Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stock prices and the SOTS
Next Post: SOTS preview
Posted in:
* Former GOP Congressman Bobby Schilling is pretty darned hardline on abortion, as this recent fundraising e-mail clearly shows…
Radical pro-abortion groups, including EMILY’s List—one of my opponent’s top financial contributors—are fighting to not only protect abortion, but to grow the abortion industry by leaps and bounds. Apparently claiming 1.2 million lives each year isn’t enough. EMILY’s List is fighting to increase access to third-term abortions, strike down parental notification laws, and increase taxpayer funding for abortion.
Folks, when you stop and think about it, EMILY’s List is downright disgusting. Their agenda is designed to promote young teenage girls getting third-term abortions paid for by the taxpayers without the parents ever finding out. That’s as radical as radical gets, and my opponent has pledged to stand with them on each and every issue.
EMILY’s List previously put me “on notice” because of my strong record on life, and that’s a badge of honor I wear proudly! Sorry, EMILY’s List, but genocide is not a right.
I stand with the unborn. I oppose all taxpayer-funded abortions, and I will continue to do everything in my power to protect life.
In liberty,
Bobby Schilling
P.S.-My opponent has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the radical pro-abortion lobby. Will you help us defeat her this November? Let’s stand for life together. Please chip in $25 to our campaign today!
Freshman Democrat Cheri Bustos’ campaign circulated the Schilling e-mail to their own e-mail list with a fundraising request: “Chip in $3 or whatever you can to help Cheri fight back against the nonsense and do what’s right for Illinois.”
Obviously, we can expect another rough and tumble race.
*** UPDATE *** From the Schilling campaign…
Hi Rich!
I saw your post on the pro-life e-mail we sent out last week.
I wanted to clarify Bobby’s position on the abortion issue. He is steadfastly pro-life. He also supports the “exceptions” — rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is at risk.
However, Cheri Bustos is incredibly extreme on abortion with no exceptions. Bustos has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from EMILY’s List. Last year she voted against the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, fighting to ensure that the government continues to subsidize abortions after 20 weeks.
Bustos highlighted the word “disgusting” when we were referring to EMILY’s List’s radical agenda.
So that begs a few questions:
Does Cheri Bustos think third-term abortion is not disgusting?
Does Cheri Bustos really believe parents shouldn’t be involved in their teenager’s crisis pregnancy?
Does Cheri Bustos really believe a baby isn’t alive at eight or nine months?
And does she support legalized, subsidized abortion up until the last week of the pregnancy?These are simple questions she could answer. So far she has refused to. If she supports no exceptions, how is she anything but a radical pro-abortion extremist?
Jon Schweppe
Communications Director
Bobby Schilling for Congress
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:13 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stock prices and the SOTS
Next Post: SOTS preview
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
geno·cide n. the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
Remember when words had meanings?
That was neat.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:21 am
Mr. Schilling, I wish you lived in my district. You’d have my vote.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:23 am
I think that it would do wonders if so many tax payer dollars were not used to subsidize abortions.
Comment by Upon Further Review Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:25 am
MrJM
Since 1973, 56,622,169 babies have been murdered. Sounds like genocide to me.
“geno·cide n. the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
Remember when words had meanings?
That was neat.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:30 am
Safe, affordable, effective and available contraception is the very best solution for reducing the number of abortions that are performed.
Making abortion illegal won’t stop abortions from happening. Even if illegal, abortions will continue to occur whether in back alleys for poor people or discreetly for the wealthy.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:34 am
It’s always nice to be pro-life before birth, but what about after?
Does that mean you will support Quinn’s ambitious early childhood education initiative in his address this morning?
Comment by Almost the Weekend Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:37 am
It would be nice if Mr. Schilling would stand with the born.
Comment by Joan P. Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:38 am
I’m a fan of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Women should not be compelled to carry a pregnancy involuntarily or against their will.
Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling b/c it doesn’t resolve the question. It just keeps the issue alive for politicians, fundraisers and lawyers.
Enough.
It’s time to pull the trigger on abortion and end the debate.
Congress should pass legislation that makes it clear the 13th Amendment guarantees a woman the option of ending a pregnancy whenever she wants.
The people who claim to be concerned about “babies” have no problem signing-off on war that kills babies.
The abortion debate is about controlling women, manipulating rubes who fall for the anti-abortion rhetoric and milking donors for money.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:43 am
@Bill White: Why do taxpayers have to subsidize abortions and contraceptives?
This was one of the phonies wedge issues concocted by the Democrats during the 2012 presidential campaign: subsidized contraceptives had to be paid for or else Sandra Fluke’s entire lifestyle was going to be invalidated by the right wing meanies. Put aside a few dollars and pay your own bills.
Comment by Upon Further Review Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:45 am
@Upon
As any health insurer will tell you, paying for contraception saves money.
Why should taxpayers subsidize maternity costs and food stamps for pregnancies that were unwanted or unintended in the first place?
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:49 am
Emily’s List was one of the biggest backers of Schilling’s opponent in the last election–Cheri Bustos. Emily’s List had a big part in beating Congressman Schilling for re-election.
With that in mind, Republicans ought to know that the wife of one of the candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor, Bruce Rauner, is a major donor to, and activist for, Emily’s List.
So the Rauner’s money helped take down a very good Republican congressman.
Comment by Steven Shearer Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:53 am
=== the option of ending a pregnancy whenever she wants ===
Mr Nyberg, there are very few folks who agree that abortion should be available on demand for no medical reason when the fetus is considered to be viable for live birth. The legislation you propose would fail. The idea is disturbing on more than one level, IMO.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:54 am
Mr Nyberj
What about the 13th amendment rights for the unborn child ?
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:58 am
“guarantees a woman the option of ending a pregnancy whenever she wants”
I’m pro-choice, but if you haven’t figured it out by about 20 weeks or so, too bad - except to save the life of the mother.
Even in cases of rape or incest going beyond 20 weeks is questionable…most women are showing by then.
Comment by countyline Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:06 am
@Upon Further Review:
Contraceptives are MEDICINE.
They not only prevent the medical condition of pregnancy (a concern of not just unmarried, sexually active women but also MARRIED COUPLES), they also are prescribed for chaste, celebate women because they TREAT OTHER MEDICAL CONDITIONS, too. Contraceptives are used by some women to deal with endometreosis, prevent some forms of cancer and deal with other ailments related to the reproductive system.
Just because you are hung up on contraceptives having an association with sex, doesn’t mean women should suffer from substandard medical care.
Taxpayers subsidize many forms of medicine, even for people with conditions that they could have prevented or conditions that may be associated with sinful activities. Senior citizens with lifelong STDs that may have been contracted in immoral ways get their medicine taxpayer-subsidized, seniors who have contracted Type 2 diabetes because of eating too much get their medicine taxpayer-subsidized, etc…
So why should childbearing-age women be singled out and punished this way?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:08 am
dupage dan, it sounds like you don’t trust women.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:12 am
Contraceptives are not medicine, they are birth control.
Contraceptives are MEDICINE.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:12 am
Whatever you think about abortion, the application of the term genocide is way over the top, or shall I say radical?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:14 am
===Contraceptives are not medicine, they are birth control.===
I’m going to guess that you’re a man AFSCME Steward.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:45 am
AFSCME Steward
The “birth control pill” is used for more than birth control.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:45 am
will everyone who is opposed to the State fuding abortion sign on to legislation mandating full free health care, education spending at 25k per student adjusted annualy by inflation, free college tuition, food, financial support for housing, utilities clothes, provision of computers and internet access which are improtant for development in our society and making productive modern adults etc?
We dont want abortions then we need to support all of the extra people in something other then poverty and homlessness if we want to generate productive memebrs of society.
it seems that the anti abortion folks also complain about soacial services…. so they want to force life, but have no regards to quality of life….
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:46 am
Mr Nyberg, what a despicable comment. A very poor attempt at provocation. You have no idea who I am or anything about my life, or the women in it.
Your comment suggests that, perhaps, we should just trust folks to do the right thing. A nice sentiment but that could be applied to all criminal law, no? Where, oh where, do we start?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:59 am
Ghost
Simple question: where does personal responsibility enter into the equation ? Why is the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund the lives of people who make bad decisions ? There is a reason the state & federal governments are in such a fiscal mess, it’s because the government has become the answer for everything. I believe the government’s role should be to help people short term. However, this argument that you have a choice either supporting abortion & taxpayer funded contraception or big government programs is absurd.
“will everyone who is opposed to the State fuding abortion sign on to legislation mandating full free health care, education spending at 25k per student adjusted annualy by inflation, free college tuition, food, financial support for housing, utilities clothes, provision of computers and internet access which are improtant for development in our society and making productive modern adults etc?
We dont want abortions then we need to support all of the extra people in something other then poverty and homlessness if we want to generate productive memebrs of society.”
it seems that the anti abortion folks also complain about soacial services…. so they want to force life, but have no regards to quality of life….
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:09 pm
Again, taxpayer funded contraception SAVES taxpayer money.
Also, when contraception is covered by health insurance, it is not paid for by tax dollars, it is paid for by premiums.
As for “religious freedom” should a business owned by a Jehovah’s Witness be allowed to provide health insurance that excluded coverage for blood transfusions?
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:14 pm
AFSCME is showing his colors today. You can’t have your cake and eat it too like Mr. Rauner. You despise abortion and government. Got it. However just saying government is there for the short term help only is absurd when you look at the scope of life government is involved in. Defense, education, law enforcement,food safety and many others. Where do you draw the line at short term help? I bet you aren’t for giving up a standing army or the Federal Reserve.
Comment by Jorge Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:20 pm
Jorge
You didn’t answer my question: where does personal responsibility enter into the equation ?
Please don’t equate my conservative views with Rauner. I think that my opinions of Mr Rauner have been made fairly clear on this blog.
I oppose abortion, taxpayer funded contraception & big government. Personal responsibilty for choices made is being ignored here. These are mainstream conservative viewpoints, not my “true colors”. If you have to resort to insults, it usually means you can’t defend your positions.
“AFSCME is showing his colors today. You can’t have your cake and eat it too like Mr. Rauner. You despise abortion and government. Got it. However just saying government is there for the short term help only is absurd when you look at the scope of life government is involved in. Defense, education, law enforcement,food safety and many others. Where do you draw the line at short term help? I bet you aren’t for giving up a standing army or the Federal Reserve.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:27 pm
== it sounds like you don´t trust women ==
I´m afraid that Carl allows ideology to trump any value to unborn life, no matter how far the pregnancy and no matter what the reason. Neither men nor women should be trusted with the absolute right to kill a fetus that could survive outside the womb.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:34 pm
==where does personal responsibility enter into the equation?==
It enters into the equation when birth control is made available to every woman who can or cannot afford it. The prevention of unwanted pregnancies and births will decrease the costs to taxpayers and society, and prevent further decline into poverty, unemployment and government dependance for many.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:37 pm
===where does personal responsibility enter into the equation ?===
I will ill brook demands of personal responsibility in this instance when they originate from institutions that are Constitutionally protected from paying taxes and ergo, any real responsibility for services impacted by their demands. (So religious bodies.)
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:39 pm
You dodny
Comment by Jorge Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:40 pm
Dang phone. Anyways I was not asked the question AFSCME but I’m with Wensicia on this.
Comment by Jorge Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:42 pm
@ AFSCME Steward: “Why is the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund the lives of people who make bad decisions ?:
But we do, even aside from funding for abortion and contraception. We pay every day for the bad decisions of those who have children but cannot afford pre-natal care, and who cannot afford to pay for those children’s food and medical care. We pay when those children end up in the foster care system, or, worse, in jail.
Do you suggest we eliminate all taxpayer help for those children? Or do you care about them only before they are born?
Comment by Joan P. Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:44 pm
Wensicia
I am still looking for an answer on where personal responsibility comes into the equation. What I keep seeing is that government is responsible for choices people make. Just how are the individuals that made bad choices being held accountable for thoase choices, and why is in the taxpayers responsibility to pay for bad decision making ?
“It enters into the equation when birth control is made available to every woman who can or cannot afford it. The prevention of unwanted pregnancies and births will decrease the costs to taxpayers and society, and prevent further decline into poverty, unemployment and government dependance for many.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:46 pm
“Why is the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund the lives of people who make bad decisions?”
@AFSCME Steward:
First of all, endometreosis doesn’t occur as the result of a bad decision and as I said previously (and you completely ignored because apparently it’s easier to hold the position you do by ignoring all medical facts) birth control pills are medication used to treat medical conditions in women besides to prevent the medical condition of pregnancy.
I also wonder what planet you live on that taking birth control is always symptomatic of a “bad decision”? Or do all married women have to choose between being barefoot and pregnant all the time or not ever having sex in their marriages in your world?
Finally, taxpayers wind up footing the bill and extending a helping hand to people who make bad decisions all the time. For example, are you for abolishing bankruptcy courts, too?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:55 pm
Joan P.
“But we do, even aside from funding for abortion and contraception. We pay every day for the bad decisions of those who have children but cannot afford pre-natal care, and who cannot afford to pay for those children’s food and medical care. We pay when those children end up in the foster care system, or, worse, in jail.
No I do not. As I’ve already stated, I support short term help for people who are struggling. But I also support the concept that peopl;e receiving that assitance have the obligation to do whatever is necessary to become self-sufficient. Government should not become a way of life. People that spend their lives relying on the government help create a poverty mindset.
Do you suggest we eliminate all taxpayer help for those children? Or do you care about them only before they are born?”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:58 pm
@Joan & @AFSCME Steward
– Not to mention bankruptcy, pension shifts, and the like. There are lots of things government ultimately gets involved in not because they want to, but because they are in the supposed interest of society. I pay a lot of taxes that are used to support bankruptcy courts and investigations into corporate misdeeds. We, as a society, have determined that personality responsibility only goes so far, and then societal interest becomes involved.
So for those of you opposed to governmentally-provided birth control, are you opposed to having provided as part of health insurance? Because buying health insurance is showing personal responsibility.
And government isn’t responsible for the choices people make. Government — the representation of us — may have decided that providing access to something is a necessary social good. That society is better off if government does it because a) the scale is so large that it would be impossible to be provided privately; b) because it is such a benefit to society that it should happen; and/or c) because the private sector won’t provide the good/service in question. Like roads. National defense. Legal systems. You know — those oppressions of personal responsibility.
Comment by xxtofer Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:58 pm
To the post.
Hard to believe Schilling is running for Lane Evans’ old seat. That kind of rhetoric would probably be (marginally) more useful in a primary bid against Schock.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 12:59 pm
hisgirlfriday
Endometreosis is not the primary reason for contraceptives. I do not oppose contraceptives, I oppose taxpayer funding of them.
“First of all, endometreosis doesn’t occur as the result of a bad decision and as I said previously (and you completely ignored because apparently it’s easier to hold the position you do by ignoring all medical facts) birth control pills are medication used to treat medical conditions in women besides to prevent the medical condition of pregnancy.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:00 pm
Birth control pills are not a constitutional right. My wife had a medical condition where she needed birth control pills twenty years ago. The government didn’t pay for them. Neither did we expect anyone else to pay for them.
Comment by Gman Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:05 pm
I suppose we should oppose any taxpayer funding of immunizations for children, too. Why aren’t their parents taking personal responsibility for this?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:06 pm
@AFSCME Steward:
Why does it matter that contraceptives were invented to prevent pregnancy if people with endometreosis get prescribed that medication to treat it? What does that have to do with whether a medication should be treated the same as other medications when it comes to taxpayer-funded/supported medical care?
I mean do you also oppose taxpayer funding for insulin/diabetes treatment for people who made bad decisions about what food they ate and contracted Type 2 diabetes?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:09 pm
You won’t get an answer AFSCME, because they don’t have one. Their proposals are based strictly on emotion as opposed to logic and common sense. I too support short term assistance for anyone in need,and long term assistance for the physically and mentally disabled, but anyone comparing free birth control and welfare to road maintenance and funding the military are guilty of willful ignorance, or really, really just don’t get it.
Comment by countyline Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:13 pm
@countyline
It’s the twenty-first century. The citizenry of developed countries expects the government to provide welfare and health care assistance in addition to public works and defense.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:20 pm
“guarantees a woman the option of ending a pregnancy whenever she wants”
So, you draw the line at what, first contraction? Wow. That’s reprehensible.
13th Amendment? I assume you didn’t go to law school. In order to have involuntary servitude you need two parties: one party gaining benefit from the work output of another under the threat of bodily harm; and the other party working or serving against their will. In your warped attempt to apply 13, we have the mother who is the oppressed. Who is the oppressor? Can’t be the baby because he/she has no rights or status in your view. So, which specific party derives economic benefit from the fruits of servitude these pregnant mothers toil under? I’m curious.
But really, I think your invocation of 13 is disrespectful to the memory of those in this country who actually had to endure real slavery.
Comment by Geneva Guy Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:28 pm
College Student, well said. Countyline, you are the last poster who has room to speak of common sense. Last I checked you were on your way out of town after SSM passed.
Comment by Jorge Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:28 pm
CollegeStudent - I am a part of that citizenry. I prefer to speak for myself. I do not need you to do it for me. Especially since you do not represent my views.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:35 pm
It seems logical to me that if you want to reduce abortions, you should try and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And making birth control and sex education widely available seem like sensible things to do if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
But what seems logical to me apparently differs from what seems logical to others.
Comment by drew Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:36 pm
Bad decisions? You mean having sex. That’s a bad decision? Women who don’t want children shouldn’t have sex? Thanks AFSCME but I rather like the post-industrial world.
Comment by belmont cragin Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:39 pm
Again for the anti-abortion/anti-birth control crowd. If you were to have your way, your standard of living would greatly diminish. That is reality.
Are you prepared to have your wages go down (assuming you are still able to get a job), your government services go town, and your taxes go through the roof? Because that is what would happen if you got your way. Guaranteed.
If you think things are bad now, imagine if we had 30-50 million more mouths to feed.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:43 pm
I meant go down with regards to government services.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:48 pm
-The citizenry of developed countries expects the government to provide welfare and health care assistance in addition to public works and defense-
Maybe your generation, but not mine. Like the saying goes…conservative at 20, you have no heart, liberal at 40, you have no brain.
Comment by countyline Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:50 pm
Countyline, please stop with the personal slams just because you disagree with someone. Obviously your momma never taught you how to play nicely or in a socially acceptable manner.
Comment by Jorge Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 1:55 pm
Belmont Cragin
I have no problem with the world you want to live it. My concern is when people turn to the government to fix all of their problems.
“Bad decisions? You mean having sex. That’s a bad decision? Women who don’t want children shouldn’t have sex? Thanks AFSCME but I rather like the post-industrial world.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:06 pm
Jorge
Aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black. If you don’t want people to use insults, perhaps you should model the behaviour you are advocating.
“Countyline, please stop with the personal slams just because you disagree with someone. Obviously your momma never taught you how to play nicely or in a socially acceptable manner.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:08 pm
People are down on contraception in the year 2014?
Penny-wise, pound-foolish, or who’s being emotional and not logical?
You want to pay for contraceptives or Medicaid funded pregnancies? Guess which costs more?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:08 pm
This issue can be resolved when we look at human life through the lens of the Creator. Does the Creator create the human being to be born?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:12 pm
Anon: Your “Creator” gave us free will to make decisions for ourselves. Unless he didn’t create dinosaurs. Then you are just nuts.
Comment by Nonplussed Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:19 pm
Wordslinger
My arguement is not so much against contraception as it is in favor of personal responsibility. There is an attitude, as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread, that the government is responsible to pay for everything. I have yet to see anyone really identifying where the responsibility of the individual comes in. The state & federal financial difficulties are there for a reason. We are spending more than we are taking in. We are continuously creating new ways to spend, but are unwilling to accept responsibility for payment. Everybody wants somebody else to pay for what they advocate. I see very few people who are in favor of their own taxes being increased. I believe in helping people, but I also believe that the burden for supporting one self resides with the individual not the government.
“People are down on contraception in the year 2014?
Penny-wise, pound-foolish, or who’s being emotional and not logical?
You want to pay for contraceptives or Medicaid funded pregnancies? Guess which costs more?”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:24 pm
===This issue can be resolved when we look at human life through the lens of the Creator. Does the Creator create the human being to be born? ===
Is it possible the creator permitted the development of birth control medication and safer abortion practices because he wants his creation to not eat itself out of house and home? I wouldn’t really know one way or the other myself-he hasn’t picked up the phone for centuries, if not millenia.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:30 pm
To the politics of fundraising — which, as we’ll recall, the Schilling letter was for fundraising — that’s a lot of red meat, in choice of language when you’re heading for a general election.
Plus, some of it is just absurdly wrong. Bill Clinton, Nancy Reagan, John Lennon and Babe Ruth were not prevented from being aborted because of adoption.
Clinton’s parents were married. His father died in a car accident a couple of months before he was born and his mother’s next husband adopted him.
Nancy Reagan’s parents were married and divorced after she was born. Again, her mother’s next husband adopted her.
Lennon and Ruth weren’t adopted at all.
Lennon lived with his aunt; his parents were alive. The Babe got sent to reform school when he was seven for drinking beer, smoking cigars and robbing people on the Baltimore waterfront (family values weren’t so tight in the Ruth household).
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:36 pm
Such a wedge issue cash cow the issue of abortion is for our elected friends.
It never fails to amuse that the party of individual choice and limited government seeks to so vehemently deny individual choice and extend the reach of government into personal lives.
Comment by Left Leaner Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:37 pm
@Anon:
If we’re looking through “the lens of the Creator” then let us also consider that the Creator gave women — and ONLY women — wombs, presumably because the Creator trusted women and not men with the decisions and responsibility associated with bringing life into the world. If so, then women should really get the benefit of the doubt on making their own decisions with this stuff.
Also, if the Creator is at hand in every fertilized egg, then the Creator also is to blame then for the estimated half of all fertilized eggs being spontaneously and unintentionally aborted by women’s bodies even before women know they are pregnant.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:44 pm
Left Leaner
Who is looking out for the life of the unborn child ? Does that individual also deserve the choice to be born ?
“It never fails to amuse that the party of individual choice and limited government seeks to so vehemently deny individual choice and extend the reach of government into personal lives.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:45 pm
How about looking at human life through the eyes of the Constitution?
When does the Constitution confer citizenship? Here’s a hint: it’s really explicit and it’s in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:50 pm
@Carl Nyberg:
The US Congress cannot simply pass legislation redefining an amendment to the US Constitution. The proper method to take is to propose a new amendment that is unambiguous and have it ratified by the states. Your proposed solution is unworkable.
Roe v. Wade is viewed by many as an illegitimate decision because the US Supreme Court developed its own rules which struck down the statutes opposing abortion in thirty-nine different states. The decision rested upon the SCOTUS majority stretching the limits of its past “privacy” decisions to find a new right that was never considered by any of the legislators who amended the US Constitution following the US Civil War.
The abortion debate would be less contentious if the judges let the legislatures perform their functions and make the laws.
Comment by Upon Further Review Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 2:55 pm
AFSCME Steward, the answer to that question is simple; personal responsibility enter into the equasion when the people who find themselves pregnant and unable to support the child choose to have an abortion instead of bringing somone into the world to live an existance where they have not quality of life.
Where is the personal repsonsibility for those who claim abortion is wrong and want to force others to bring forth children for which there would be no quality of life?
personal repsonability means being responsible includes being responsible for the decisions made, including decisions like opposing funding aboritions. lets be personally responsible for all decisions we make, and not just the ones where we want to make a decision for someone else, and then lay the entirety of the outcome for that decision on someone else.
So do you support being personaly responsibel for decisions opposing abortions and all that flows from that decision, or do you abdicate personal responsibility for that decision? step up and support the lives your decision to oppose abortion brings forth and accept responsibility for that decision.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:00 pm
@Upon Further Review
Is Loving v. Virginia legitimate then?
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:01 pm
Ghost
Again I ask, where is the personal responsibility ? You are directing your answer towards me & the government, not the individual. Why are the taxpayers responsible for poor decision making ? Who is going to pay for those programs. There is a reason why the state is billions behind in payments. It is because it has become the solution for everything. How are these programs going to be paid for ? Do you advocate increasing your own taxes to support that which you endorse ? Personal responsibility needs to be part of the solution. The government cannot and should not be the solution for everything. “AFSCME Steward, the answer to that question is simple; personal responsibility enter into the equasion when the people who find themselves pregnant and unable to support the child choose to have an abortion instead of bringing somone into the world to live an existance where they have not quality of life.
Where is the personal repsonsibility for those who claim abortion is wrong and want to force others to bring forth children for which there would be no quality of life?
personal repsonability means being responsible includes being responsible for the decisions made, including decisions like opposing funding aboritions. lets be personally responsible for all decisions we make, and not just the ones where we want to make a decision for someone else, and then lay the entirety of the outcome for that decision on someone else.
So do you support being personaly responsibel for decisions opposing abortions and all that flows from that decision, or do you abdicate personal responsibility for that decision? step up and support the lives your decision to oppose abortion brings forth and accept responsibility for that decision.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:11 pm
I really hate this argument, and will probably regret weighing-in, but…
Abortions and birth control are legal. Why on earth wouldn’t they be covered in health insurance plans, and be covered by Medicaid?
I don’t want to pay for nuclear weapons, but I don’t get to decide where my tax money goes. Same with this. Shut up, pay your taxes and if you don’t like a law, work to get it changed.
Abortion and birth control are legal in the United States. Period. Full stop. They are legitimate health care procedures and should be fully covered by any health insurance plan.
Y’all are free to feel as you wish about their morality, but their legality is not in question.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:12 pm
I agree with 47th.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:30 pm
=== presumably because the Creator trusted women and not men with the decisions and responsibility associated with bringing life into the world ===
Funny, I always thought of it as a mutual decision and responsibility.
Thus the inherent requirement for a component from men and a component from women in order to create a zygote.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:38 pm
=== If you think things are bad now, imagine if we had 30-50 million more mouths to feed ===
CollegeStudent, Do you want us to believe that those folks wouldn’t grow up to be productive citizens? That they would all be on welfare, being fed thru gov’t programs? I don’t get it. Or perhaps you are worried about the rate of population growth and the pressure it puts on on Mother Earth. Again, you are assuming that there are no other factors or variables that may come into play. Just throw out the numbers and we will all be in awe at your rhetorical prowess.
Meh.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 3:52 pm
–I really hate this argument, and will probably regret weighing-in, but…–
47, don’t worry, I have the whole abortion dispute figured out.
The Israeli/Palestinian thing, too.
I’ll tell you the solutions, for a pound — each (Monty Python)…..
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 4:06 pm
AFSCME Steward,
Your posts would be much more readable if you put your response after the quotation to which you responding rather than vice versa.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 4:07 pm
==Maybe your generation, but not mine. Like the saying goes…conservative at 20, you have no heart, liberal at 40, you have no brain.==
Pretty dense and vapid right there. The government built the “greatest generation” and it built the generations after as well. But if you want to live in your delusional adynaton world of bootstraps, go ahead.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 4:22 pm
====CollegeStudent, Do you want us to believe that those folks wouldn’t grow up to be productive citizens? That they would all be on welfare, being fed thru gov’t programs? I don’t get it. Or perhaps you are worried about the rate of population growth and the pressure it puts on on Mother Earth. Again, you are assuming that there are no other factors or variables that may come into play. Just throw out the numbers and we will all be in awe at your rhetorical prowess.
Meh. ===
First off, its 2014. Which means its 6 years after 2008. Which means its 6 years (well 5 and a half) years after the Great Recession took the notion that hard work and ability will always be rewarded with employment and the chance to achieve your desired lifestyle and shot it in the head.
You can be a perfectly fine well-educated, theoretically productive citizen…and still not have a job with which to support yourself in today’s economy. Or you could still require some public service in order to make ends meet.
Adding 30-50 million more to the workforce is not exactly going to improve things. Especially since “available labor” is one of the last things considered in deciding whether or not an employer should expand its workforce. All the additional supply of labor would do is suppress wages and increase the number of people who need government assistance to make ends meet. And this all ignores the trends towards automation that reduce the number of workers companies need anyway.
The same also applies to food and basic commodities. Food prices are impacted by demand just like anything else. 30-50 million more mouths is a lot of demand. Cheap food is not likely to be as cheap as it is now.
Of course this assumes that the children will develop into theoretically productive citizena. If your parent(s) don’t want you around from the moment you are born…it’s not likely that you’re going to get the non-governmental support necessary to become a good contributor to society. Which means these unwanted children are going to need even more governmental assistance if we as a society are going to achieve ANY benefit from them entering the world. So that means your taxes are going to go up.
——————————
Based on where we are now, God’s not going to provide. The private sector is not going to provide. So it falls on the government and taxpayers to provide. Normally at this point I would suggest that the church should be taxed as a quid pro quo for anti-abortion, but that’s unconstitutional and they don’t have enough money anyway. The church really is the perfect free rider if you think about it.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 4:26 pm
AFSCME: your question on personal responsibility has been answered at least three different ways.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to start listening, and not just continue to ask the same question — as if that somehow makes a rhetorical point.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 4:42 pm
==If she supports no exceptions, how is she anything but a radical pro-abortion extremist?==
If Schilling uses the word “genocide” in describing legal abortions, how is he not a radical anti-abortion, anti-choice extremist??
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 4:54 pm
Anyone who thinks it’s okay to abort a child at 20 weeks in the womb is pretty extreme.
Comment by econ prof Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:12 pm
==CollegeStudent, Do you want us to believe that those folks wouldn’t grow up to be productive citizens? That they would all be on welfare, being fed thru gov’t programs? I don’t get it. Or perhaps you are worried about the rate of population growth and the pressure it puts on on Mother Earth. Again, you are assuming that there are no other factors or variables that may come into play. Just throw out the numbers and we will all be in awe at your rhetorical prowess.==
Well said, DuPage Dan.
Comment by econ prof Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:13 pm
and this thread is a perfect example why this issue will never be resolved no matter if abortion is legal or illegal. ugh
Comment by PoolGuy Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:16 pm
===Anyone who thinks it’s okay to abort a child at 20 weeks in the womb is pretty extreme. ===
Maybe if so many barriers weren’t thrown up to access abortion clinics in certain parts of the country that would be the case. However, the reality in those parts is that it’s not like a pregnant woman can just one day decide to have an abortion, drive down to the clinic, and then have the abortion taken care of.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:31 pm
Does Schilling actually believe abortions are the moral equivalent of genocide or not? If he really does believe that, how can he abide any exceptions?
Say what you will about the “no abortions ever for anybody ever” crowd, but at least they’re morally consistent.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:34 pm
Walker
The only answers given were to divert the attention away from the individual and to me or the government. Again I ask, where does individual responsibility fit in these issues. One of the commenters stated earlier “people who find themselves pregnant”. How did that happen ? Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to bail out people “people who find themselves pregnant” ? What is the responsibility for the person who found herself pregnant ? It seems that risky the behavior of the individual is being excused. People don’t just find themselves pregnant, there is a reason for the condition.
“If you want to be taken seriously, you have to start listening, and not just continue to ask the same question — as if that somehow makes a rhetorical point.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:44 pm
MrJM,
The “no abortions ever for anybody ever” crowd is hardly ever pro-life when it comes to war, the death penalty, or different species.
Comment by corpman Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 5:46 pm
After conception a unique human life has formed; it has its own unique DNA and its own unique genetic code. While that unique human life will reach physical maturity roughly at age 20, it will actually continue grow and change until death.
With few exceptions, I don’t support killing that innocent human life, no matter if it is 40 hours old, 40 weeks old, or 40 years old. I cerrtainly not condone killing them in the numbers that abortion (aborting a human life) has killed. The science of DNA and genetics was not anywhere close to where it is now; that we as a country haven’t come to terms with that yet is a testament to the power of denial.
There are two basic questions. One: is it alive? Two: if alive, is it a unique human life? After conception has finished, the answer to both those questions is yes–a unique human life has entered the world.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 6:54 pm
Corpman,
What judge and jury has ruled against an innocent unborn life? What national security threat do they pose, that they must be killed? Your analogy completely lacks merit. When I was deployed, I prayed I would never have to kill a fellow human being…but I was prepared to to protect my own life, my fellow Soldiers, and my country. Is this the level of threat that the unborn rise to?
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 6:56 pm
Sorry Liandro, there is only one question: do the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus growing inside her? There are a lot of people conveying rights on the unborn. Until the courts affirm the right of the unborn, they don’t exist under U.S. law.
While you are free to believe otherwise, your faith or opinion does not carry the weight of law, nor should it.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 7:01 pm
No, 47th, that is only a legal question. I was referring to the moral questions. If it was perfectly legal to stab you to death, I still wouldn’t do it unless my life (or some equally powerful motivator) was in danger. And I would argue that my government shouldn’t let you get killed for no reason.
The same is true for abortion. Just because it is allowed in the eyes of the law (a law set not by our representatives, but by a court that didn’t –and couldn’t yet–understand DNA and genetics) does not mean I accept it. I will continue to fight for those unborn to be given protected legal status as well. The right to life is the most powerful right of all.
I certainly understand those that say certain human beings may not deserve the FULL rights an adult human being holds. That is a discussion we should have. But to deny the unborn are human, as some do? Do deny that they have ANY right to life–despite the fact that they are clearly, scientifically alive?
As I said, our nation is in denial on this issue. The science is plain, and lives are being lost every day. Slavery was once legal, did that justify slave-owners? Heck no. The legal system isn’t perfect, but we should still strive to make it better.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 7:16 pm
===I was referring to the moral questions.===
No kidding. When you overthrow our democratic republic and install your theocratic regime, fine. Until then, shut your front door. This isn’t Sunday school and I’m tired of people pushing their own brand of morality as law. You are free to believe as you see fit. But your beliefs don’t mean squat under our legal system.
This is a blog of political junkies, who presumably understand government, legal theory and some history. It’s not a catechism class. There is the way things ought to be and the ways things are, and people here are supposed to know the difference,
Bobby Shilling and Cheri Bustos are raising money off this issue because people feel passionately about this subject. It’s a money maker for both sides, a symbiotic relationship that makes us all poorer if we pick sides with our checkbook. You can pick your side and it’s wonderful that you have such passion and faith. I can pick mine.
But unless I’m mistaken about you and AFSCME Steward, none of us is going to have to make this decision.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 7:30 pm
Who was talking about theology? I was talking about science, and referenced scientific facts concerning DNA and genetics. You are the only one talking about theology. It doesn’t take a theocracy to protect human life–you’ll note murder is against the law. You’ll note theft is against the law. You’ll note assault is against the law.
You contradict yourself by pointing out that laws concerning abortion are made by our representatives (who we are deciding whether to vote for), but saying it is not our decision to make. It is EXACTLY our decision to make, and referencing science as we make our decisions is something I find to be prudent.
Or do you disagree that an unborn human has its own DNA? It’s own genetic code? Do you consider that a “belief” of mine, and not science? I’m actually a little confused as to your point–you clearly understand that we pick our representatives, and that they in turn make the laws. I would assume you agree laws should be set as to when and where a human life can be ended.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 7:42 pm
More directly to Rich’s post: Emily’s list has already engaged, heavily, in this race. I don’t think it really hurts Bobby at this point to engage himself, especially in direct emails to supporters. I live and work right alongside this district, and most of what I’ve seen in the public sphere hasn’t had to do with abortion or social issues in general.
You could argue Bustos could use this as part of a series to tack the race more heavily into social issues if she thought it would help, but I really don’t see it changing many votes in her favor.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 7:54 pm
@Liandro,
The science is a single cell or group of cells has DNA and holds the potential of life, but is not sustainable or separate on its own. It is not viable life any more than a seed is viable on its own. Science often discards these pre-forms of life through natural or outside interventions in many species besides our own. In fact, we deliberately cause this result in other species. You are trying to place a higher order on the human zygote, one that cannot be destroyed, which does suggest a motive of theology.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 7:58 pm
@Wensicia,
I understand your point, but viability is a measure of environment and technological capability, not a measure of life. In the 1800’s viability was completely different then it is now. In 200 years (or possibly 20), viability will be different again. It is illogical to say that human life began at a different stage of development in year 1600 than it does today, but that is what you are saying when you choose viability as your standard. You are also saying human life begins earlier in America than in some jungle outpost.
I will tread dangerous waters and quote Wiki to back me up:
“Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.”
Viability was used as a determinant because (apologies for repeating myself) the court and legal system had no access to DNA science or genetic science during RvW.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 8:09 pm
==Viability was used as a determinant because (apologies for repeating myself) the court and legal system had no access to DNA science or genetic science during RvW.==
I beg to differ. I was in high school when the Roe v. Wade decision came about. We were well versed in genetic science concerning DNA, as I imagine the Supreme Court and its resources were as well. Try again.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 8:20 pm
I wasn’t even born yet, so I will be no means swear to what was taught then. But, without a doubt, it has moved leaps and bounds since then. When I was in college they hadn’t even finished the human genome project (it was big news at the University of Mich, as some of its leaders were UoM profs, when it was declared complete in 2003).
My main point about viability stands: it is illogical to say that when human life begins is a moving target that is dependent on technology. Are you saying that you will be anti-abortion when technology finally makes human life viable at week 1 (something that will likely happen eventually)?
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 8:26 pm
Liandro, I’m not sure what your obsession with genetic code has to do with this discussion.
A corporation has no genetic material whatsoever, yet we treat it as a person as a convenient legal fiction to allow for the resolution of legal disputes involving corporations.
As for the idea of needing to allocate full personhood rights to every zygote even if it’s only “40 years old” — how exactly do you go about that as a practical matter? Are you going to turn every woman’s uterus in America into a crime scene when one-half of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort before a woman even knows she’s pregnant? Are you advocating for every trip to the E.R. for a miscarriage to involve a police report and investigation into the “person” who died? Because that’s what personhood rights for 40-hours-old zygotes entails if these clusters of cells are really truly human beings beings who deserve equal justice under the law when they die suspiciously. Is this what you are advocating?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 8:44 pm
@hisgirlfriday,
My “obsession” with genetic code is due to the fact that when a unique, individual human life begins is important to a discussion of which human lives deserve protections.
The idea of whether they should get “full personhood” is a fair question. Obviously we already limit rights (can’t drink under 21, can’t drive under 16, etc.). Right to life is the most powerful right of all…at what point can and should we deny that right?
You are absolutely right that there are practical considerations. As you mentioned, human life is incredibly fragile during early development. I do think you are engaging in some serious hyperbole by raising the specter of “every woman’s uterus in America into a crime scene”, though.
My point is that America should be engaging in exactly this discussion: how far are we going to protect developing human life. Unfortunately, right now the discussion is over whether that human life even deserves any protections whatsoever.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 8:57 pm
=== Normally at this point I would suggest that the church should be taxed as a quid pro quo for anti-abortion ===
They may well agree to that proposal.
Right after they send the state a bill for every single one of the services they provide to the homeless, hungry and vulnerable among us.
In reality, it’s most likely a wash. They get a lot of “free” stuff, but they give a lot of “free” stuff as well.
As long as a congregation of any religion doesn’t start requiring the homeless to convert to their faith in order to eat, or start exploiting the sometimes blurry lines between “service” and “proselytizing”, the social benefits tend to outweigh the costs.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 9:14 pm
@ Liandro === Or do you disagree that an unborn human has its own DNA? It’s own genetic code? ===
So does a tapeworm. Scientifically, any fetus (human or otherwise, well, mammalian) is a parasite, taking from the host.
Clearly, I don’t think fetuses are parasites, but if we’re gonna use selective science to support our arguments, I can play too.
As others have said, there may be a moral component to this — for you. My morality may allow or expect something different. (What if I believe it is morally wrong to add to the world population. Whose morality wins?. No one — that’s why it’s morality. I won’t force you or anyone you know who is against abortion to have one. Please give my side of the argument the same ability to engage free will and morality.
Comment by xxtofer Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 9:29 pm
Was Schilling this fringe-y before he was defeated for re-election?
Comment by olddog Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:19 pm
@xxtofer,
I’m not sure what your point is with the tapeworm thing, nor what you mean by “selective science”. I don’t think either of us care when a tapeworm’s life begins or when it is “viable”; neither of us is going to do much to protect tapeworms in *any* phase of its life.
My reference to DNA is purely to show that the unborn are not merely random cells–they are a completely new, separate, and unique human life. We are all just “clumps of cells”, as someone said earlier (in what I assumed was an attempt to dehumanize). DNA/genetics tells us which clumps are mine, which are yours, and which belong to that unique new human life we are discussing.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 10:38 pm
@Liandro
Every organism on this planet has DNA, from bacterium to humans. Is each genetically distinct organism special and need of protection?
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:07 pm
@Collegestudent:
Wow, really? I’m VERY clearly defending *human* life, which is treated as more valuable both legally and (for most people) morally. I don’t care about random bacterium. I’m going to bed, so let me put it plain: human life is valuable; I think most of us agree on that. Very valuable, and worthy of protection under the law. It thus becomes very important to figure out when a *human* life begins–at what point is it a separate, unique, individual, living *human* life.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 29, 14 @ 11:45 pm
47th Ward said: “There are a lot of people conveying rights on the unborn. Until the courts affirm the right of the unborn, they don’t exist under U.S. law.”
For the record, The Court DID affirm rights of the unborn as well as the right of the state to protect the life and health of both the unborn and the mother. Have you actually read Roe v. Wade? The Court initially affirmed these things in that case and again decades later when Roe v. Wade was supplanted by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. You were aware that Roe hasn’t been the controlling abortion case for decades, weren’t you?
Comment by Liberty Voter Thursday, Jan 30, 14 @ 5:45 am
Precinct Captain
–Pretty dense and vapid right there. The government built the “greatest generation” and it built the generations after as well.–
That is the Denses and most Vapid comment ever uttered. I have in my life had the Honor of knowing 7 members of the Greatest Generation 3 from my grandfathers side and 5 from my Grandmothers side. (1 earned the silver star posthumously never met him obviously) I can assure you the Gov. never built those men they and their brothers rose to arms in defense of liberty. To say they were “built” by the Government is to demean what they accomplished. Feel free to give credit to the gov. for building the weapons and equipment but not the men. They and those who have and are risking their lives to this day represent the best of the citizen not the state.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 30, 14 @ 8:24 am
I really don’t think most progressives are pro abortion. I, along with alot of people I know, are pro choice. It is a personal decision. The right wing is ruthless when it comes to social issues. They don’t get a lot of credibility by the majority of women because of their hypocrisy.
Comment by ethicslover Thursday, Jan 30, 14 @ 8:41 am
maybe schilling is trying to do whatever it takes to raise money. so far he isn’t raising much money compared to cheri bustos
Comment by Almighty Dollar Thursday, Jan 30, 14 @ 10:53 am