May I suggest sir that you read and educate yourself before you venture and opinion and for G-ds sake please don't vote while being this ignorant. A few weeks ago Scott Walker signed a repeal of a Wisconsin law that addressed equal pay for women. It wasn't a law that was passed it was a repeal of a law that had already existed.

Yes, it was actually a repeal of a state version of the Lily Ledbetter law. It has been illegal to pay women less for equivalent work for a long time. But these two laws gave a woman a better means of actually obtaining redress if she discovered that was happening to her.

As for 'killing babies', I have followed the link to understand what this is all about. I think the article needs to be edited for clarity. We are talking about 'medication-induced' abortions (RU-486) rather than 'medically-induced' abortions. Any termination of pregnancy other than a spontaneous miscarriage is a medically-induced abortion.

I agree with Planned Parenthood -- the law seems to be ambiguous and could leave the prescribing doctor open to prosecution if a woman does not return to that doctor for a follow-up appointment.

As are you Greg. Read ALL the laws Walker signed ona holiday weekend when noone was watching

You aren't even staying up w/ the F-A-C-T-S! And here YOU are (a male I presume by your name, yes/no?) criticizing Barrett. Are YOU a women, Greg? if not you are fundamentally ineligible for making any comments here. By the way, check out the law-bill Walker JUST S-I-G-N-E-D ( as in 'it HAS happened'.....Greg) that ELIMINATES the equal-pay-for equal work (IRRESPECTIVE of gender). He is anti-woman, on the very face of his multiple actions. issue. Ask YOUR mom/aunt/sister how THEY feel about this. And be sure to tell them YOUR position.

@KILAPH -

Every single argument the left has in its fabricated 'war on women' allegation can be effectively debunked by a brief examination of the actual legislation at issue. Have you even looked at any of the statutes? My guess is that you obtain all of your information from secondary liberal sources and believe them like it's the gospel. By doing so, this is what you've effectively reduced yourself to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWNfuXXIS4

Does that make you proud? What about your mom/aunt/sister - how do they feel about you being duped by political propaganda and rhetoric? And be sure to tell them how you voluntarily accepted all of the left's bs at face value!

Ignorance may be bliss but it's what a Teabagger like Walker counts on to get his agenda through. Please do some reading before making a comment. And for goodness sake do some homework before voting.

Well based on recent polls the majority of Wisconsin must be teabaggers.. No one is buying into the democrat manipulative pandering for votes.. Other women voters should actually be offended by the left for using them as political pawns in all this.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/apr/10/kathleen-falk/dem-wisconsin-governor-recall-says-gop-backed-bill/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/12/cory-mason/wisconsin-gop-bill-would-repeal-law-ensuring-pay-e/
http://gazettextra.com/news/2012/apr/17/democrats-are-waging-war-truth/
....should I post more sources??

I don't even live in your state but feel I am more informed than you.

really just a sock puppet

Greg is one of the little puppets Marshall. Mouth is always open and the brain is never engaged.

Amen, Greg. these knuckleheads get this repeal equal pay from leftist blogs.It would be against state and federal laws to do that. Liberals never cease to amaze me with their profound ignorance. They don't know the law, just pontificate on what like minded bloggers say.

Tony, the law doesn't repeal equal pay for women, it makes it more difficult to pursue redress in the case of discrimination. "Repealing equal pay" has become the shorthand catchphrase for this legislation, but I wouldn't call you a knucklehead or denigrate you for profound ignorance because you didn't understand that. ; )

Honestly, with so many more female heads of household now because of recession/layoffs, I would imagine those husbands would appreciate their wives receiving equal pay for equal work, and encouraging them to pursue redress if pay discrimination were discovered?

What purpose did it serve to make it more difficult to pursue redress in the case of pay discrimination? Who benefits from this? Working families? No. Children of single mothers? No. Who?

@Hoffa - that quote thing is something we're all capable of inserting into stories (a coding thing) but I just don't do it.

@Heather A -

With the given headline of the story, by running this as 'News' instead of 'Opinion' gives the impression that Patch is in fact validating that a 'War on Women' does in fact exist and that it is being waged by the Walker administration.

Do you honestly think this story, under such a classification, meets journalistic integrity standards?

Come on now - this is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. This should be done up as 'Opinion,' and deep down inside, you know it.

I agree with Hoffa and said the same above. The headline, the pull quote, and the insane statement about war on women is a very loud classic example of press bias those of us on the right see every day. This is a stump speach from a troubled campaign masquerading as news. We all know the collective bargaining issue is a loser for the democrats, and they have been desperately trying to change the subject. It is not Patches job to echo this nonsense. Frankly expected better from Patch.

Just by way of a comparison and contrast, the story written and published about Pasch's reaction to the same incident carries a completely different and much more neutral presentation -

http://shorewood.patch.com/articles/pasch-pro-choice-groups-cry-foul-on-planned-parenthood-clinics-ceasing-abortion-pill

Either the Barrett / Nusbaum article needs to be re-written or re-categorized if Patch is at all concerned about its journalistic integrity. And yes, I'd be saying the same thing if the entire issue was partisan reversed.

@Hoffa: Settle down, buddy...
This story would be a lot more balanced if Walker's folks would call us back and respond...That didn't happen today...despite numerous attempts.
As for the giant quote, that's just a design element to break up the text in stories...

In terms of Patch being "liberal," tell that to the people who dislike us for putting a Sensenbrenner and Walker column on the site every week, as well as a blog for GOP Senate Candidate Eric Hovde...

@Mark -

I think you realize that I'm a pretty fair guy - even having gone as far as defending Patch at the AFP Summit when attacked by some on-stage presenters. Denise Lockwood can attest to this fact.

But this story wreaks to high heaven - the headline alone perpetuates Patch's validation that a 'War on Women' does in fact exist and that the Walker administration is waging it.

Otherwise, the headline could read "Barrett, Nusbaum Oppose Latest Legislation Passed By Walker' - see the BIG difference?

There is also quite the contrast in tone between this article and the one Adam McCoy wrote about Pasch's reaction to the very same incident. I think that anyone reading both pieces would definitely attest to the fact that this story has some problems in overcoming an inferred bias, while McCoy's story is much more neutral in it's presentation, despite also not having reaction from the Walker camp.

I believe that Patch is very fair in most of its presentations and I've been an ardent supporter of the southeast Wisconsin Patches - you know this. In fact, this is the first time I've had a problem with the way in which something was reported on Patch, as my prior complaints focused more on preferential coverage decisions being made.

Ultimately, it's your call, but I think even you realize that this one could have been done better.

James - Unfortunately I've exposed this again and again - there is an active agenda behind the scenes at Patch - they are simply obeying marching orders from Arianna Huffington.

That is also why there are so many Huff-Po Pro posters around here - you cannot reason with them, and they make outrageous claims!

What does Arianna think?

"WASHINGTON -- Aside from Gov. Scott Walker, no one personifies the "war on women" in Wisconsin for progressives more than state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend).

Grothman recently sponsored the legislation that repealed the state's 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court. In an interview with the Daily Beast, he dismissed the notion that the wage gap between men and women is due to workplace discrimination, instead stating, "You could argue that money is more important for men." Women, he said, were often more focused on raising children than earning money."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/glenn-grothman-wisconsin-equal-pay-repeal-debate_n_1440602.html

The WAR on WOMEN is the meme of Arianna - and is being enforced here. Don't look to the Patch for fair and balanced coverage - it is agenda driven and truth is it's victim

"Scott Walker Recall: 'War On Women' Fight Becomes Big Issue In Election

WASHINGTON -- Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), who is running in his party's primary to face off against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) in the June recall election, is out with a new ad blasting the governor for his "war on women."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/scott-walker-recall-war-women_n_1431143.html

Straight from the Huffington Post - get used to it. Expect opinion to be touted as fact and every vile accusation to come out. They aren't going to fight fair - so be prepared and act accordingly.

Instead of claiming ad hominem fouls, why don't you simply deal with the substance of the issue here...the anti-women, prejudicial-basis in the very-nature of Walker's actions. THAT is what is at issue here. Nice try on your diversionary tactic.....

@enicar333 -- HuffPo actually linked to the Patch article, so this didn't come straight from the Huffington Post.

Wrong again Hoffa ... nice try.

So let's see -- three visits on three different days, with three separate charges for office visits. That couldn't possibly be a financial burden on anyone, pardon my sarcasm.

And of course women are silly, emotional creatures who can't possibly know what they want to do with their own bodies.

I've had far more extensive and life-altering surgery with fewer doctor consultations.

@Randy1949 -

Did any of those surgery's effectively end the life of another?

I wonder if the MEN making comments here would consider an imposition if they passed a law requiring jumping through hoops and paying out hundreds of extra dollars to have a vasectomy.

@Marshall Stern -

You're not comparing apples to apples here, are you? Where's the law that Walker passed making it harder for a woman to have her tubes tied if she so desires to undergo such a procedure? Oh, that's right - it doesn't exist because there really isn't a 'war on women' being perpetrated by Walker, as you'd like gullible people to believe.

Try spreading your propaganda and rhetoric elsewhere - we're too smart to fall for your crap here!

@JRH -- There's no equivalent male 'apple' for comparison, because men can't bear children, with all the inherent health, economic, and social ramifications.

Is your concern for the embryo here -- because RU-486 terminates the pregnancy at the embryonic stage -- or is it for the woman involved? I suppose a woman can be coerced into a lot of things, including remaining pregnant when she doesn't want to be.

@Marshall Stern

<<<I wonder if the MEN making comments here would consider an imposition if they passed a law requiring jumping through hoops and paying out hundreds of extra dollars to have a vasectomy.>>>

That is already the case. Planned Parenthood already does not provide vasectomies at almost all their locations. Men have to go to doctors that perform them. There are pleanty of doctors that perform abortions that don't work at Planned Parenthood.

@Randy1949 -

My concern is that while it takes two to create a life, under current law in most jurisdictions, it only takes one to terminate a life. Both contributors to the creation of a life should be in agreement in choosing to terminate that life - after all, fair is fair and everyone knows the potential results of sexual activity before engaging is such. A woman should at least have to demonstrate that she made every available effort in trying to locate the father before she is allowed to unilaterally terminate the life unless the unborn life poses a critical risk to the woman's health or was resultant of forced and non-consensual sexual contact (incest/rape). I've already made this position clear here on Patch time and again.

@JRH -- Well, those are the breaks. Men don't carry the baby for nine months and suffer all the health risks.

I tell you, I feel for a man with a potential offspring who has no control over the outcome, but life is just unfair that way. He can't force a woman to terminate, nor can he insist she carry a pregnancy against her will. I've just had to come to terms with the fact that the best way for a man to have any influence in these matters is to be on really good terms with the woman he sleeps with. She won't have to come looking for him if there's a little one on the way, for starters. It also helps to be ready to get up at night and change diapers too.

@Randy1949 -

If only everyone realized this before engaging in sexual activity, there probably wouldn't be much of a need for such abortion services except in limited circumstances. Unfortunately, the readily available nature of an abortion have given many a free license to engage in hedonistic sexual activity without having to worry about the natural consequences of such. It's being used as a contraceptive in place of other far more effective and less controversial alternatives that are readily available and far more cost effective.

In fact, I equate the use of abortions in such a manner to slavery, as it's just as reprehensible.

Ah, Hoffa, you're still young. I remember the few years between the Summer of Love and Roe v. Wade, and there was still plenty of hedonism going on. I really doubt that abortion is widely used as birth control. It's expensive and painful.

And frankly, the sort of women who would use it for birth control don't make such great mothers anyway. I have more censure for the women who get pregnant, bathe their infants' developing brains in drugs, and then neglect them after birth until they're dumped on the foster system.

Hoffa thinks a 2 cell zygote is life... yeah, this guy is well beyond all hope...

@Randy1949 -

The whole equal pay thing is nothing but a giant red-herring. Walker's repeal just prevented a double recovery scenario under both federal and state law that previously existed. It doesn't make it harder to bring an action under the Equal Pay Act, nor does it prevent the recovery of punitive damages under the Equal Pay Act. It merely prevents a double recovery scenario.

Please get your facts straight before asking others to.

@JRH -- It means the plaintiff will have to bring the case into the federal courts rather than the state courts. At extra delay and extra expense. Which tends to discourage lawsuits.

@Randy1949 -

Really? In my professional experience, the filing fees are more often than naught much lower in federal court and they tend to be much more efficient in expediting a case over state courts.

Had a lot of experience with filing and defending lawsuits, JRH? I must confess, I have have done either.

@Randy1949 -

Come on, you know that I'm an attorney by trade, just as do most of the regulars around here.

@JRH -- No, that is honestly news to me. I'd been under the impression that you owned a family business.

@Randy1949 -

I do the family restaurant as well my friend. Hoffa is a man of many hats!

Jimmmy,as usual, you are WRONG: Federal filing fees are ALWAYS higher!

Additionally, there is ALWAYS a longer waiting time to have your case heard... don't let the facts get in your way though, you never do...

There is a war on women -- concerted effort on the part of several Republican governors to roll the clock back on women's reproductive rights and now on equal pay. Who are politicians to interfere in the privacy of a woman's doctor's visit and consultation about her body? Republicans need to keep out of women's "internal" and external affairs. It is not propaganda -- there is a real impact here on women and their bodies: your probing of women's response to this war on women may be merely rhetorical but a probe of their bodies is certainly not

@Laura -

I believe that this video best responds to your fabricated 'war on women' argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWNfuXXIS4

Jimmy, the only thing that the women I know and talk with, that disgusts them more than the Walker/Retug War on Women is you attempting to portray a lawyer... NOTHING, not even Senselessbrenner is lower than that!

I'm not sure why you would find it disturbing as Barrett is speaking of women of that mindset. And the term "War" has been used frequently on "conservative" tv and radio to denigrate President Obama's polices. This is a "take" on the misuse of the term.

Unless you find it disturbing when people don't agree with you. No one likes that.

@Bren -

Except that the legislation at issue has absolutely nothing to do with any of that and you know it! The only reason it's an issue is because there's another life at stake that is incapable of advocating for itself.

But yes, deflect and attempt to shift the subject, just as any good liberal perpetuator of the fabricated 'war on women' would do.

Bren - As a mother of two teenagers I actually didn't and don't need the school district or any other liberal rag telling me how to teach my children about sex education. I've actually covered it pretty well with my kids. I am very open with them and both are comfortable talking with me. But then... I have always been an involved parent to my children and they know that they can come to me with any problem. That must really shock you, since I'm a Conservative woman.

Predictably, we get a spate of conservative women proclaiming how the aspirin method was good enough for them, so it should be good enough for everyone else. Some of us like to live in the Twenty-first Century, thank you.

@JRH -- So you think that making women jump through many more hoops it will be enough to discourage those early abortions and save 'lives'? Again, are you willing to make society a more welcoming place for those women and children? Help with medical care during pregnancy and afterward? Help with housing and daycare? Support for decent pay for working mothers? That all costs money.

Mr. Hoffa, until a method is found to detect and measure fetal cognition the time at which sentient life begins is conjecture. Individuals described as "vegetables" or "brain dead" are considered alive based on prior, not current evidence of cognitive function. However, all three examples may show some type of physical reaction to stimuli. This does not signify life, would you agree?

Therefore, it is a groundless claim that there is a life at stake and this legislation is based on surmise. Mysticism and fantastical belief belong to the immature age before reason.

As I have written before, abortion is a symptom of larger social problems. Until those are addressed we cannot advance as a society.
Why does a woman get an abortion (truly, not what the WRTL claims)? (In no particular order)
-Fear/lack of moral and/or financial support from partner
-Underage
-Social stigma
-Rape/Incest

How does this legislation assuage these issues? It does not. It exacerbates them.

I will happily share why I had two abortions. I came from an alcoholic dysfunctional family. Lots of disconnect, shouting, drama. I left home as soon as I could, 16 and lived on the street. Sex wasn't a source of satisfying unbridled lust but a source of what felt like love and affection. I first became pregnant at 19. No husband, no job, no family support, I would have had to live on welfare and scraped to get by. I somehow knew that my life held out much more promise and that I was in no position to raise a child. I do not perceive a fetus as a child or an abortion as "killing a baby". Fortunately I lived in a country that supported my perception and I easily had an abortion. It took a long time to get my life on track but I worked hard to change my psychology and circumstance and began to make headway. Just as I was gaining a foothold I became pregnant again. I was in a position to start building my life but with a paltry income and once again no husband or family support I chose abortion. There are only two arguments here. At what point is a fetus a viable "person"? If you have to choose between the life of the mother or the child...which do you choose? The first question is a matter of OPINION and asserting your opinion over and over or forcing it on others through questionable laws, does not make it a fact. For those of you who would choose the life of the child over the life of the mother...do not wonder why we would say you are engaging in a war with women.

@DivineLight -- It strikes me that the Conservative women who take the hardest line on this are the sort who, if they found themselves unexpectedly pregnant, are in a financial position to say, "Oh, darn, let's get the crib down from the attic and the two youngest will have to share a room for a while." Not really too understanding about the hard choices some women have to make for health and economic reasons.

@DivineLight -

So, just because you were emotionally unstable and made some bad choices, I'm supposed to pay for your bad choices by providing you with a government subsidized abortion. And not just one, but two! You apparently didn't learn a damn thing after the first time! So once again, I'm supposed to step in and help bail you out because you didn't learn from your first experience?

Listen, if you want to have an abortion and the father(s) are on board with that decision, fine, I have no problem with that - BUT PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!!!

You made the bad choices, you should be stuck with paying the consequences. Why should everyone else be made to suffer and do without because you made some bad mistakes? After all, you were fully aware that engaging in sexual activity could result in a pregnancy before you decided to engage in such activity. Therefore you assumed the risk. I never signed on as supporting those decisions, did I? And yet, you had no problems in taking my tax dollars to pay for your abortions, did you?

If the taxpayer is expected to pay for your mistakes, then shouldn't the taxpayers have a say over whether or not you're allowed to engage in sexual activity in the first place?

Instead of Orwellian controls on sexual activity, wouldn't a better solution be that everyone is personally and individually responsible for their own choices about sex? It's logical, rational, moral, ethical, and compassionate.

If you want to play, be prepared to PAY!

Nothing but poor me stories to justify a government handout! I'm getting sick of that crap!

Bren, you are RIGHT!

Jimmy, notwithstanding, only the Rethugs and ALL religions treat women as being less worthy of respect and dignity than slaves...

Why do you think the Catlick Church came out with the "Immaculate Conception?"

IF you really want to know: It was/is their fear of the sexuality of women… and that is true to this day…

Jimmy, IF it's ALIVE it can "advocating for itself", walk, talk, work and even, perhaps VOTE!

@AG -- How does this new law help the economy grow? I care plenty about all the economic issues you mentioned. And here our state legislature is busy limiting women's options. How does that help anyone?

I see they let more [AG/Jimmy Hoffa] mindless, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal, Republican’t out of their fece-filled cave…

@John Wilson...C'mon John, lighten up. It doesn't help with the name calling. No one is probably more liberal than I, but you don't help our position with your sinking to the gutter. I don't know about AG but JRH is a lot of things but he doesn't fit your vile description.

Sorry, Lyle Ruble, but please don't lump me in with the Liberals/Progressives or Moderate Conservatives/Right-Wing Conservatives; I have no party affiliation and I am an atheist, secular humanist.

If you think I am pandering to a party, you are wrong; if you are offended by my comments, then please do not read them: my comments are, as I see them and both of the folks I mentioned are just about as devoid of humanity as you can get without actually being totally dead...

Wow Tom....once again your side calls names and makes crazy accusations but never...actually.....address the point. Epic failed response.

@Justme -- RU-486 doesn't torture and kill babies. As a progesterone blocker, it merely prevents the continuation of a pregnancy in the earliest weeks. Doing away with that option leaves only surgical abortions at a later date.

I can see you've never dealt with gestational diabetes, ecclampsia, or any of the other dire complications if you consider pregnancy a short nine month walk in the park. As for unprotected sex, a condom should never break or any barrier method fail, but in the real world, it happens.

Expensive lawyers making adoption too costly? Expensive lawyers protect the adoptive parents against a change of mind after two or three years of raising a child. They also protect innocent children from being sold to exploitative parents.

If you consider comprehensive sex programs to be too liberal, I suggest we save the money and do away with sex-ed altogether. Why waste money on 'just don't do it'?

"Torture and kill babies"??!!! Wow. Ridiculous rhetoric. Try this one on for size....The Anti-choice movement Tortures and Kills Women.

"shouldn't engage in sex" if they don't want to carry a baby to term"?? So let me follow your point...getting pregnant is just punishment for engaging in sex? "Hey little lady...you want to have sex then you are just going to have to raise that lil baby and I won't hear any back talk!"

And as for adoption.....great idea...women can become baby production machines and every one of those little babies will find happy loving homes if we could only make it easy for adoption. The only reason they don't have them now is because of the big bad Bureaucracy . Why don't you spend your time and indignity helping the children who are victims of abuse and neglect at the hands of their biological parents?? Actually do something useful for children instead of trying to find ways to punish women?

Yeah, talk to palin about her sex-crazed daughter... surely she was raised RIGHT, given her mother is well beyond any religious fanatic, out side a padded room that I have ever seen; she should be in a cell with Charlie Manson... they deserve each other.

So much for good religious teachin'...

@Stormy Weather -- Too late. I'm already a grandparent, and I've raised one son who is so liberal he makes me look stodgy. I'm very proud of him. We think for ourselves, and we understand that for people to take responsibility for their 'choices' they have to have an actual 'choice'.

I would ask Conservatives to take a long hard thought about the practical results of their policies. You want more unintended pregnancies? Fine, be prepared to adopt a bunch of crack babies and to pay your taxes for Medicaid and public schooling with a smile.

Aw yes the fundamentalist conservative standard insult, divert the topic anything but address the points made favorite debate tactic. epic failed response. yawn.
Having an abortion IS a responsible action. Now go out and adopt a crack baby and quit your bellyaching.

Stormy, this is an obnoxious post.

It is a choice to be civil. I was taught as a child that one loses the debate the moment one becomes uncivil because emotionalism comes into play when the intellectual battle has been lost.

@Stormy Weather -- Nonsense. People go to foreign adoption because they want infants of the correct color, or just plain infants who haven't been exposed to all kinds of pre and post-natal trauma from drugs or emotional neglect.

Most often, the nice white pregnant women decide to keep their babies after the potential adoptive family has paid for their pre-natal medical care, so that tactic is very risky.

And I happen to know four children who were adopted out of the foster system. Not as infants, and they had issues, but they were adopted nonetheless. It takes a very special person to do that.

Sorry but it is not easy to adopt in other countries. Expect to complete at least a year of paperwork, pass stringent requirements, and pay $20,000-$60,000+ regardless of the country you choose not to mention the trips back and forth. I'll tell you who would agree with your desire to have adoptions made easier...the huge underground pedophile movement who would like nothing better than to invite a few needy kids in to their homes. There are 1.2 million children who need adoption in this country. Now if every anti-choice advocate adopted one......

Stormy, thank you for your civil post. I am acquainted with a couple who adopted two children from China because they were deemed too old to be adoptive parents in the U.S. They will be in their late 60s/early 70s when the children reach adulthood.

It's an issue with no easy answers. Foreign adoption in this case was used to sidestep American adoption policies. That is inappropriate, but at the same time imagine the life those children would have had as female orphans in China.

It is equally disturbing to consider the life of an unwanted child in this country. A society is judged by how it treats its vulnerable populations. Right now, the extreme right wing of this country appears to be targeting vulnerable populations across the spectrum: women (particularly those of low income who rely on Planned Parenthood for affordable medical and family planning care, and professional women who compete with professional men for jobs); low income children (who become less important after they are born, apparently); and the elderly.

DivineLight, Stormy's insulting language in that comment was obnoxious.She is clearly capable of writing lucid civil comments but chooses at times not to do so, which severely impacts her credibility.

As I have written elsewhere, abortion is the symptom of serious social issues, drug addiction being one of them. Public schools face the challenge of serving children who have physical and/or cognitive deficits due to transmitted drug addiction.

People who have not had to confront these issues personally, who have only seen them on tv or heard about them from "conservative" pundits, may have no idea of the seriousness of these circumstances.

So, you changed your mind when you had a much wanted pregnancy and a child that you love. So now you think every woman must be a hostage to a stranger for nine months, with all the health and economic complications, and then turn that stranger over to someone else. And that would be whether or not that baby has a good chance at adoption.

Randy - I was young and naive before. As I became older and saw my friends with their babies and young children, I learned that it is not just the woman who pays the price of an unwanted pregnancy. Getting pregnant just help solidify my opinion on abortion.

It's actually quite sad that you would equate a baby, as holding a woman hostage for 9 months. The baby had no choice - The woman did...

Stormy you get sad alot. So do I. I have become friends with three young kids over my life. All around 6. Great kids. All from difficult circumstance. One grew up and became a drug addict. Died at 23. The other got pregnant at 15 because she was "in love", had to quit school, boyfriend bailed and she struggles at a minimum wage job that pays for someone else to care for her child. The other is still young. His mom abandoned him, his father can't hold a job so the boy is pulled from school after school while his dad drags him around the country. They were living out of a van for awhile. I put them up for a few weeks. His dad has had two heart attacks and won't quit smoking, is diabetic and won't stop consuming sugar. He drinks coffee all day long and is in a constant state of low anger that erupts at his son without warning. The boy can't form attachments because his father tears them away. I tried and luckily was able to spend time with the boy for over a year during which I tried to give him the love and connection he needed before his dad dragged him off again. Which is what has happened. Nobody knows where they are today.
So not every birth is guaranteed a loving home and loving caring parents. Abortion is a responsible choice in many circumstance. And please spare me the "you would not have known this lovely child if he had been aborted" I will only counter with "and he would not have known the pain and anguish and despair life is dumping on his sweet little soul"

Stormy, your comment that liberals would rather abort a baby than give it up for adoption is ludicrous. Ignorant comments like this underscore the serious need for education about social issues that lead to outcomes like abortion.

It's always easy to point fingers/legislate/bully against people who can't fight back. Not so easy or fun to think about the souls who have lost direction and hope or born into an environment that provides no definition of the concepts. Believing, with every fibre of one's being that there is no hope. Without even having an idea that questions could be asked that could lead to positive outcomes. That is part of the mindset that leads to self-abuse, the pursuit of self-loss.

I read an interesting book written in the 1930s several years back, "Social Disorganization." It examined juvenile delinquency (in part). In that era it was found that juvenile delinquency in girls often manifested itself in sexual promiscuity. Many of these girls (not only the low income ones) came from backgrounds of parental alcohol abuse, etc.; they sought affection outside of the home and fell victim to sexual predation. This may also be said today--teen pregnancies are often the result of relations with men age 18 and above.

Have fun, Stormy. I guess DivineLight and I need to go find a room or something.

" You probably didn't know this, but us Conservatives enjoy volunteering and donating money to help the poor, the sick, the elderly, and our schools, etc."

And they even more like telling people about it for the ego boost, all the time implying that people on the other side of the spectrum don't do the same thing.

@Stormy Weather-
"I have some volunteering that I need to do..."

Hopefully, that will involve getting a brain transplant...

The great thing about pregnancies is that they're only resultant of a voluntary activity - sex. If you don't want to risk the chance of having a baby, then don't engage in sexual activity. This is such a no-brainer and something that everyone is aware of UPFRONT before engaging in sexual activity, that anyone who takes that risk should have to pay for whatever the resultant situation happens to be. There is no room for an 'oops' here! Sex is a CHOICE. Making choices results in an outcome. Be responsible for the outcome of your own choices and quit trying to burden the rest of us with paying for your bad choices, period!

If you want to play, YOU have to PAY. That's life - suck it up and deal with it!

Have a nice day!

You make statements without justifying them. Maybe you're one of those "Just because I say so. I don't have to justify it." Very patriarchal. Why leave the government (schools) out of sex education? For the parents who are teaching their children at home, they won't hear anything new and the kids who's parents aren't teaching them will get the info they need. Why shouldn't health insurance cover contraception? People eat and drink themselves almost to the point of death and their expenses are covered. If they don't want lung disease, liver disease, etc then they shouldn't overindulge. Why should they be covered? Why shouldn't STD's be covered? If someone can't afford to get treatement they are going to either die or continue to spread the STD. Oh, right... that is their punishment and their partners for having sex. Re: government funded abortions...why not? Governments fund abortions all over the world. Why not us? So you want to force women into having children by taking away abortion options but you don't want to provide help for women who have no resources to raise the child!? What is wrong with you? Seriously. Abortion is wrong??? I respect your opinion. OPINION. If you "think" it is wrong...don't have one. Problem solved.

@DivineLight -

Instead of asking "Why leave the government (schools) out," you should be asking why allow the government in! Should public schools also start mandating that potty training be taught? Where does abdicating parental responsibility to the shoulders of the government stop exactly?

"Why shouldn't health insurance cover contraception?"
"Why shouldn't STD's be covered?"

Who said it shouldn't? If you want to pay the extra premium for such a plan, it's a free country and no one is stopping you from doing so, are they? The government shouldn't mandate that insurance companies MUST provide such coverage though - it should be left the individual insurance provider to decide.

"Re: government funded abortions...why not?"

I already explained that to you above. Because it's the individual that's assuming the risk when making such a choice. I, as a taxpayer, never signed off on your poor decision. If you want government funded abortions, then the government should be able to control whether or not you are allowed to engage in sexual activity. But I don't advocate for an Orwellian society as you apparently do.

"What is wrong with you?"

I don't find anything to be wrong with Hoffa. But obviously, you have some issues, don't you?

"If you "think" it is wrong...don't have one. Problem solved."

If you didn't expect me as a taxpayer to pay for your poor choices in life, a problem wouldn't exist in the first place, would it?

Grow up!

Um, Hoffa, this has nothing to do with government funding of abortion. As I'm sure you know taxpayer funds can't pay for abortions. However, this is about a law that makes it much more expensive for private providers to treat their clients. It isn't medicine -- it's the government meddling into the doctor-patient relationship to legislate morality.

At first you talk about a 'life' potentially being saved, and then you say abortion is okay if the pregnancy was the result of non-consensual sex. Isn't it a life just as much under those circumstances?

And you know perfectly well that if a poor woman has a baby, the tax payers will end up supporting that baby one way or the other.

Mr. Hoffa, if only life were so conveniently and nicely packaged in black and white. Experiences teaches us that there are many many shades of grey.

Government/schools serve as en loco parentis during school hours; it is entirely appropriate for schools to reinforce social instruction learned at home.

@Bren -

You're more than welcome to your shades of gray - just keep government, and the taxpayers, out of it.

These are voluntary acts of luxury that we're talking about after all, and not a necessary act. Freedom comes with costs - and that's something you can take to the bank! If you choose to foolishly exercise that freedom, be prepared to pay but don't burden others with your wholly selfish and self-centered acts. There's too much of that crap going on today already!

@JRH -- " If you choose to foolishly exercise that freedom, be prepared to pay but don't burden others with your wholly selfish and self-centered acts."

Does that charge of selfishness extend to married people? I could point out that some people choose to have that third, fourth, and fifth child and charge me for their public education, even if they're feeding and clothing them on their own. There's also talk about school districts including 4K, which has some educational benefits but has obvious economic benefits to parents who otherwise have to pay for pre-school and daycare.

There are all kinds of voluntary acts of luxury. And that might include the Walton family paying their sales associates so little that they require food stamps and BadgerCare, in order to keep the extra profits for themselves. That leaves the taxpayers on the hook too.

Right now ABORTION is very, very, LEGAL and so is CONTRACEPTION, which, ironically, would dramatically reduce the NEED for an ABORTION!

And, they are destined to stay that way.

Would you rather pay $50.00/$100.00 a month for a woman's contraception or $15,000/$20,000 per year for a child that is unwanted, unloved and will probably grow up to be as dysfunctional as you and commit crimes...

This isn’t a question in regard to morality or ethics, and you KNOW IT!

You continually come back to the same issue driving your conservative, insanity: YOU have to PAY some MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET!

That’s ALL this is about: YOUR $$$, no matter how you dress it up in MORALLY WRONG!

YOUR POOR LITTLE POCKETBOOK, YOU POOR LITTLE BABY!

I would also point out that the government would not pay for contraceptives under the ACA. It would be covered under the insured's policy. And I've never witnessed a health insurer shy about raising rates if they found they weren't making quite enough profit off of their insureds' health needs.

@DivineLight -

1) Either you didn't fully read my bottom line, or you obviously have a reading comprehension problem, as you'll see that I covered "forced and non-consensual sexual activity (incest/rape)."

2) Again, I'm guessing a reading comprehension problem, as there is no such thing as an "accidental pregnancy," as if you engage is sexual activity, you're assuming the risk that pregnancy could result as everyone knows that contraceptives are not 100% guaranteed to prevent a pregnancy.

3) When did I ever claim that men should be able to walk away? I didn't! In fact, they bear just as much responsibility and the women should pursue the men that walk away to the full extent of their legal rights - just don't make the government pay for it!

4) I don't engage in sexual activity unless I'm prepared to assume the risks and stand by my female partner and potential resultant child for life, as that's a logical and responsible position to take. We've already heard your emotionally unstable sob story, so please spare us from hearing it again.

Try again!

Mr. Hoffa, DivineLight is correct as I mentioned above. It's easy to be smug and believe oneself above human error, and then reality hits.

As I've written before and as you point out (#3), men should be responsible for their children as they are of course 50% of the equation. The government is involved through the court system, through the procedures of determining paternity, child support, etc., and through law enforcement (police, sheriff department). Law enforcement does a good job of protecting women and children from enraged ex-boyfriends and husbands (and sometimes birth mothers) but tragedies do occur.

There are men (and some women) who realize that they don't want the responsibility of a family (even some married people). Even with court orders and garnishment orders it is very difficult to get child support out of someone who doesn't want to pay and it happens a lot.

You shouldn't insult DivineLight or others because it is quite clear they are speaking from experiences you have not shared. We as society should be attacking social problems, not women and children who are suffering because of the social problems. We should be building women up and giving them the tools to make good decisions and take good care of their children. That would include a comprehensive sex ed curriculum and equal pay (and support in seeking redress for discrimination).

Unfortunately Scott Walker (R-ALEC) chooses to increase the social problems.

@Bren -

So, taxpayers should suffer the burden of making up for dead-beats?

So, because a woman makes the poor mistake of having a child with a dead-beat, my taxes should go up, whereby I'm providing less for my own children and family, just so that I can help to support the child of the dead-beat couple. And how is that not a redistribution of the fruits of my labor?

As the government increases its financial support of such situations, it would appear that the problem is actually getting worse instead of better. What's the definition of 'insanity' again?

My America, as we learned in school, was the helping hand to the world. Shouldn't that include our own citizens? Will deadbeats learn a lesson seeing the families they abandoned begging in the streets or standing in line at a church pantry or homeless shelter? I'm conjecturing here, but believe that an individual who walks away from responsibility has no concern for the impact on others.

I wouldn't call you "insane" because you keep making the same unrealistic points; I suggest, once again, that life simply isn't so cut and dried as you make it out to be.

I tend to believe that care for each other separates us from the animal kingdom. There it's survival of the fittest. The small, the weak, the sick, the lame, the blind, the old, are carried off by predators or die of hunger under a bush. Is that what should happen in American society?

Gee Stormy. You are a paragon of virtue and come from a long line of virtuous "Leave it To Beaver" perfection. If only the whole world and everyone in it acted just like you, what a wonderful perfect world it would be. Really.
Unfortunately.....not everyone is like you, has your experience and you and Hoffa seem to be confused that everyone doesn't behave like you. It's astonishing how incapable or unwilling, I can't decide which, you are about seeing the reality of other peoples lives or having compassion for them. If they can't act like you, if they don't have the same advantages you had, if they don't share your experience or point of view then let them suffer the damnation they deserve. PS Notice I don't dismiss you as another one of those "right wing conservatives". I know that labeling me as a "liberal" gives you leave to revert to cliches instead of really addressing the points I make.

@Stormy -

Hoffa loves you!

DivineLight's rants are actually starting to convince Hoffa that liberalism may just in fact be a disease instead of just an adopted mindset - WOW ;-)

@Stormy Weather -- Bully for you. We were married and working before we had our single child. But it's no guarantee against unemployment and hard times, even for college educated professionals.

Please tell me what I can't figure out? How well is it going to work if we refuse to help single mothers with young children? That'll teach them a lesson all right.

@DivineLight -

Stormy isn't saying that everyone should be just like her and her family. All she's saying is that if you want to choose to live irresponsibly, fine - just pay for it your damn self instead of expecting government (taxpayers) to pay for your poor choices. It's a relatively simple concept and I don't understand why you're having such a problem comprehending it. Yep, there's that word again, comprehension.

DivineLight definitely has a comprehension problem, probably from too much time spent over on the Daily Kos!

Somewhere along the road of life you (2) Jimmy & Stormy never learned what it is to be a part of humanity: You did, however, learn how to be $$$ grabbing, hoarding, greedy harlots...

@John Wilson -- I realize this is a contentious issue, but there's little to be gained by taking the discussion from respectfully cordial to personal. Can't we all behave like adults?

@Randy 1949

The issue is somewhat contentious... The WAR ON WOMEN has really been going on since the beginning of time, by MEN, by GOVERNMENT and by RELIGION. In addition, now, we have a significant number of posters, attempting to justify this WAR ON WOMEN, simply because, ROOT CAUSE: they do not want to spend a dime of their own $$$ helping anyone other than himself or herself.

When you get behind all the pious morality, outrage, poor choices, responsibility, we actually get to the very rational of their position: they are selfish, greedy, socially irresponsible and immature people, who only want to help themselves...

That is the TRUTH HERE!

The TRUTH is PERSONAL; it is the personal position of these people posting here!
That is exactly what they are ultimately saying here: I do not want to spend MY $$$ on anyone but ME, everything else is just a facade!

Apparently, you're not.

1) There was an exception for rape/incest contained within my bottom line, as quoted below, but apparently, you chose not to read and comprehend my bottom line as a whole and in its entirety, as was intended.

"You want to have an abortion, fine - but government shouldn't have to pay for it and there should be a consensus with the father unless 1) the father can't be reasonably located, 2) it's a critical issue concerning the mother's health, and/or 3) the pregnancy was resultant of a forced and non-consensual sexual activity (incest/rape)."

2) When you engage in sexual activity, you assume the risk. Because you are aware of the potential consequences upfront and that contraceptives aren't 100% guaranteed to work, such is part of the assumption of that risk, ergo - no accidents! If you don't want to accept the possibility and risk of a pregnancy, the solution is simple - don't engage in sex!

3) Women have legal rights that they can pursue and enforce against men that walk away and no one is stopping them from exercising those rights - just make sure that government isn't paying for it!

4) If you view an unintended pregnancy as a "punishment," then the solution, once again, is simple - DON’T ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY! Is sex a need? No, it's a choice. If you want to play - be prepared to pay. It's simple, it doesn't burden others, it's logical, it's rational, it's moral, it's ethical, it's compassionate!

I think that my point of view is far more logical and unselfish than your point of view, which is "I expect everyone else to pay for my poor choices in life."

How selfish can you get exactly?

If the taxpayer is expected to pay for your mistakes, then shouldn't the taxpayers have a say over whether or not you're allowed to engage in sexual activity in the first place?

If you're really advocating for an Orwellian society, that's your right. But most of us would prefer to stay away from dystopia!

Hoffa, this isn't about taxpayers funding abortions. This is about a law that affects Planned Parenthood and other providers who fund abortions through donations and a sliding scale of user fees.

@Randy1949 -

DivineLight took us off the subject of the article and expanded the scope into other aspects of the abortion issue.

I'm well aware of what the article addresses, as you well know.

Sorry for indulging in off-topic discussion, but it seemed appropriate to counter and follow up as Hoffa deemed it pertinent to the subject matter as a whole.

@Hoffa, the subject of the article was the GOP 'war' on women and Tom Barrett's reaction to it. In this case the law attempts to curtail private decisions between a woman and her health provider, paid for with her own money and charitable donations to Planned Parenthood. Isn't that how you want a private charity to work?

I could just easily say that I can't understand why women would want to have potentially dangerous bags of saline solution inserted into their chests. And I could insist on a law that requires multiple visits to make sure the silly girl knows exactly what she's doing to herself and isn't being coerced by a male in her life who wants her to have a huge chest. All in the hopes that a certain number of them will decide it's not worth the trouble. But it's not my call.

@Randy1949 -

I ditto your sentiments on breast augmentation.

Bottom line - I don't care what you do, just don't expect the taxpayer's to pay for it.

PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!!!

Yes, but when a woman is paying for it herself, why should the government step in to make it more expensive than necessary?

@Randy1949 -

Agreed that government shouldn't step in just to make it more expensive by putting up bureaucratic road blocks. However, there is also the life of the unborn child to consider. While Hoffa doesn't personally advocate creating laws in such regard, it's the right of majority to do so. Whether or not the at-issue legislation accomplishes such an intent has been discussed in other comments on this board.

One thing that has yet to be enacted by the legislature is protecting the rights of the father in the abortion decision. Hoffa does advocate for a law protecting such rights, as has also been previously discussed in more detail in other comments on this board.

I guess you didn't pick up on the presence of the smiley face to denote the emphatic nature of my comment.

Once again - comprehension problem!

"Why not abortions?"

Because of freedom of choice and action - it's kinda one of the founding concepts of our democratic republic. And I'm the one that needs to brush up on history?

Not to mention that people pay extra premiums for engaging in poor voluntary decisions - smoking, drinking, getting fat, etc. The point is if you want to engage in poor decisions, more power to you, exercise that freedom, but don't be selfish and expect everyone else to pay for it - pay for it your own damn self!

"And I as a taxpayer must pay for all kinds of things I disagree with."

Well, that's the entire point of this discussion, isn't it? The government shouldn't be paying for corporate bailouts either. Nor should the government be paying to raise a child.

Funny, before the government began paying to raise children, there weren't over-populations of homeless children living on the streets of our cities, were there?

Try again!

Hoffa, the individual isn't the only one who pays for the poor lifestyle decisions. The ubiquity of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and diets of twinkies and Mountain Dew lead to some very poor health statistics for middle-aged and elderly people in general, and puts health insurance out of the reach of even a health conscious individual such as myself. I'd love to be able to tell you not to eat those pork rinds, but it's not my call.

Before the War on Poverty and AFDC, there were orphanages, secret adoptions, passing off of woods-colts as younger siblings after a *wink-wink nudge-nudge* months long visit to out of town relatives, and a whole lot of back alley abortions. It wasn't the good old days by any means.

@Randy1949 -

But back in the 'good 'ole days,' it was the exception, not an accepted norm. Today, divorce, single parenthood, and using abortions as birth control appears to be the norm as opposed to the exception.

My stance against using abortion as a birth control method is a personal morality judgment - just because I talk about it doesn't mean that I want to see a law against it.

But if you do want to have an abortion, fine - just pay for it yourself instead of expecting government to!

Don't you think if more people had a personal financial incentive to live responsible lives that they just might, and wouldn't that better the collective whole? I thought that liberal ideology was all about doing what's best the collective whole, no?

Hoffa, you're changing the subject and slip-sliding away. You implied that there weren't herds of feral children in the streets before AFDC. I'm saying that there was still a lot of hardship and poverty.

Actually, birth control should be used as birth control. Abortion should be for when birth control fails, which it does, sometimes.

Hoffa says "Funny, before the government began paying to raise children, there weren't over-populations of homeless children living on the streets of our cities, were there?"
I say....read Dickens. Look at what is currently going on in third world countries around the world where there are no social services. Hordes of neglected feral children living on the streets. Once again Hoffa....get real.

So, what you're saying is that you want taxpayer's dollars without any congruent responsibility - and how exactly is expecting free money from others to pay for your own poor choices not selfish?

The poor, suffering, and downtrodden shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity and wouldn't be if they were exercising logical thought and responsible behavior. Seeing as how we're all aware of the potential consequences up-front, for such a person to engage in such activity is wholly selfish and self-centered, and taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidize such poor choices! If you can't afford to pay for an abortion, you shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity - it's that simple! Again, it's a voluntary luxury, not a necessity!

Grow up, exercise some self-restraint, and be responsible for your own actions for a change! It's called being an ADULT!!! You should give it a try sometime.

Hoffa -- for the last time, this wasn't about taxpayers paying for abortions. It was about the government making the procedure more expensive for a woman who would be paying for it with her own money, or with the help of a charitable organization, and they're doing it in the hope that fewer women will be able to afford the extra travel and doctor visits. And the law is written so ambiguously that a provider might be left open to criminal prosecution if s/he doesn't follow it to the letter, even though the 'letter' has nothing to do with good medical practice.

@Randy1949 -

If you read DivineLight's posts, you'll see that she is advocating for government paid abortions.

Personally, Hoffa is not a fan of the at-issue legislation. As stated before, Hoffa believes that PP is overreacting to the legislation in order to drum up some ammo for the Democrats to use in their fabricated 'war on women' attack against the Walker administration. But Hoffa never said that he supported the legislation, did he? Hoffa is neutral towards it - while a woman should be required to show that she equally weighed all her options before requesting that an abortion be performed, I'm not sure how consulting the same doctor three consecutive times accomplishes this.

Hoffa would much rather like to see the rights of the father being protected in the abortion decision, as previously discussed. As to the non-coercion part of the statute, there is nothing vague about it - the doctor performing the abortion simply signs an affidavit attesting that they did not in any way influence the ultimate decision to abort. Honestly, what is so vague about that?

Hoffa, should a man be required to prove he had carefully weighed all his options before obtaining a prescription for that little blue pill? Why does the government always assume that it's the women who are feckless and never think? I can pretty much guarantee you that any woman who is late for a period has been thinking about nothing other than her situation and her various options for weeks by the time she gets to the doctor's office or clinic.

"Hoffa would much rather like to see the rights of the father being protected in the abortion decision, as previously discussed."

Sorry, dude, but until medical science allows males to carry a fetus and pass that bowling ball at the end, men are just going to have fewer rights in this regard.

" the doctor performing the abortion simply signs an affidavit attesting that they did not in any way influence the ultimate decision to abort. Honestly, what is so vague about that?"

My understanding is that it's the requirement that the woman return to the same physician for the follow-up exam, even though it's medically acceptable for her personal physician in her home town to do this. If the woman failed to return, that might leave the physician open to prosecution, and some people aren't willing to take that risk.

@Randy1949 -

We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

@Randy1949 -

"Sorry, dude, but until medical science allows males to carry a fetus and pass that bowling ball at the end, men are just going to have fewer rights in this regard."

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pregnant-man-thomas-beatie-splits-wife-222259218.html

As I've written before, until "conservatives" attack men at the same level as they do women on issues of contraception/abortion they are hypocrites. Mandatory reversible vasectomies would reduce many unwanted/unready pregnancies. When the man can produce a valid marriage certificate and at least three years of steady income at a family sustaining level, he may have the vasectomy reversed, based on his income. If he leaves the marriage and enters another he may not generate more offspring unless his income is proven to be secure and sufficient to support the children of both marriages.

I think that would take care of much of the trouble. So until the "conservatives" call for this type of legislation they may be recognized for the misogynistic hypocrites that they are.

@Bren -

Who's going to pay for the "mandatory reversible vasectomies?"

Quite the intrusive procedure to be mandating, isn't this going a bit far?

The part of the equation that you don't seem to be grasping is that legislation regarding abortions only come into play after the sexual act has been performed, and sex is a voluntary luxury - not a necessity! If the woman doesn't want to jump through all the hoops to have an abortion, which are only in place because of the vested life interest of the unborn child, then th solution is quite simple: DON'T ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY!!! Not every man is irresponsible, but you'd prefer to punish and burden all just because of the bad apples. Wow, that kind of ideology definitely does not fit my vision of what America stands for!

One could just as easily require that all women undergo a mandatory reversible tube tying, but I've yet to see a single 'conservative' post advocating such a position because we don't believe in punishing and burdening all just because of the irresponsible acts of some.

I can't believe that you're honestly buying into the 'war on women' rhetoric of the left - I honestly expected better from you. If anything it's a war against irresponsible idiocy - whether female or male, but paint the picture as you like, no matter how erroneous, as you always do.

Hoffa says...."The poor, suffering, and downtrodden shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity and wouldn't be if they were exercising logical thought and responsible behavior. Seeing as how we're all aware of the potential consequences up-front, for such a person to engage in such activity is wholly selfish and self-centered, and taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidize such poor choices! If you can't afford to pay for an abortion, you shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity - it's that simple! Again, it's a voluntary luxury, not a necessity!"
I say.....So you are saying that if I can afford an abortion you don't have a problem with abortion? cool!
HOffa says "Grow up, exercise some self-restraint, and be responsible for your own actions for a change! It's called being an ADULT!!! You should give it a try sometime."
I say - I have a feeling you have been a little adult since you were a baby. You sound like the life of the party. "Excuse me sir, I have noticed that you have had two beers. Are you sure that is the responsible thing to do?" "Excuse me ma'm. That dress is awfully low cut. Are you sure you can handle the possible repercussions of sending out that sex signal?" "Gee little gal. You went and had sex with your boyfriend and got yourself pregnant? Well now you are just going to have to pay the price. Or that child will anyway."

@JRH -- "sex is a voluntary luxury - not a necessity! If the woman doesn't want to jump through all the hoops to have an abortion, which are only in place because of the vested life interest of the unborn child, then th solution is quite simple: DON'T ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY!!!"

I think I know now why Conservative couples always look so darn jumpy. And -- I'm struggling to put this into language suitable for a family venue -- with that attitude, you're going to be getting up six times a night when you reach my age. It isn't an absolute NECESSITY, but it keeps a person healthy.

@JRH -- ""Sorry, dude, but until medical science allows males to carry a fetus and pass that bowling ball at the end, men are just going to have fewer rights in this regard."

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pregnant-man-thomas-beatie-splits-wife-222259218.html";

That 'man' is structurally and genetically female and will never impregnate a woman. Try again.

"My first impulse is to help."

Well of course it is - that's because you're helping with other people's money!

Hoffa you're a one song band. I hope you are never in the position when you will need someone else to help you. Then again...maybe that's what it will take.

@Bucky -

Once again proving that you have little class!

James I have more class in my little pinky then you have in your entire body .

@Bucky -

Wake up buddy, cause you're dreaming again!

JRH has a cat? Really? I knew JRH had a redeeming feature. LOL

$$andSense -

I see that you've taken a great interest in Hoffa - it's alright, I have many groupies! I'll save an autographed color 8x10 just for you!

Let's run through your list, shall we:

Unwedded: YES

Childless: YES

Brags about HIS money and cars: Not Really, but as a car guy, I do bring up my cars every now and then.

Has a cat: YES

Has a female interest: YES, and it's actually someone that I met on the Patch comment boards.

Political influence: Hardly, other than on the extreme local level, but I do like to chat with and send letters/emails to my elected officials whenever possible.

Unaccounted for sleaze bag union mafia boss that disappeared many years ago: Hoffa was/is a great man, the Kennedy's are slime balls!

Condemns unions: Only the public sector ones, although I'm not exactly thrilled with current private sector union leadership.

Cheers!

I'm sure Mr. Hoffa's female interest is a smart girl. ; )

People who have cats are indeed special. They have to be multidimensional thinkers, mentally and physically agile. They also have to enjoy cleaning up debris.

Awww, thanks Bren!

And if you're female, don't worry - you'll always hold a special place in Hoffa's heart, so no need for any jealous thoughts ;-)

In all honesty, female or male, I'd actually love to meet you some day in persona just to chat - your confidentiality is guaranteed so long as it's mutual. You know I have the utmost respect for you even if we disagree politically. After all, it's not everyday one finds another 'Prisoner' and Gerry Anderson fan, is it?

@Bren -- I have multiple cats, so does that make me multi-multidimensional in my thinking and extremely agile? LOL

Cats don't take nonsense from anyone. You have to cooperate with them.

@$$andSense -

1) And when did Hoffa ever claim that he has photos with elected officials? Celebrities, yes, but elected officials, not a single one I'm afraid. Oh, I see how you got confused on this one, as liberals seem to think that politicians are celebrities. Not quite in Hoffa's honest opinion, but keep on idolizing Obama if it floats your boat!

BTW - I'm not sure what celebrity photo I like best - Willem Dafoe, David Caruso, William Shatner, or William Petersen - decisions, decisions! I honestly look best in the photo with Dafoe!

2) I'd openly accept organized crime over the hypocrisy of the Kennedy's any day of the week! Vegas baby!

3) You tell us, as you appear to be the union hater with the constant smack talk about the badge unions!

Have a good one!

Who told Conservatives about LOGIC?

@DivineLight -- From what I have read, Hugh Beaumont was the Real Deal -- Ward Cleaver in real life. People make a lot of fun of that show, but it never hurts to see parents who actually talk to each other about the problems they encounter raising their kids.

Life was never really that way, though. We had toilets and double beds. I'm the exact age of 'The Beav'. I'm vaguely curious as to how Ward and June handled the Summer of Love and reefer.

I have done that... When a neighbor girl had a baby at 16, I used to drive her and the baby to one of my friends house for babysitting purposes at a very reduced rate (I was the one who asked my friend if she could help out). I then drove the 16 year old to her job at a local restaurant. Sometimes I even went back to pick her up. And let me see... The thanks that we received, was that the girl lost her job for making out with one of the other employees in the back! And then a couple months later this girl got pregnant with her 2nd baby... Need I say more...

@Stormy -- I agree with you. But what is the result of NOT handing over money? It's the children who suffer. And how do you make the judgement call about who is deserving of help and who isn't?

We have a distant relative who has had six pregnancies since the age of 16. Shortly before the birth of her latest we gently suggested that the Mirena coil was quite effective. There's an initial cost of several hundred dollars either out of pocket of for the taxpayers for something like that, but I think the taxpayers would heave a sigh of relief.

Hoffa can talk about self-control and chastity all he likes, but some people just . . . won't. And oddly enough, they make the worst parents.

@Stormy -- You really don't know much about the foster-care system, do you? Maybe the kids you'd like to remove are being taught poor lifestyle values, but in fostercare they run the risk of physical and sexual abuse. There are plenty of wonderful foster homes, but there are quite a few of the other kind.

@Stormy Weather....You have a fundamental problem with dysfunctional families. In as much the government evaluating and determining who are good parents and who are not. As a society we have a stated committment for the protection of children, yet we don't create policies and fund such policies to accomplish the stated goal. There is continuous tension between advocates for parental rights verses advocates for children's rights. Since children are not full citizens, often their rights are superseded by the full rights of the parents. This impacts how thoroughly allegations of child abuse or neglect can be investigated. Therefore, every referral must be put through triage and they are only able to accept the worst of the worst. There isn't enough funding, to few trained Child Protection Social Workers and a system that can't handle the current needs let alone the true needs. The agencies overseeing CPS, foster care and adoption have been hit particularly hard by federal and state budget cuts. It takes about ten years of experience to be an effective child welfare worker, yet they have the highest rate of burnout of all social workers and the turnover is unacceptable. The problems are there but no one seems to seriously want to address the issue. A society is judged on well it takes care of the least of its citizens.

@Stormy Weather...The problem with your suggestion is that to be effective, everyone prior to puberty would have to be sterilized. It would have to be reversible or the population would plummet. In the early part of the 20th century, eugenics was imposed and it had disastrous effects. I could see a major problem with religions opposing such practices. I don't think your idea is workable. Therefore we must figure out the problem without sterilization.

Well Greg...given your "opinion" you clearly should not have an abortion.

The public does not fund abortions in America. They do in Canada and many other "progressive" countries. But America is still struggling with the concept of evolution.

But I want one!!!
Is it evolution to not consult a doctor face to face?

@Greg -- If business deals can be done by webcam, I don't see why an initial patient interview can't be done by webcam too. The reason for this is that some people in remote areas have to travel many miles to a clinic, and with the requirement for a 24 hour waiting period between initial interview and the actual procedure (or in this case, dispensation of medication), this saves the patient two long drives or an overnight stay plus the associated expense.

Why not just dispense the abortion pill from vending machines? They are used for business deals too.
I'm just damn glad you don't need an I.D. to get an abortion.

@Greg -- There's no reason why, if the law insists on two conversations at least 24 hours apart, why a doctor can't take a patient history using a face to face internet medium like Skype. There's also no medical reason why a woman can't have her two week follow-up exam done by her primary physician.

You sound like a woman.

@Bucky -- Who -- me, Greg or Divine?

Gee in Canada why a gal just had to go to her doctor, prove she was pregnant, schedule an abortion, get one, enjoy a day of rest and then on with her life. And the reason you can't do this here is.....what is the reason? I can't figure out the reason.