When you call one of those congress critters you might want to tell them that if they vote against this bill you will organize and do your best to nominate someone better suited to Democratic politics come the next primary in your district.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow. It took 28 anti-abortion congresscritters to get you to take notice of the lack of choice in FEMA care. Score one for the nuts on the right; might I propose you left hand analogs get Sheila Jackson Lee drunk and shove a microphone in her face as a return salvo?

More importantly, are these congresscritters representing the interests of their constituents? Or were you planning to relocate in order to shift the balance of poooo...I mean power?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just looking at that guy's picture is enough to make one want to get an abortion! AND it's probably no coincidence that one only has to change a couple letters on his name to go from Stupak to STUPID!
It's positively amazing that people vote for these idiots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are 47 million people who need health care! How sad some of these people will die while the republicans take a stand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bart Stupak is the Joe Lieberman of the House! And know what? It's time the Democratic Party starts setting guidelines for membership. When guys like Stupak can't keep their religious beliefs out of our secular government, they should be tossed out of the party. The first move should be to throw them out of the Democratic caucus in the House. Where do these nut heads get the notion that they have the right to insert their religious beliefs into their official work. They are behaving just like the crazy, evil ones among the Republican Religious Right. They are really the Religious Wrong! If his constituents don't hold him responsible, then let the national party and the House caucus take care of trimming his anti-Democratic wings. Next thing you can expect out of Stupak is that he will announce he's going to support some Republicans next year--just like that Senator representing Israel, Joe Lieberman. And no one, absolutely no one, can accuse me of any anti-Semitism. But if you watch Lieberman, every move he makes, every position he takes, is for the benefit of Israel, not Connecticut. It's obvious from the way he behaves that he is not planning on running again in 2012. Connecticut made a monstrous mistake in 2006. I'm sure Lieberman realizes he's cutting his own throat with his brazen anti-Democratic behavior--as is Stupak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

seniors are are safe, unless of course you are a women.

when are the old white guys gonna give up tryin to contol us and our bodies? women deserve health care just as much as men do. you dont see any debate or banning when it comes to erections! maybe if more of them kept it in their damn pants, we would have the need to make a Choice.

its not only a war on women, more specifically, its a war on poor women. you people KNOW what to do to eliminate poverty so why punish women for it?

this is a list of deplorable men; one i am ashamed to say is from my state; how embarrassing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have lost my faith in the intelligence of the American people. All they do is complain and think that the solution to their problems is as simple as "voting someone out" of office. That is, of course, if they even bother to vote.

The people of New Jersey just turned our state over to a criminal who will end up destroying the state with his lies and chicanary.

John Corzine has turned the state around from bankruptcy and more devastating job losses. He has improved the educational process and supports the kind of changes that the people indicated that they wanted in the 2008 elections. He worked tirelessly as the governer of New Jersey for $1.00 a year.

Betcha the new governor will not only expect a hefty salary, but will also start to undermine any of the gains Corzine has made for the people of the state.

This country is going to end up in the hands of an American Taliban, because they are so reactionary. Whatever happened to thinking? To integrity? To equal rights for all?

The republican party and many democrats forget very quickly that they have responsibilities to every person. That includes women. Most of them recognize that the people are fickle, so to them it is perfectly fine to pursue their own personal agenda and to please corporate paymasters who line their pockets.

We are no longer a free country. We can no longer claim to be number one in any field except corruption and the number of idiot sociopaths in our government.

I am embarrased to be an American. The stink of the rotten apple barrel has permeated all of my senses. Love it or leave it? Because I do love it, I can't leave it. There is still hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

---Hubert H. Humphrey

Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is amazing to me how you will cut off your nose to spite your face. This proposal doesn't
stop people from having abortions, it simply says that tax dollars cannot pay for it. If the health care bill is so important agreeing to this seems a small price to pay for getting what you claim you want. According to polls, the majority of Americans don't want tax dollars going for abortions. In that majority are many pro-choice people who feel that you should pay for your own abortion. People acting from a deep felt conviction about abortion or how tax money should be spent are entitled to a place at the table. If nothing else the two elections in VA and deep blue NJ
should show you that the Obama Administration could lose big time on a lot of their issues if they don't compromise with people who disagree with some elements of their policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 95-10 Initiative

A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.

The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.

Preventing pregnancy is an important part of reducing the abortion rate in America. There are several ways to address prevention, but there is no clear consensus because of ethical, religious or personal reasons. There are several bills before Congress that address pregnancy prevention. While we have not endorsed a particular bill, we support finding the most effective way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.

Pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term have not received that same commitment from the Federal government. We support helping pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment have introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407 and H.R. 3192) in the U.S Senate and U.S House. The legislation is a comprehensive approach to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term. Some of the programs included are:

* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding programs as the Abandoned Infants Assistance.

Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well Ladies, here we go again, some non thinking group of men and one stupid lone female, who wants to decide what YOU can do with your body, shame on them

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

School enrollment is dropping and schools are closing because young families are moving to more woman-friendly areas. Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term isn't going to increase the population in his district when young families aren't financially viable and don't have the time or energy to change the status quo. Being able to plan your family is fundamental to raising healthy kids. "God's will" doesn't pay the bills or protect women's health.

At least the retirees in the U. P. and Northern Lower Michigan are happy. Fewer kids to educate means that their local taxes won't increase as much. Children represent the future, but not their future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Bart Stupak ALLOWS Federal HMO Hospital DUMPING against our ELDERLY|Retirees, resulting in physical injury and death - to force ( fraud by fright ) illegal HCFA State OFIS Medicaid Kickback Conversion ...... ANTI TRUST
.
Subj: From the Office of Congressman Bart Stupak
Date: 8/17/2005 9:19:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ima_mi01iq@mail.house.gov
To: justmyopnion@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
August 16, 2005
Mrs Kimberly Kimball
Kenokee Twp, Michigan 49770
Dear Mrs Kimball:
Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciated hearing from you on issues relating to Retired FEHBP [ T5CFR890.105 systematic Denial of Covered T42CFR409.33 Post-Hospital Extended Care Claims ] and for providing me with your report. [ racketeering 1998 HHS OIG PROVIDER - T42CFR417.1 - T18CFR371CRIME - Self-Audit Program ]
Please know I value your opinions, and will keep your comments
in mind if your concerns are discussed in the House.
Again, thank you for sharing your comments. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if I or members of my staff may be of
service.
Sincerely,
BART STUPAK - D MI - aiding and abetting
Member of Congress
.
HAPCORP.ORG - OPM FEHB|HMO - Health Alliance Plan Detroit ( Region 5 HCFA ) MICHIGAN - HAP PROVIDERS offers 2,596 personal care physicians (PCP) and 4,901 specialists. HAP’s delivery system includes 45 hospitals ( 42CFR438.704 inducing forfiture, HHS|HMO employee's T42CFR417.1 Systemic Denial of Existing OPM FEHB T42CFR409.33 Hospital|extended care ~ adverse determinations ~ 1998 U.S. Attorney General and HHS OIG VOLENTARY DISCLOUSURE Program: misprison of a felony ~ administrative Fraud by Fright - Anti-Dumping Violation, to force illegal HCFA State OFIS Medicaid Kickback Conversions ) in southeast Michigan and the Flint area, including 23 major hospital networks ( robbing the Elderly of 401k's and savings accounts to Force Medicaid kickback Conversions - Eligibility Poor ), 65 urgent care centers and 765 ancillary providers: Hospital Affiliate Nursing Homes [ illegally Billing OPM FEHB for criminally Denied T42CFR409.33 COVERED Post-hospital Extended Care Claims CITE: 5CFR890.105 illegal agreement | denial of COVERED Claims, to force illegal HCFA State OFIS Medicaid kickback conversions ),mental health facilities, optical providers, laboratories, durable medical equipment providers,ambulance services and PHARMACY CHAINS.
.
T18CFR242CRIME: MICHIGAN - T18CFR286CRIME - illegal agreement with Region 5 HCFA to Allow Anti-Dumping and Anti-Kickback Violations | criminal misconduct RICO | Color of Law: General Information: T18CFR371CRIME Aiding and abetting ~~ MICHIGAN law requires YOU [ Federally Entitled T42CFR409.33 Hospitalized INDIVIDUAL ] to complete an internal review with your health plan [ HAPCORP.ORG - HHS|HMO T42CFR417.1 Alternate Dispute Resolution - grievance procedure - Adverse Determination - anti-dumping violation ] prior to using the external review. The health plan [ HMO ] will give you a final decision within 45 days and will provide an Office of Financial and Insurance Services ( OFIS ) Health Care Request for external review form. If your health plan does NOT Provide a decision within the Required Time Frame, you may file for External Review Without the Notice of ( T42CFR417.1 misprison of a felony ~ $25,000.oo Anti-dumping violation, to force, fraud by fright, illegal HCFA State OFIS Medicaid Kickback Conversions ) Final Adverse Determination. 42CFR438.704 - willfully failed to keep individuals from harm RICO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's get it straight; the Bible says nothing against abortion. How could it? The Bible says nothing at all about abortion; the word is never used in any place in the entire Bible. Some people oppose abortion for other reasons than their failure to understand the Bible; I have no quarrel with that. But I do have a bone to pick with those who justify their convictions by referring to the Bible as their moral guide and then lying about what it says.

The basis of the question is, "When does human life begin." The Catholic church says it begins at conception; I have no quarrel with the Catholics on that since they don't claim that they base their belief on the Bible. But why do the fundamentalist Christianoids let the Pope dictate their beliefs? Most Protestant churches reject most dogmas issued by the Catholics. Yet on this one issue, they accept the dogma without question. Why is that?

And why don't they read Gen. 2:7, which clearly says that Adam did not become a living soul until he received the breath of life. It's of some significance that the word for "soul", which is "nephesh" is Hebrew, is derived from a word meaning "breath." And modern medicine shows clearly that the basis of life is breath that pulls oxygen into the lungs and distributes it throughout the body through the blood. Thus, the famous verse, "The blood is the life."

I don't personally accept the Bible as "literal truth" since the Book itself says not to (2Cor. 3:6). But if those who insist on the literal truth of the Bible can't even get the literal meaning of the words right, how do they ever hope to understand the spiritual values of the text? HInt: They don't care about spiritual values; they only care about getting butts in the pews and money in the collection plates on Sunday. Their claims of holiness are nothing but a con game.

Sorry to annoy anyone with my pique over the lack of consistency among the Christianoids, but I believe that if someone wants to tell me about the meaning of the Book and insist that I am required to accept it as my moral standard, they should first quote it accurately and in context. And I believe that the best way to counter their insistence on what the Bible says is simply to point out that the Bible doesn't say what they claim it ssys.

And I sometimes wonder if I'm the only Christian left who really cares what the Book has to say on any issue.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that don't allow public money to be used for state sanctioned murder (read 'war') be passed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's remember that Stupak is part of the C St Family exposed in Jeff Sharlet's book "The Family" and also by Rachel Maddow (MSNBC), Bill Maher (HBO), Garry Trudeau ("Doonesbury"), and in the current issue of Americans for Religious Liberty's journal Voice of Reason (www.arlinc.org). Yeah, yeah, there are polls and polls showing Americans all over the map on if and when abortion is OK, but the question polls rarely ask is this important one: Should government have the authority or power to dictate decisions of conscience for woman, or to decide which sectarian religious teaching women should be required to follow? I think not! Stupak and friends clearly want to curtail women's freedom of conscience, in violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. It't time to curtail the influence of mysogynistic patriarchalism. By the way, Stupak's efforts follow his recent unsuccessful attempt to give away government property in Michigan to a church. Perhaps Stupak should be encouraged to seek a different occupation, one in which he could do less harm to women and the Constitution. -- Edd Doerr, Pres., Americans for Religious Liberty (arlinc.org)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do we really get to deprive sick people of the care they need so that some woman can be forced to bring a child into the world whether she wants it or not? That's the question. What a high price to pay for a moral decision that lacks reasoning. It's depraved thinking on the part of politicians who use such a grave matter to prove some selfish point of their own. Moral dilemmas are not part of any political debate. It's pretentious. Most are not smart enough to participate in the argument, much less run for public office on their opinion, and that's all it is. And it's truly offensive coming from a man. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's "pro-life" - as if those of us who are pro-choice are somehow "anti-life."

It never seems to sink in with these self-righteous types that quality of life is important, that if we are to deny abortion to women we also need to completely fund health care for ALL children, provide childcare for anyone in need, pour money into early childhood education, give support to abused women, and ensure that there is funding for a multitude of other family-oriented issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amazing that such emotion can be gained for a non-provable opinion.
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christionized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail. It is worth looking at both the 'God' reasons for and against abortion and the societal reasons for and against. I wonder if any of these legislators have read it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]