that funding of abortions is carefully cordoned off from federal money. Planned Parenthood opponents say that funds are fungible and that in truth any federal money given to Planned Parenthood ipso facto supports abortion.

I say abortion is legal and the Hyde Amendment is a back door workaround to give abortion a less than fully legal status. Had there been no Hyde Amendment, there would have been no last-minute controversy over the 2011 budget. There would have been no opportunity to hold budget negotiations hostage to an ideological battle. As it turns out, the ideological battle was lost but at the cost of much wasted legislative time.

To the chorus of pro-life readers now calling me “baby killer” I say one thing very simply. Stop fussing about what we fund and don’t fund and spend that energy changing the law! If abortion is immoral and unethical and tantamount to murder, then put all your effort toward overturning Roe v Wade. Let’s be honest. You don’t really care how abortions are funded. You want them to stop. So quit playing petty financial games that give you some misplaced sense of moral superiority and do the hard work of outlawing abortions.

While I know that a pro-life, pro-choice argument will ensue from this post, I repeat what I stated at the outset. You can be pro-life or you can be pro-choice, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too. The Hyde Amendment is a fine example of government hypocrisy and the time for its demise is overdue.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

165 thoughts on “Time to Drop The Hyde Amendment

  1. Uh…your are bitching about a law and then bitching at us pro-lifers for bitching about a law?

    And do you really think if not for planned parenthood everything would have been smooth sailing?

    And, as Hucking has pointed out a 100 times, how about the Dems do their fucking job. Then you wouldn’t have had the misfortune of worrying about your precious PP.

    But, all is ok. Black and brown babies will continue to be slaughtered. You can sleep easy, chief.

  2. There are all kinds of things deemed legal that I don’t want the federal government funding.

    What’s your point, chief?

    It’s legal to own a pet rock. If it came to be that the government was providing pet rocks to welfare recipients, I’d want a separate law defunding such a thing.

    I also feel giving the government the ability to kill babies, particularly a high percentage of minority babies, endows the government with a horrifying amount of power capable of being misused in the worst ways.

    It cracks me up that your Democrat buddies didn’t do their job and your grasping for straws. Its the pro-lifers fault.

    Dumb dumb. Read this slowly, you twit: You had the House, the Presidency and the Senate.

    Read it again.

    You had the House, the Presidency and the Senate.

    Again.

    You had the House, the Presidency and the Senate.

  3. But its the Hyde Amendment’s fault????

    Mowawawawawawawawawa!

    Hilarious.

    Wait until the smart guys catch wind of this in the morning. I’m guessing each post starts off with LOL.

  4. Well R you put forth a good post but it fails because you spear the basis for your own argument.
    The fact is you,me anybody can pursue riders,line items full bills that limit government spending. You’re view from a purely ideological stance at what is for the most part another ideological stance is wrong because EVERYONE is missing the real ideological stance which is in a democracy you can decide what the govt. spends money on.
    I seem to remember threats to cut off funding the war ops. People on every side are calling for cuts here there,spending there and there.
    It’s democracy dude,get over it.

  5. El Tigre just returned from Europe (Brussels). Any guesses on how Obama is viewed there? Hint: “Hope and Change” was the surest way to evoke laughter.

    R, this post is just plain silly. The SCOTUS determination of constitutionality and a legislatures determination of funding are not synonymous. Cigarettes are legal for adults too. How about we fund those for the nicotine addicted — or at least make food stamps applicable for tobacco and liquor.

  6. Paying for war funding is actually a legitimate function of Congress. (Again, with that pesky Constitution. I know, I know. It’s an impediment to the globalists, and socicomumarxists. Deal with it.)

    Giving money to the real Murder, Inc. (Which does pretty damn well without the generous subsidies from Uncle Sugar…don’t take my word for it…read their annual reports and tax returns posted online…murder pays VERY well, apparently) does not fall into Congress’ legitimate power. Nor would paying for “health services” for some members of one gender even come close to even the tortured and twisted interpretation of “general welfare” that you and others like you have deluded yourselves into believing.

    Put simply, it isn’t for the federal government to pay for.

    Put rationally, not only is it not for the federal government to pay for, it isn’t for the federal government to borrow money to pay for.

  7. Any guesses on how Obama is viewed there?

    Welcome back Tigre. Mmmmm, so just how scientific was your sample of opinion overseas? Why do I get the feeling that you had a good laugh with conservative Belgians? Just cos it’s Europe don’t mean it’s liberal.

    As for your criticism of the post …. you’ve made a bad analogy. You’re comparing pro-active subsidizing of something (i.e. tobacco) with withdrawing funding from something to undercut its perfectly legal availability. It’s not a great analogy.

    However, when I get a spare moment I will explore via the comments section some interesting side issues that come from this post, some inspired by Alfie’s comment.

  8. You guys are missing the big picture here….

    Government paying for abortions puts abortion doctors to work! That’s job creation, man.

    Government funded abortions are good for the economy!

  9. You see no hypocrisy here? Legalize abortion but refuse to fund it. No inconsistency at all there? You’re kidding right?

    I don’t know how I missed this gem earlier.

    I can legally drink. Should government fill my liquor cabinet? Do I get the top shelf stuff, just like San Fran Nan?

    I can legally drive a car. Does that mean government should buy me one? If so, I’d like a Maserati Quatro Porte, please.

    I can legally own a gun. Should government buy me a Desert Eagle .45?

    I can legally write a blog. Should government buy my isp access?

    Would you like some salt to go with that foot, or are you going to munch away on it as is?

  10. You’re view from a purely ideological stance at what is for the most part another ideological stance is wrong because EVERYONE is missing the real ideological stance which is in a democracy you can decide what the govt. spends money on.

    I have to disagree. It is not a democracy (which has been the single most successful piece of propaganda the progs have promugated in the last 100 years). It is a republic, or more specifically, a democratic republic.

    That means we elect the people who will decide, rather than “everybody decides” and it also means that the will of even those people is limited by the law, meaning that often times, what 50% plus one want doesn’t necessarily become the law. And you all have reason to be happy about that, because at the heart of it, democracy is mob rule, and a government of men, not laws.

  11. Rutherford, the decidedly featherweight heft and sheer obtuseness of your ideas are the best arguments for abortion you make. Unfortunately for you, you would be victim of your own design.

  12. R, my “research polling” was scientific and unimpeachable. I brought it up with everyone I had a beer with, i.e. every man, woman and child in Belgium. Top that Mr. MSNBC! 😛

    “You’re comparing pro-active subsidizing of something (i.e. tobacco) with withdrawing funding from something to undercut its perfectly legal availability. It’s not a great analogy.”

    Hmmmm. You don’t say. . .

    It might not be a great analogy, but unless there’s more to your point, it looks to me like a distinction without a difference. Since when is “legality” the test for the required/permanent commitment of tax dollars? Please elaborate.

  13. Oh and. . .

    “However, when I get a spare moment I will explore via the comments section some interesting side issues that come from this post, some inspired by Alfie’s comment.”

    Well fuck you too! 😆

  14. Just make sure your tires are properly inflated, and everything will be OK.

    And remember…if you can’t afford gasoline, just buy a new car!

  15. I know everyone doesn’t approve of tattoos, but they are legal. I think the government should fund them.

    Don’t make me get a back alley-one. It could get infected.

  16. Just skimmed the comments and see Yellowdog is still an imbecile — one that FN apparently aspires to be like. 🙄

    Tex, you gone AWOL while R baits us with a false dialogue to support an unrelated position (at least, methinks that’s the case given the lack of critical analysis in this post)?

  17. OK … you’ve all had lots of fun pointing out what you think is the glaring flaw in my logic. I think you’re ignoring history.

    Abortion is a medical procedure deemed legal in this country by Roe v Wade. Medicaid is a program designed to help the poor pay for medical procedures. Why does the Hyde Amendment single out abortion? Because it is trivial like a tattoo or a nose job? No. It singles out abortion out of moral outrage. And worse it singles out the poor for this moral outrage.

    As I said in the post, if we want to stop abortion, let’s stop it for poor women and rich women. It’s still the same dead baby right? Get Roe v Wade over turned.

  18. Now, the side issue that arises from my post which Alfie reminded me of with his government spending comment:

    Controlling the purse strings does indeed allow Congress to exert either improper influence or inappropriately executed influence.

    Let’s take the Holder about-face on KSM. Congress forced his hand by not appropriating funds to transfer Gitmo detainees to the United States. Using the “power of the purse” they exerted influence in an area totally outside their jurisdiction. The judicial decides where and how to try KSM, not the legislative. Holder’s anger was justifiable.

    In the case of the Hyde Amendment, again we have Congress using the power of the purse to interfere with a medical procedure they don’t like … an inappropriate way to handle the situation when what should happen is a full-on effort to make abortion illegal.

  19. R, you’re making my head spin. Are we paying for nose jobs or breast implants or is that “moral outrage” thingy preventing it?

  20. The only one so far who has made an argument that slightly moves me is …. believe it or not … BiW.

    If we make the claim that the fed should not subsidize ANY medical care than I would agree that abortion falls within that scope. I happen not to agree with BiW’s strict interpretation of the Constitution that leaves 99% of everything up to the States but at least his argument is a consistent one, not full of hypocrisy.

    BiW if I understand you correctly, you believe that all of Medicaid is unconstitutional. Correct?

  21. Tigre, how do we decide what to exclude? Clearly breast implants and nose jobs don’t fall into the category of serious procedures. The objection to abortion funding is not the same as the objection to breast implants or nose jobs and you know it.

  22. R says: “. . . what should happen is a full-on effort to make abortion illegal.” the SCOTUS has the final say on constitutionality. What should that effort be?

  23. Tigre, our comments passed in the ether. The average woman getting an abortion considers it a necessity even if you or I don’t. Their doctor agrees or he wouldn’t perform the procedure.

  24. Re 33 … states should continue to challenge the law. The SCOTUS has said lots of things over the years that they have overturned via subsequent judicial challenge.

  25. But here’s the rub …. perhaps there is not the desire in this country to make abortion illegal? Now where does that put us?

    Maybe this gets us into the distinction between Republic and Democracy?

    BiW by the way, I am surprised to hear you singing the praises of a Republic when I constantly hear you griping about the will of the people being ignored.

  26. “The objection to abortion funding is not the same as the objection to breast implants or nose jobs and you know it.”

    Why not? Isn’t you “morally outraged” at the thought of tax-funded cosmetic procedures that bothers you?

  27. Rutherford, the decidedly featherweight heft and sheer obtuseness of your ideas are the best arguments for abortion you make. Unfortunately for you, you would be victim of your own design.

    And a good morning to you too Jazz. 🙂

  28. “The average woman getting an abortion considers it a necessity even if you or I don’t.”

    The average stripper considers breast implants a necessity too. A lady’s gotta work you know.

  29. . . . states should continue to challenge the law.

    Huh? I am wondering if you know how cases reach the Supreme Court and what happens to them once they arrive.

  30. Oh …. do I understand correctly that there are no conservative Belgians? 😉

    Well who knows, maybe you’re right. The only thing I remember from visiting Belgium as a child on vacation with my family was the Manneken Pis. I guess that’s a pretty liberal piece of art. 🙂

  31. I am wondering if you know how cases reach the Supreme Court and what happens to them once they arrive.

    I have an after-school special understanding of it I think.

    Simple question: can Roe v Wade be overturned and if so, how? Whatever mechanism that is, is the one that should be pursued if the vast majority of Americans find the practice equivalent to murder.

  32. I really am trying (in earnest) to understand the wisdom in your observation.

    Well I’m not sure I’m making a claim to “wisdom” per se.

    I think the nose job, tattoo, pet rock, breast implants are all false equivalencies because any outrage that we might have about government funding of those things arises from their sheer triviality and clear waste of tax money. Abortion on the other hand is a much more loaded issue than that. The objection to funding abortion does NOT arise from its triviality. It arises from the belief that abortion is murder.

    If abortion is murder, it should be illegal … not restricted by morally based funding decisions that discriminate against the poor in particular.

  33. BiW if I understand you correctly, you believe that all of Medicaid is unconstitutional. Correct?

    No. I believe that all of Medicare is unconstitutional. I have no problem with the states providing health care funding for their own citizens if their citizens have decided that it is a proper function of their state government to do so, and they want to fund those costs on their own. In that circumstance, I have no problem with the state’s spending their own money, so it can’t be said that I object to the entire concept of Medicaid.

    I happen not to agree with BiW’s strict interpretation of the Constitution that leaves 99% of everything up to the States but at least his argument is a consistent one, not full of hypocrisy.

    This, however, is incorrect.

    I don’t say that 99% of everything is up to the states. I do say that Congress’ power is very carefully enumerated. If something is beyond the Congress’ power, then it falls to the states (see Amendment X) if the citizens of the individual states see fit to so empower the states.

    This means that the Federal government has no business funding abortions for anyone, and if Texas doesn’t want to fund them either, then they don’t have to.

    It isn’t up to the states. It is up to the citizens of the states.

    It is a fine distinction, but an important one.

    Tigre, how do we decide what to exclude? Clearly breast implants and nose jobs don’t fall into the category of serious procedures. The objection to abortion funding is not the same as the objection to breast implants or nose jobs and you know it.
    —————
    The average woman getting an abortion considers it a necessity even if you or I don’t. Their doctor agrees or he wouldn’t perform the procedure.

    Both wrong. For the same reason.

    Two words:

    Elective Procedure.

    If you get the “doctors” to be honest, I’m pretty sure the number of abortions that are “medically necessary” (can I get a definition please?) that are performed annually are probably staggeringly low.

  34. “I understand correctly that there are no conservative Belgians?”

    Yep. And that’s the funny thing about Europeans weighing in on American politics. . .

  35. Simple question: can Roe v Wade be overturned and if so, how? Whatever mechanism that is, is the one that should be pursued if the vast majority of Americans find the practice equivalent to murder.

    1. A constitutional amendment.

    2. A SCOTUS that is entirely intellectually honest enough to admit that Justice Blackmun made it up, usurped power that did not belong to the Federal Government, that the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens, and that all distinctions that the court has applied to when it is and is not ok to kill baby humans have been completely arbitrary.

  36. “Can Roe v Wade be overturned and if so, how?”

    Subsequent Supreme Court Opinion or Constitutional Amendment.

    Question for you Rutherford: Do you know what would happen to abortion rights had the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of legislation restricting abortion?

  37. “The average woman getting an abortion considers it a necessity even if you or I don’t. Their doctor agrees or he wouldn’t perform the procedure.”-R

    What an utter fabrication.

    I guess all kinds of things that cramp my life style (but not my life) are now “necessities’.

  38. I just love how Rutherford is suddenly concerned over congress’s jurisdiction and the amount of influence it has over shit that is supposedly none of its business.

  39. Do you know what would happen to abortion rights had the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of legislation restricting abortion?

    Sounds like a trick question to me. I can only guess had the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way on Roe then women would be getting abortions illegally. Where are you headed with the question?

  40. Answer: Outside of extremely remote possibilities of a change in judicial philosophy, abortion would be left to the states.

    So, what’s wrong with working to replace this joke of a president (and his power to nominate justices) and restricting congressional funding, what are you proposing?

  41. I just love how Rutherford is suddenly concerned over congress’s jurisdiction and the amount of influence it has over shit that is supposedly none of its business.

    LOL Huck could that be a reference to HCR?

  42. “The average woman getting an abortion considers it a necessity even if you or I don’t. Their doctor agrees or he wouldn’t perform the procedure.”

    And if their doctor agreed it was a medical necessity, then the Hyde Amendment would not apply, and has generally not applied in such cases for the last 34 years.

    Just like it says in the Wiki article you linked to but obviously didn’t read.

  43. Who ever said it was “wrong” to try to remove the President? I don’t think it can be done via impeachment as he’s done nothing impeachable but by all means take your best shot in 2012. That’s what elections are all about.

  44. Huck, technically true but there have been recent attempts to change legislative language to more narrowly define rape or forcible sex in general. So the desire to control abortion via the purse strings is still evident.

  45. And that changes what I said in relation to what you said how?

    The fact is that the Hyde Amendment, which you argue should be done away with, does not defund the type of abortions you say should be covered. You have ruined your own argument by bringing up medical necessity.

  46. I just love the low standard Rutherford has for his own party that he deems the Hyde Amendment for the damn budget debacle.

    Man, if I was R, I’d be pissed at the dems. But, nope. He’s a loyal little foot soldier. You got to give him that.

  47. “Who ever said it was “wrong” to try to remove the President?”

    Stop dissembling Rutherford. It’s your vague proposal that the anti-abortionists do something differently? So what the hell is it?

  48. Sounds like a trick question to me. I can only guess had the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way on Roe then women would be getting abortions illegally. Where are you headed with the question?

    The ones that NOW wanted to be “Safe, Rare, and Legal”?

    I guess one outta three aint bad. After all, as long as it remains legal, the blood money flows, and if women are serviced by butchers with dirty instruments, that’s perfectly ok, right?

    Oh, and why did they want it to be rare anyway? Afterall, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what this legal procedure does, now is there?

    851k+ abortions in 2005…I guess that Murder, Inc., didn’t get that memo, huh?

  49. “Sounds like a trick question to me.”

    Given the lack of substance in what you’ve said, I guess any question concerning abortion would be a “trick” question. 🙄

  50. “I don’t think it can be done via impeachment as he’s done nothing impeachable. . [.]”

    Not so fast. Mr. Trump thinks there might be something impeachable. . .

  51. Incidentally a nose job or breast implants might not be considered “trivialities” to some — like casual unprotected sex without concern for consequences might be considered triviality to others. . .

  52. 851,000 in 05 alone? Unbelievable. Dumpsters and dumpsters of little fingers, little tongues, little toes.

  53. Ah, ah Rabbit. Remember, it’s a woman’s right to choose whether those little fingers, tongues and toes belong in her uterus or a dumpster. Oh, and our obligation to pay for the latter until we come up with another way to overturn Roe v. Wade. 🙄

  54. 851,000 in 05 alone? Unbelievable. Dumpsters and dumpsters of little fingers, little tongues, little toes.

    Rabbit, I appreciate the emotion you pour into this but only a portion of the 851K have “little fingers, little tongues and little toes”. I’m not minimizing the sanctity of life but your rhetoric is meant to evoke emotion … and it is at least partly melodramatic and factually wrong.

  55. R, I actually think you are very conflicted about your stance on abortion, particularly after your jaunt through the Fat Grannies cesspool of liberal thought.

  56. It should be clear by now that conservatives will oppose public funds for everything except war. Even there they prefer plenty of private corporations to profit from the tax monies allotted to the implements and implementation of war. Subsidies is another area we see little, if any, offer of reform. That is because subsidies benefit business.

    The Hyde Amendment does not authorize tax funds, rather restricts them for a particular legal medical procedure, so therefore it poses no threat to the conservative agenda. Any amendment that restricts citizens from receiving tax revenues is considered a benefit to the conservative collective. Further, if they could privatize all social functions at the federal and state level, it would better serve their agenda.

    I would like to see the states take greater charge of the allotment of any tax revenues and governance as our founders’ intended, but that doesn’t align well with the global neocon path we are following.

    Abortion always raises the emotional tide. It alway gravitates toward the “little fingers, little tongues and little toes” sacrificed on the altar of convenience as opposed to the unique and necessary role a woman bears in the cycle of life. Emotion clouds reality which makes for poor policy.

    The fact is, abortions have been going on since the beginning of life, in both the animal and the plant kingdom. Some are “naturally” induced, others are by intervention. They will be a part of the circle of life until all life ceases.

  57. Tigre, no “sense” about it …. I’m damn conflicted. I was conflicted before Fat Grannies but they sure made me less tolerant of the pro-choice movement. What they represent, and what I cannot stand for is a stance on abortion that is based on hatred of men, and abdication of responsibility for their own actions (i.e. f*cking without contraception).

    What I do NOT trivialize however, is the difficult matter of adjudicating when two living beings occupy essentially the same space (mother and baby) and advocacy for the one impacts the privacy and sovereignty of the body of the other.

    But of course, this post is not about that. This post is about creating funding legislation that makes an implicit moral statement when a legal statement is what is really needed.

  58. Huck, I conceded to you a bit prematurely. Even though the Hyde Amendment was changed one year in to exempt rape, incest and risk to the mother, that language has been subject to change over the years. To the pro-choice mindset, it is a constant threat that from year to year can go from benign to not so benign.

    Which brings me to my next comment:

  59. Further, if they could privatize all social functions at the federal and state level, it would better serve their agenda.

    Why would I want to privatize all social functions at the Federal level when I have clearly said more than once that the Federal “level” has no business engaging in ANY social functions, and that the states should only engage in those that their citizens have clearly determined that they should have contol over?

    Any amendment that restricts citizens from receiving tax revenues is considered a benefit to the conservative collective.

    No, any amendment that prevents spending of taxpayer dollars under the guise of “welfare” that benefits only some members of one gender, or more honestly, the extremely lucrative non-profit that would kill their children for them benefits every taxpayer.

  60. Hey Tigre, welcome back. You were missed. I took a break from blogging. R.L. is like a soap opera – you can miss several days and never miss a thing.

    I return and see that Yeller is still as stupid as ever, Fake is still under the illusion all posts as intricately entwined to her worthless existence (the most insecure, irrelevant twat on the planet, and the earth would be better if she would simply off herself and get it over with), and Rutherford is still having difficulty determining the difference between infanticide and terrorists in determining a course of action.

    Somethings never change at the Rutherford Lawson blog. 🙂

  61. Let’s say that Planned Parenthood performs lots of abortions. Would we not then agree that PP performs a good percentage of those abortions in the cases of rape, incest and risk of mother’s life? If so, then completely cutting funding to PP would actually have no basis in the Hyde Amendment which according to Wiki and Huck, only deals with “elective abortions” … you know, the ones just for fun.

    The truth is, I suspect, that despite the rape/incest/etc. exceptions, the Hyde Amendment is used as a weapon to cut off fed funding to ALL abortions. It’s the reason Bart Stupak went gonzo during the HCR debate, wanting to make sure that HCR didn’t pay for abortions.

  62. Hey Tigre, welcome back.

    Hey welcome back yourself. I was on the verge of writing you privately to make sure your wife hadn’t finally had her fill and buried you in a land-fill somewhere. But I chose to control my ego … it MIGHT be possible for Tex Taylor to not post here for a few days and still be alive and well. 😆

  63. But I chose to control my ego … it MIGHT be possible for Tex Taylor to not post here for a few days and still be alive and well.

    So aside from suffering from Stockholm Syndrome with regard to this administration, you are a sado-masochist, addicted to the drubbing you regularly take about the head and neck?

  64. Hey welcome back yourself. I was on the verge of writing you privately to make sure your wife hadn’t finally had her fill and buried you in a land-fill somewhere.

    My wife probably had her fill about 23 1/2 years ago. That would have been after a week or two of realizing what a life changing mistake she’d made 😎 My wife is a sucker for hard luck cases.

    Good to be back and thank you for noticing. I would come back for no other reason than to make Flake’s miserable existence even more miserable.

    ———-

    I’ll bet $10.00 to a donut that Planned Parenthood would deal with few rape and incest cases – most “normal, moral” people wouldn’t be caught dead in a Planned Parenthood mill and would go through more confidential channels. Planned Parenthood is proud of their abortion record – rape and incest cases wouldn’t be. Besides rape & incest only make up 1-2% of unwanted pregnancies – and that is consistent through all surveys.

    I would bet Planned Parenthood deals with a bunch of multiple abortion cases, though – especially minority. They’re also proponents of eugenics like their founder. 😉

  65. Why would I want to privatize all social functions at the Federal level when I have clearly said more than once that the Federal “level” has no business engaging in ANY social functions

    This would rather be more in line with libertarian philosophy instead of a modern conservative one, especially if you oppose a department of defense, department of homeland security, department of transportation, department of education, and the other various federal acronymn agencies, ie: HUD, FAA, FDA, FEMA, EPA, etc., in favor of state equivalents – if the residents of those states so deemed them necessary?

    Yet it seems you would approve imposing legal restrictions on abortion at a federal level. Overturning Roe v Wade would have that effect. Should this rather be a state decision? Shouldn’t states decide whether to offer taxpayer assistance for health care as well as housing and nutritional needs for their citizens? I think several states have made abortion illegal, despite the federal mandate. Several offer health care. Maybe I misunderstood your stance, but clearly your words indicate you feel any abortion is equivalent to murder and you would oppose it at every level, whether taxpayer funded or not.

  66. you are a sado-masochist, addicted to the drubbing you regularly take about the head and neck?

    I read an excellent quote the other day:

    A sadist is a masochist who follows the Golden Rule. 🙂

  67. Poolman, I seriously doubt BiW wishes to see an end to the Department of Defense. That’s one governmental agency in which he rejoices. 😉

    How ’bout all those great Pentagon cuts in the Ryan budget? Oh wait ….

  68. Well unlike some of you Yahoo’s I actually do learn something now and then from writing this blog.

    In my attempt to back up my criticism of Rabbit’s melodrama I did some research. To my surprise (and dismay) Tigre actually was right. According to a pro-life site I visited the average US abortion rate of 1.3 million a year comes down to roughly 50% in the first eight weeks. Unfortunately further research revealed that in week 8 one does begin to see “little fingers”.

    So, I reluctantly withdraw my charge of melodrama to Rabbit. His rhetoric is of course designed to hit the heart, but to my surprise it was not altogether inaccurate.

  69. “So, I reluctantly withdraw my charge of melodrama to Rabbit. His rhetoric is of course designed to hit the heart, but to my surprise it was not altogether inaccurate.”

    And that’s why you’re worth a shit Rutherford.

  70. Tex, I feared that in my absence the biting rebuttals to that moron Yellowdog and that cunt, Fake. . . whoops I mean vagina, Fake. . . would’ve been lost. How you curry the fortitude to interact with them is indeed remarkable.

  71. R asks, “Where are you headed with the question?”

    Tigre answers: Pointing out one of the many flaws in your argument.

  72. Of course there’s this paradox too:

    “What they represent, and what I cannot stand for is a stance on abortion that is based on hatred of men, and abdication of responsibility for their own actions (i.e. f*cking without contraception).”

    Followed by:

    “What I do NOT trivialize however, is the difficult matter of adjudicating when two living beings occupy essentially the same space (mother and baby) and advocacy for the one impacts the privacy and sovereignty of the body of the other.”

    Which is it?

  73. This would rather be more in line with libertarian philosophy instead of a modern conservative one, especially if you oppose a department of defense, department of homeland security, department of transportation, department of education, and the other various federal acronymn agencies, ie: HUD, FAA, FDA, FEMA, EPA, etc., in favor of state equivalents – if the residents of those states so deemed them necessary?

    Dept of Defense? It stays…Art I, Section 8.
    Dept of Homeland Insecurity? Not necessary. Let the intellgence agencies talk to each other.
    Dept of Transportation? Gone.
    Dept of Education? Gone, as it is not Constitutional and a naked encroachment on state power.

    HUD? Nope…not the feds’ job.

    FAA? You’re gonna run squarely into a Supremacy Clause/Premption Issue that I can actually support because a logical and reasonable case can be made.

    FDA? Not without seriously revisiting it’s goals, and the operations?

    FEMA? Nope.

    EPA? Not in its current format, which has seriously overstepped its authority.

  74. Well unlike some of you Yahoo’s I actually do learn something now and then from writing this blog.

    Okay, that’s cool.
    To commit suicide via a .45 cal place the barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger.

    Don’t say I never tried to learn ya.

  75. My appologies, Dick the Homicidal Clown, for I did not recognize you at first.

    I thought you were a rogue from the abortion message board threatening R with his life.

  76. Yet it seems you would approve imposing legal restrictions on abortion at a federal level. Overturning Roe v Wade would have that effect.

    No, I would approve of the Feds admitting that they overstepped their authority when they assumed jusrisdiction over it, and returning authority to the states.

    Should this rather be a state decision?

    You mean as it was before Roe? Yes.

    Shouldn’t states decide whether to offer taxpayer assistance for health care as well as housing and nutritional needs for their citizens?

    Actually, it should be for the citizens of the states to decide, not the states themselves.

    I think several states have made abortion illegal, despite the federal mandate.

    If that’s the best you can do, then you need to quit thinking. No state may outlaw the practice. That was the point of Roe.

    Several offer health care.
    Taxachusetts has RomneyCare, which is stellar, unless you actually need to see a doctor, in which case it has a bad case of the sucks. I’m not aware of any other, unless you are counting state Medicaid programs, which don’t really count, as they use Federal money in whole or in part, and are thus subject to Federal guidelines.

    Maybe I misunderstood your stance, but clearly your words indicate you feel any abortion is equivalent to murder and you would oppose it at every level, whether taxpayer funded or not.

    Which is not inconsistent with the fact that it should not be Federally funded. The moral objections do not invalidate the legal ones.

  77. Of course there’s this paradox too:
    … Which is it?

    Well that Tigre is the entire problem is it not? What consistently annoys me about some of the dialog surrounding this subject is the simplicity that you guys reduce it to. I’m not sure I have seen a single one of you acknowledge the complexity and tortuous position that a woman considering abortion is in. It is so much easier for you to make them ALL irresponsible whores.

    What I ask of the women at Fat Grannies is a little honesty. I expect them to say “I made a mistake. I got pregnant when I shouldn’t have. I was irresponsible. I had an abortion and it’s a decision that will haunt me the rest of my days.” What I got over there was “Pregnancy happened to me and I aborted and it’s my business and go f*ck yourself.” No sense of responsibility nor regret. THAT troubles me.

    But that’s a far cry from my saying I will control how you handle a biological process going on within your body without any input from you.

    You see that as a paradox. I see it as recognizing the complexity of the issue, Abortion is one of the most complex ethical issues on the face of the Earth.

  78. To commit suicide via a .45 cal place the barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger.

    Dick, I coulda kinda guessed that one myself. But thanks for the assist. You got any more creative and less painful methods? 🙂

  79. LOL “The Suicide Help Desk” manned by Dick. Now that is classic.

    I need to give Dick my suicide help line hold music lineup:

    “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas
    “Don’t Fear the Reaper” by Blue Oyster Cult
    “Pennyroyal Tea” by Nirvana
    “Alone Again Naturally” by Gilbert O’Sullivan
    🙂

  80. Rabbit, it’s understandable that you didn’t recognize Dick. He’s changed his avatar and doesn’t look nearly as threatening as he once did. I think he is mellowing with age.

  81. Dick, I coulda kinda guessed that one myself. But thanks for the assist. You got any more creative and less painful methods?” – R

    Knowing the ballistic capabilities of the .45, I can assure you, you won’t feel a thing…

  82. R, this post sucks for all the reasons listed by everyone here. Accept it and move on.

    This is what I’d like to see from a liberal: Your alternative to the Ryan Plan. You and yours have demonized it to no end. Fine, what’s your idea for reducing the deficit, especially since the Narcisist-in-Chief said he was going to cut the deficit in half in his first term. Ahem….. still waiting…..

  83. This is what I’d like to see from a liberal: Your alternative to the Ryan Plan. You and yours have demonized it to no end. Fine, what’s your idea for reducing the deficit, especially since the Narcisist-in-Chief said he was going to cut the deficit in half in his first term. Ahem….. still waiting…..

    Haw! Are you kidding? You’d be waiting until the rapture. The imbeciles that compose the Dimocratic party couldn’t even put a budget together when they had huge majorities in both houses last year. I’m not talking about a bad budget – I’m talking about no budget.

    Liberals have the mind of a child. Critical thinking is not in the repertoire and they are not serious people because not only do they have no scruples, but they don’t have any sense either. They’re helpless.

    I think BIC calls it skittle shitting unicorns. This is demonstrated by Rutherford’s flawed infatuation with John Lennon’s asinine Imagine song. “R” still thinks that is the ultimate in mankind’s ideas, and “R” is one of the brighter of the Libs. Most are out of the mold of Fat Grannies, Flake, Yeller or Al-Poolman, Grand Wizard.

    Unfortunately, if we don’t nip ‘Progressive’ absurd ideas in the bud at the voting booth in 2012, I give us about five years before we’ll all be dead.

    And I saw a poll last night that half the nation gives Obama the credit for the small reduction in the debt. How do you overcoming such mass stupidity? I’m afraid it will take a cataclysmic event way beyond 9/11 before we can turn the corner, and by then, it may be too late. 😡

  84. How do you overcomeing such mass stupidity?

    You can start by not making typos while asking the question Tex… 😡

  85. “You see that as a paradox. I see it as recognizing the complexity of the issue.”

    I think if you’ll re-read what you said, take into account your own criticism of the attitudes of the pillocks at Fat Grannies (that hardly display the tortuous position you insist is overlooked), you’ll see the paradox I am referring to.

    R, you’re almost there. Clinging to the idea that opposition to tax-funded abortions is the product of failure to account for the tortured psyche of a pregnant woman is utter nonsense. No. It’s avoidance.

    Guess what? We get it. Your desire to argue both sides of the issue is certainly Obama-like, but it’s unavailing. Penis goes in vagina, a good time is had, woman gets pregnant, then decisions are made.

    Even in your liberal world where empathy is synonymous with government spending you must conceded that when the tax payers are asked to foot the bill for an abortion, the tax payers are involved in the process.

    As tortured as the decision to abort might be (and it’s hardly a difficult one for many despite you attempt to characterize it as though it were), the decisions from the point that the government is providing abortion (or participating in it in any) way can not belong exclusively to the woman. Government funded abortion is not some kind of natural or legal right. And the casual (and predictable) claims of victim status relied on by the venomous crowd at Fat Grannies epitomizes the objection to government promotion, funding, or even authority to undergo the procedure that is intended to terminate life.

    It just ain’t complex Rutherford.

  86. Way behind,b ut here goes:

    Because it is trivial like a tattoo or a nose job? No. It singles out abortion out of moral outrage. And worse it singles out the poor for this moral outrage.

    As I said in the post, if we want to stop abortion, let’s stop it for poor women and rich women. It’s still the same dead baby right? Get Roe v Wade over turned.

    No, it singles out abortion because being pregnant is a preventable condition. And/or it isn't terminal. It's not a Cancer or a handicap. It usually resolves itself w/in 9 months.

    Just as I don't choose to pay for other elective procedures done by folks – nose jobs or boob jobs – I don't want to pay for abortions. If you're old enough or mature enough to be bumping uglies, your old enough to figure out how to deal with it yourself.

    There are plenty of choices. Abstinence, birth control, adoption, or parenthood.

  87. The Hyde Amendment does not authorize tax funds, rather restricts them for a particular legal medical procedure, so therefore it poses no threat to the conservative agenda.

    Except, of course, that the Fed government provides about a third of PP’s funding. How do they separate out that money? Perhaps they mark the bills? They write “NO ABORTION FUNDING WITH THIS DOLLAR” right across George Washington’s face.

  88. Incidentally Rutherford, you’re “troubled” by the fact that the Fat Grannies and their proteges have “no sense of responsibility nor regret,” yet you would advocate government funding for remorseless abortions on demand based on Roe v. Wade? And you have the temerity to accuse “us guys” of “simplicity?” Gimme a break. 🙄

  89. I have often wondered if my old pal “R” doesn’t pen posts to get a reaction. Because this time, I’m contemplating if even he believes what he just wrote. If so, it is terribly inconsistent with his beautiful retorts at Fat Grannies to the abortion mill hags, which were actually much better and well thought out this this cow pie.

    So “R”, I have a question.

    Why would I guy like you, a proponent of personal responsibility even if you are for choice and the only valid argument in the defense of choice, not be the first one in favor of the Hyde Amendment?

    In essence, isn’t that the purpose of the Hyde Amendment? A half way gesture? That is though abortion legal, if you’re personally irresponsible, you pay for the irresponsibility?”

    To equate this debate with the choice of war is about as specious as it gets, comparable to the equally outrageous analogy of “how can one call himself pro-life and be for capital punishment?”

  90. What consistently annoys me about some of the dialog surrounding this subject is the simplicity that you guys reduce it to. I’m not sure I have seen a single one of you acknowledge the complexity and tortuous position that a woman considering abortion is in. It is so much easier for you to make them ALL irresponsible whores.

    Rutherford, I find my struggle not to choke the life from clueless SOBs who loudly stake out positions such as “You can’t make it legal, then not fund it.”, but I do refrain from doing so…because doing so would be wrong.

    I don’t make them irresponsible whores, but even if they are “responsible” and get pregnant anyway, it doesn’t entitle them to use my money to commit murder. No amount of hand-wringing or rhetorical examination ala the pResident will change that.

  91. Yeah, that deficit commission was such a waste of time and energy that Obama is going to use it for the next budget, too!

    At least this time it won’t be used as political cover for not doing what is supposed to be done. That’s what happens when adults are in charge.

    Yellowdog was not available for comment…..

  92. “It should be clear by now that conservatives will oppose public funds for everything except war.”

    Then I guess it’s also clear by now that liberals don’t want to fund anything. If they did, they would write their own fucking budgets when they are supposed to.

    “The Hyde Amendment does not authorize tax funds, rather restricts them for a particular legal medical procedure, so therefore it poses no threat to the conservative agenda.”

    Rutherford is the one who seems to find the Hyde Amendment threatening. Nobody else here has suggested it be done away with except him. So the conservative agenda is not what is really being discussed here.

    Try and keep up….

    “How ’bout all those great Pentagon cuts in the Ryan budget? Oh wait ….”

    How the hell are we supposed to cut defense spending when your chicken-hawk, neocon president keeps finding new people to bomb? We can’t maintain all of those “unique capabilities” that help Obama spread American values throughout the world if we are making cuts to defense.

    So don’t even think about putting that shit on the GOP anymore. Your president has adopted the full-on neocon agenda…and that’s an agenda that requires funding. Don’t like it?…vote the motherfucker out. Refuse to vote for 4 more years of Bush policies and vote GOP instead.

  93. Refuse to vote for 4 more years of Bush policies and vote GOP instead.

    That’s got to be one of the funniest lines I’ve read in a long time. Are you sure you’re not writing for either Stewart or Colbert?

  94. “how can one call himself pro-life and be for capital punishment?”

    Tex I’m not sure why you find that outrageous. If our disgust with abortion centers around the sanctity of life, then clearly we can’t sanction government killing of criminals.

    Or are you having a problem equating a baby with Charlie Manson?

  95. “BTW, Charlie was once a baby too.”

    Who is the spawn of a whore and her john. An argument for abortion if ever there was one.

  96. Tex I’m not sure why you find that outrageous. If our disgust with abortion centers around the sanctity of life, then clearly we can’t sanction government killing of criminals.

    You’re absolutely right, Rutherford.

    There is no distinction at all to be made between an innocent life guilty of no crime other than being conceived and someone being found guilty after a jury of their peers of some of the most heinous acts a person can committ towards another person.

    I love it when you display that wonderful nuance that conservatives are too often accused of not having.

  97. No need to answer your question further Rutherford. I think BIC most adequately ripped you for abject stupidity and I’ll not pile on further, though I’d like to.

    But once again you demonstrate why I think Liberals are adolescent in thinking, and dangerously naive and amoral when given any semblance of power. When they have to ask the question of what is the difference between killing the unborn and killing John Wayne Gacy or Timothy McVeigh, there is no hope.

  98. “If our disgust with abortion centers around the sanctity of life, then clearly we can’t sanction government killing of criminals.”

    Just spit coffee on my monitor. Thanks Rutherford. What you just said should be punishable by death — on the tax payer’s dime fo course.

  99. Rutherford, are you ready to go “Full Monty” (intellectually speaking of course) and admit that this post was ill-conceived (no pun intended)?

  100. “I love it when you display that wonderful nuance that conservatives are too often accused of not having.”

    And here I thought “nuance” was out and “framing” was in.

  101. Rutherford, are you ready to go “Full Monty” (intellectually speaking of course) and admit that this post was ill-conceived (no pun intended)?

    Another classic comment. I’m going to have to start collecting these for the book I’m writing one day. Shame you guys are all anonymous … no shared royalties for you!! 😆

  102. What consistently annoys me about some of the dialog surrounding this subject is the simplicity that you guys reduce it to. I’m not sure I have seen a single one of you acknowledge the complexity and tortuous position that a woman considering abortion is in. It is so much easier for you to make them ALL irresponsible whores.

    That’s not at all what I think. What consistently annoys me is the simplicity of motives which lefties ascribe to pro-life people.

    Women -too often – choose to abort because they have been fed a lie; it’s nothing but a clump of cells.

    Later, they will know the truth and that is when the regret comes. When they realize they stopped the life w/in them. Their child. A future person.

    Personally, I don’t want to financially contribute to that heart ache.

    Nor do I wish to contribute to an organization that contributes to peddling that lie.

  103. Rutherford. . . ABORT THIS POST!

    (to be read Reagan- Brandenburg-style).

    Oh, and Ill sue the shit out of you and your little dog too if you steal any of my lines without express written permission of El Tigre Productions (a dvision of Shameless Promotions, Inc.).

  104. You’ll find links to things I’ve been saying for over 5 years, and if you think I have to register a copyright to own it, you might get a na$ty surprise. 🙂

    Spoken like a true laaaaaaaawwwwwya! LOL

  105. I’ve often thought that this blog was like a book writing itself.

    This particular chapter is outstanding.

  106. Women -too often – choose to abort because they have been fed a lie; it’s nothing but a clump of cells.

    Well thank you Car in as that is one of the memes on the Fat Grannies site that kinda bothered me. It’s an attempt to minimize the abortion act.

    While the precise part of me does see a difference between the one week old fertilized egg and the nine month old fetus, there is no denying it is a living organism from the outset. “Clump of cells” doesn’t do it justice.

  107. Wow, that’s two lawsuit threats in one comment thread, I’m having a banner day! 😆

    P.S. Interesting they both came from attorneys. Tex, don’t you need the money more … where’s your threat of litigation? Rabbit? (Oh I forgot … Rabbit is all set ….

    SILVER!!!!!!)

  108. LOL Muffy … there is actually software I think called Blog2Print that lets you create a book from your blog. I toyed with it a year or two ago but it looked like more trouble than it was worth.

    (Besides … what kind of idiot buys a book composed of posts they can read for free on the site?)

  109. Spoken like a true laaaaaaaawwwwwya! LOL

    Not “loiyah”…attorney. Unlike Babs Boxer, I really did work hard for the title. ;-p

    While the precise part of me does see a difference between the one week old fertilized egg and the nine month old fetus, there is no denying it is a living organism from the outset. “Clump of cells” doesn’t do it justice.

    You’re learning.

  110. The world’s largest and most respected bond fund has joined the zaney doom and gloom Rabbit.

    A massive short on US Treasuries by PIMCO.

    There is no demand for that paper outside the Fed.

    According to Bill Gross, PIMCO chief investor, we are “out Greeking the Greeks”.

    Doomed. We are doomed.

  111. (Besides … what kind of idiot buys a book composed of posts they can read for free on the site?)

    The same kind of idiot who would buy and read “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams of My Father”, and then actually vote for Obama?

    Honestly, I’ve toyed with the idea of saving a few of mine in the books I keep for each of my boys.

  112. Honestly, I’ve toyed with the idea of saving a few of mine in the books I keep for each of my boys.

    Well that makes perfect sense provided you don’t make your boys pay for it. 🙂

  113. “Besides … what kind of idiot buys a book composed of posts they can read for free on the site?”

    Who said anything about free?

    Of course, with Giffords and this post you certainly owe all your readers something for the harm you have caused. . .

  114. BiW, your commentary/posts are quality and should be saved for your children.

    I guess my own will have to read my briefs and transcripts if they ever care to see what I’ve had to say. I sure ain’t directing them here! 😆

  115. That’s mighty high praise BiW. If I can find the time to make a meaningful contribution, I’d be honored.

  116. “R”,

    You know, when the two lawyer boys show up, Rabbit is back in black, a couple of new good guests like Muffy and Car start to show up, the Yeller Dawg and the Wizard disappear, Flake graces us with her absence, and I’ve finally sent the old Gray mare to pasture, this blog actually becomes respectable again. 🙂

    All we need is Alfie to start joining in again, and it will back to the good old days of where you do all the work and we do all the pointing fingers, laughing, and having a great time at your expense. 🙂

    If it’s any consolation, it’s a unanimous opinion that you’re the one lib we still like. We’ll spare you execution when we cut loose and you can be like Jr. member of the winning team. 😉

  117. Actually Tex, Alfie has been more active than usual in the past couple of threads.

    Now if we could just have Curator come back, I’d be a totally fulfilled man. 🙂

  118. ” Rabbit is back in black”-Tex

    Lol…just waiting for the correction now.

    Fear, loathing and pessimism mixed with insane gambling. Who would have thought I could have made so much money* on such an un-American mind set.

    I’m going to start creating hilarious ETF’s following this meme.

    Here’s my first.

    Zombie Apocalypse ETF: Heavy in precious metals, ammunition and biotechnology.

    Sodom ETF: Key West real estate, petroleum jelly, Bank of America, botox, short natural disaster insurance

    More to come.

    *alot of money to the white trash rabbit is probably peanuts to you big shots. Its all relative. But, hey, I’m moving into a house instead of the trailer I deserve.

  119. Okay, I can’t resist. I’d like to know how the FAA is okay but the Department of Transportation is not? Don’t we have a system of interstate highways? Maybe I should re-read it, but I don’t remember either automobiles or planes being mentioned in the Constitution. Interstates are probably unconstituional.

  120. Okay, I can’t resist. I’d like to know how the FAA is okay but the Department of Transportation is not? Don’t we have a system of interstate highways? Maybe I should re-read it, but I don’t remember either automobiles or planes being mentioned in the Constitution. Interstates are probably unconstituional.

    Why does the Department of Transportation regulate pipelines? Or shuffle Federal funds to the states to pay for boondoggles like high-speed rail, or push streetcars?

    And as for highways…

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    [Emp. Mine]

    How did we get Interstate Highways, Fake?

    Oh, yeah…The National Defense and Interstate Highways Act, a/k/a The Interstate Highway Act of 1956.

    Search engines: Eliminating excuses for silly questions since Algore invented the internets.

  121. Tigre, you’re one of very few people I would consider for a co-blogger at TS&D…and much to my surprise, I’ve had some unsolicited requests…even just recently.

    I’d second that at my place as well. Let me know if you’re interested…

  122. Thanks for the invite too Gorilla. I’m ashamed to say that I am concerned about committing to the time required to meaningfully add to your and BiW’s posts in particular. You guys don’t fool around. But I’m giving thought to what I know of the global warming fraud since I’m tangentialy involved in attacking it from a legal perspective.

  123. I agree with your statements, but at the same time, DONT GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!! lol Seriously though, considering nobody wants to go back to the days of back door abortions with some orderly thinking they’re medically qualified because they once worked in a hospital. I don’t want the pro lifers to invade Washington en masse screaming for the law to be changed! They’ve done their best over the years to undermine the law and add all the stipulations that are part ot the law now. In Texas for instance, our lawmakers just passed a law stating that women now have to go home for 24 hours and think about it after having the initial appointment and will also be encouraged to view ultrasound results. This is offensive to me because it suggests women don’t know what they want to do! Choice is going, and we need to sit up and take notice before its completely gone!! Now I will detach myself from my soap box, before I go too far and offend someone…

  124. Tammy, Welcome to the blog and thanks for your comment.

    I guess what it comes down to is will Roe v Wade die a death by a thousand cuts or get killed in one fell swoop. The social pendulum in our country swings back and forth and I fear it’s on a conservative swing right now.

    Hang on … this may be a bumpy ride! 🙂

  125. My best guess is all of these new state laws will be challenged and will once again be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, by a one vote majority.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s