Comments on: Must-Read on Stupak

By: wiggles

wiggles — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:58:57 +0000

That is a great column. Now to get Obama and Pelosi and Reid to read it.

By: jemand

jemand — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:30:40 +0000

I’m just going to throw out there that having a kid because you couldn’t come up with the money to abort it has got to be one of the SUCKIEST reasons to become a parent out there.

And sucks for the kid, too. And the rest of society too. As maternal income is closely correlated to age at first child and number of children, and children’s income closely correlated to parental income– throwing out this money now to people who *actually want it* is going to pay so many dividends in increased taxes as these families move towards middle and upper class, and that’s just talking money and not increased standards of living. Way more than the cost of the abortion today. These women don’t want kids and happen to be poor. It seems to me that if someone *doesn’t want to be a parent* than probably they *shouldn’t be a parent* and society should probably care that most children get to grow up with good parents, at least when the solution is so damn SIMPLE.

I’m so confused at the logic against it.

By: Sheelzebub

Sheelzebub — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:05:37 +0000

And, I also want to say, there’s an awful lot of classism as well as sexism in the support for this amendment. McCaskill didn’t think the amendment wasn’t “that bad” since, you know, abortion would still be legal and available (if you were a woman who had money, apparently). Ostensibly pro-choice reps voted for this thing thinking that it “only” affected an allegedly small number of people–people who need financial help. Which is odd, since last time I checked, the economy was reaming an awful lot of people and poor people are still human beings who deserve the same access to healthcare as everyone else.

Instead of Monday morning quarterbacking and theorizing about what life would be like in an alternate universe that had HRC as president, let’s just move forward and hold these jackasses accountable.

By: Sheelzebub

Sheelzebub — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:58:18 +0000

TH, give her a break. She caught a lot of flak from her fellow Obama supporters when she called out sexism that was directed at HRC.

By: tinfoil hattie

tinfoil hattie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:11:32 +0000

Many of us didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because the goal of electing a woman seemed less important than the goal of electing the best possible president.

Hey, how’s that working out for ya, Katha?

By: SunlessNick

SunlessNick — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:07:23 +0000

Superb article, right from the “Whose Team Is It” headline. Because if women, feminists, and pro-choicers have to “take one for the team” by pandering to anti-choicers, then it simply isn’t “the team” – it’s another team, and a demand that we switch our support to it.

By: FW

FW — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:52:45 +0000

I love that article.

Now, what do we have to do to get it moved from “reproductive rights” to the “human rights” section where it belongs. I’m just about sick of “reproductive rights” sections as a whole because I see pitiful little about men’s “reproductive rights” being discussed in those categories. If forced birth isn’t a human rights issue then I’m a virgin.

By: KMTBerry

KMTBerry — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:57:40 +0000

THis is the most awesome thing I have read on this!!! AWESOME !!!

By: oldlady

oldlady — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:30:17 +0000

This is so excellent. She says it exactly right. And we need to make noise about this right now.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:48:59 +0000

YEEESSS!!!! That’s all.