Who ya gonna vote for?

[AnnieB]

http://www.usatoday.com/interactives/news/politics/candidate-match-game/

I thought this was interesting - USA Today's Candidate Match Game.  They provide you a percentage tally of which candidate you agree with the most on the  the primary issues.  You have the opportunity at the end to weight your answers on your most important issues.  I was 63% Obama.

I got 50% Romney, 50% Obama.

I am considering writing someone in.

[jbeany]

Tough in the middle, isn't it?  I think mine would have been closer to 50/50, but the Republican's who can't think faster than they can talk when it comes to reproductive rights are turning me a lot more staunch feminist than usual.

[noahvale]

^

[cariad]

Believe it or not, Republicans don’t wake up in the morning thinking about women's reproductive organs.  Can you name a single individual who has been denied oral contraceptives or abortions?   Do you see Governor Romney even campaigning on either of these issues?  The answer is “no”.  Women can walk into the local Walmart and get inexpensive over the counter contraceptives as well as a month's supply of birth control pills for $9 or less.

Yes, there are those on the fringe right who are 100% against abortion for any reason, just as there are those on the fringe left who believe in abortion on demand at anytime during pregnancy (including Obama who stated he's pro-choice on third-trimester abortions - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-obama-says-hes-pro-choice-third-trimester-abortions_650524.html).  Yet, "Democrats for Life of America"  (http://www.democratsforlife.org) is a group of pro-life Democrats who advocate for a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party's platform and for pro-life Democratic candidates. And in fairness, the Republican group "The Wish List" (http://www.thewishlist.org/) supports pro-choice Republican women.

Yet, overall, Republicans do not believe that it is government's responsibility to pay for birth control pills and abortions while also objecting to government mandates that employers pay for services for their employees, even ones that go against the employer’s moral conscience. Particularly offensive is the requirement within the Obamacare Act that religious hospitals, charities, and schools must provide and pay for insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs—including the morning-after pill and the week-after drug, ella.

No, those who bring up “reproductive organs” as the element of greatest importance in this election cycle attempt to demean women.  Don't be surprised that many are more concerned about the effects of real double-digit unemployment rate in this country and the mountainous debt that will soon erode or eliminate social programs on which many people rely.   

As an aside, it seems that pro-life candidates are always being grilled on their beliefs by the media.  Wouldn’t it be fair for pro-choice  candidates having to field equally hard questions for their views?    Something to think about...


NASHVILLE (BP) -- Debate moderators and reporters love to ask pro-life candidates hard questions about abortion. Curiously, they don't do the same for pro-choice candidates.

Here are 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:

1. You say you support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on "the war on girls" and the growth of "gendercide" in the world -- abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the "eugenics" movement a century ago -- the slow, but deliberate "weeding out" of those our society would deem "unfit" to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "abortion is the white supremacist's best friend," pointing to the fact that African Americans and Latinos represent 25 percent of our population but account for 59 percent of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a "tragic choice." If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable -- able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

This column first appeared at TrevinWax.com.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=39003

Sigh. It is sheer ignorance to suggest that pro-choice candidates have never addressed those issues. Wow! Do a bit of research before suggesting that pro-choice individuals don't field these questions. Gah! You linked to a video where Obama was asked about late-term abortion in the same post that complains that pro-choice candidates don't have to answer these questions. (And, incidentally, he did not ever state that he did or did not personally support late-term abortion, just that he was pro-choice and trusted women to make their own choices. He never once said he believed in "abortion on demand at anytime during pregnancy" as you insinuated.)

OK, let me do the work for you and give a few answers here:

1. I think most people believe late-term abortion should be limited to extreme circumstances, where the life of the mother is in danger or something equally horrific, and that is why there are narrow legal restrictions. One of the engineers who reported to my husband had to watch his son die - suffocate to be exact - because there was some malformation in the heart and lungs. There was no option to operate in utero, they desperately wanted this baby, and his wife went to term. What would the difference have been if she were induced (a "late-term abortion") at 26 weeks? Perhaps the baby's suffering would have been reduced or eliminated, and perhaps her suffering and toll on her body would have been reduced as well.

2. So you agree there's a war on girls, but not a war on women? Fascinating. What does abortion throughout the world have to do with campaigns in the US? Americans are known for preferring baby girls to boys, and yes this has been studied. I wrote my archaeology master's term paper on gender-based infanticide, and it is totally false that, in one academic journal author's words, "this is only a story of destroying the female". To answer your question, yes, women should be allowed to have an abortion if they don't want to have a baby. The reasons that they don't want a baby are immaterial to me as a pro-choice woman who's had two kids and faced her own maddeningly difficult choices in life. That's what we grown-up women do - we make tough choices and don't need white men to tell us how to manage our bodies.

3. Teenagers should never, never have to tell their parents about an abortion. Never. Not in a single case on earth or in your imagination.

4. I don't think in terms of when life begins, I think in terms of when a fetus is viable which is generally what the law considers when it comes to rights. Do you want a zygote to have the same rights as you?

5. I would personally say that is typical fringey right-wing hyperbole to compare abortion of trisomy fetuses to genocide. I would like to think that if I had had to make that choice, I would not let fear of the wrath of pro-lifers or even fear of eternal damnation stop me from making what i believe is the kindest choice to make. I would gladly face a Christian's idea of hell to stop the suffering of one of my children. I think it is selfish to bring a child into the world to suffer. Most trisomy kids are born with a host of other medical problems - painful physical defects that require constant intervention, not to mention the social abuse many suffer. I think it's a no-win situation and up to the individual to make the choice that they think is best under these heartbreaking circumstances.

6. I believe an employer should be forced to provide comprehensive medical coverage and do not give a rip about his or her beliefs. If we start worrying about everyone's "religious conscience" then how long before an employer claims that they don't believe in any medical intervention because God will either a heal a person or it wasn't in The Plan? The employer only has to provide an insurance plan which the employee pays for. It is the insurance company that provides the payment for claims and the law which provides the access.

7. Alveda King is a tool of the far-right - she has said Martin Luther King was a Republican which has been rated false by PoltiFact and King's own son. Why on earth do we care about her views on abortion? Being related to a famous civil-rights leader and attempting to ride his coattails to political relevance does not constitute any sort of impressive credentials. I treat anything she says as suspect. 

8. I don't describe abortion as a universally tragic choice, though it certainly can be tragic. Really? Something has to be morally objectionable to be tragic? Since when are these synonyms? A woman who chooses an abortion because she is carrying a fetus with defects incompatible with life is facing a tragic, tragic situation. Choosing to have the baby anyway and watch it die is also a tragic choice, see above.

9. We've covered this in the "late-term abortion thing" section.

10. That really depends on the circumstances as court cases tend to do.

 

[Bill Peckham]

Romney would appoint Supreme Court justices that would support over turning Roe and we'd be back to the '60s as soon as Ginsberg or Kennedy retired. That isn't an open question is it?


It is only through religious belief that you can deem a zygote a person, thus that was a step too far for even Mississippi. Yet, a Republican President, elected today, would not veto a personhood Bill. If you care about women's reproductive rights you have to vote Democratic until the Republican fever breaks.

[MooseMom]

Noahvale, the reason that "pro-life" candidates are questioned about their stance is because the law is already "pro-choice" via Roe vs Wade.  These candidates are asked these questions because they would vote to change the law, given the opportunity, by way of influencing who the next Supreme might be. 

If we had single payer, employers' religious beliefs regarding contraception would never be an issue.  My employer's beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.  Why would anyone want this?

I'm sure that Republicans for the most part don't wake up each morning thinking about women's reproductive organs, probably because the older and maler Republicans don't know how they work in the first place.  At least it seems that way.

Which "inexpensive" OTC contraceptives that a woman can buy at Walmart are you talking about?  Are you talking about condoms?  Do you really think that most women want to trust their contraception to a MAN?  hahahahaha!  How many men do you know who are oh so eager and oh so willing to wear a condom?  Birth control pills and all other barrier and hormonal contraceptives require a prescription, and for a prescription, you have to go to a doctor, and THAT's the expensive part, especially if you don't have insurance. 

Abortion clinics are more numerous in areas with large minority populations because these clinics are primarily used as places to obtain subsidized/free primary care like mammograms or Pap smears, more so than to get an abortion.  And that's another reason why Republican candidates are asked about their views on abortion/contraception.  Their opposition leads to the defunding of Planned Parenthood and to other organizations that offer primary health care to low-income women, and THAT is government interference on the most personal level. 

[AnnieB]

I'm sure that Republicans for the most part don't wake up each morning thinking about women's reproductive organs, probably because the older and maler Republicans don't know how they work in the first place.  At least it seems that way.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Women can walk into the local Walmart and get inexpensive over the counter contraceptives as well as a month's supply of birth control pills for $9 or less.

Women don't take birth control just because they want to have sex. Many women have to take birth control pills for health reasons.

Yet, overall, Republicans do not believe that it is government's responsibility to pay for birth control pills--

Which was never the issue. The issue was whether or not private insurance companies would provide coverage for birth control paid for by the woman's insurance premiums, not by tax payers or government. The Republican Outrage Industry simply made up the story about Sandra Fluke wanting tax payers to subsidize her partying.

[Rerun]

 

Come on there are more than 44 people on this site.  Vote it is your right.

[Jean]

The big day has finally arrived. Lets all hope and pray that whatever choice we made, it is the right one. If Obama had not allowed 4 americans to die in Benghazi, he probably would have won in a landslide, altho, I dont know why. After reading the Obamacare, I discoverd that in a year and a half I will be seeing the "Panel" And, yes, it is in the Obamacar Plan and maybe I will never have to go on dialysis, they will just let me die then, so I wont be wasting any money. God help us all.

[cariad]

The big day has finally arrived. Lets all hope and pray that whatever choice we made, it is the right one. If Obama had not allowed 4 americans to die in Benghazi, he probably would have won in a landslide, altho, I dont know why. After reading the Obamacare, I discoverd that in a year and a half I will be seeing the "Panel" And, yes, it is in the Obamacar Plan and maybe I will never have to go on dialysis, they will just let me die then, so I wont be wasting any money. God help us all.

Jean, I don't know what you heard, but I thought you'd written a few years ago that you understood that there were no Death Panels mandated in the ACA. Do not let politicians who are desperate to win an election scare you into believing baseless claims about the President. Here, hope this puts your mind at ease through the impending Obama victory: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp

My understanding is that the ACA requires patients be offered end of life counseling. Toward the end of my time in America, every time I would visit a new doctor they would hand me dozens of brochures about my death. (not emotionally uplifting, but I certainly did not suspect any nefarious motives). I could always say I wasn't interested and they would drop the subject, although with transplant you absolutely must (at least at my centre) fill out some basic forms about power of attorney, medical interventions desired, etc.

I intend to still be reading your witty posts in 18 months time, my dear, but stress is a killer, so try not to needlessly worry yourself.

[cariad]

Come on there are more than 44 people on this site.  Vote it is your right.

Unless you are not an American citizen, of course. Step away from the computer all you foreigners! 

(Kidding. I actually quite enjoy reading outside perspectives on our political madness, though few probably have the patience to bother following it.)

Someone at the charity shop asked if I missed being in America during the election. My response went something like this:  

[MaryD]

[/quote]
 though few probably have the patience to bother following it.)


[/quote]

I am fascinated by the whole she-bang, but I'm too polite to make any comment.  I will be sitting up all Wednesday following every blow of the results coming in.

[Rerun]

May the best man win!

     

[YLGuy]

I just hope that anyone who wants to vote gets the chance to.

[Simon Dog]

Regarging Gendercide - my Indian friends tell me that it is a criminal offense for a doctor in their country to tell expectant parents the gender of the expected offspring prior to birth for exactly this reason.

[Hober Mallow]

Obama is going to win handily with 300+ electoral votes. But after he's reelected, there's still work to be done. I hope Obama supporters put as much effort into pushing him and the Senate Democrats away from agreeing to any kind of grand bargain with the Republicans to cut social security and Medicare as they put into getting out their vote today.

[cariad]

The IHD vote seems to reflect what is happening in the nation at large. It was close for a while there, and now Obama has pulled ahead in an IHD landslide! 

[cariad]

I'm neither voting for Romney nor Obama. Obama is certainly the lesser of two evils, and will handily win reelection, but he lost my vote when he decided he could declare American citizens enemies and kill them without due process. I think Democrats are giving Obama a free pass on something they would rightly castigate a Republican president for doing. It's something I wish more Obama critics would focus on instead of on complete nonsense like socialism and birth certificates.

I agree with this. I appreciate intelligent criticism of the candidate whom I support. For me, maybe this sounds horrible, Obama's actions were not a deal breaker for me as they were for you, HM. I understand what you are saying and unfortunately I don't remember that episode well enough to speak intelligently about it, but the closest Barack Obama came to a deal breaker with me was when he said that he did not support gay marriage. Also, I, like many Democrats, quickly became fed up with Obama lying down for the Republicans. He is amazing when he really takes a stand and with this whingey, obstructionist, disrespectful Congress, he really needs to put more than a few of them in their place. If he had not shown that side of himself with some degree of frequency, I probably would be doing as you're doing and looking for someone else to throw my support behind (not Romney).

And yes, anyone who thinks Obama has brought socialism to this country does not really understand what socialism is.

[cariad]

Don't have to ask this family how they all are going to vote....

[Hober Mallow]

And yes, anyone who thinks Obama has brought socialism to this country does not really understand what socialism is.

It really is astounding. Spending growth is down, corporate profits are up. If Obama is a socialist, George W. Bush is Chairman Mao.

[MooseMom]

Also, I, like many Democrats, quickly became fed up with Obama lying down for the Republicans. He is amazing when he really takes a stand and with this whingey, obstructionist, disrespectful Congress, he really needs to put more than a few of them in their place. If he had not shown that side of himself with some degree of frequency, I probably would be doing as you're doing and looking for someone else to throw my support behind (not Romney).

And yes, anyone who thinks Obama has brought socialism to this country does not really understand what socialism is.

Americans voted for Obama because he preached consensus, and that's what the electorate wanted.  And that's what he tried to do, which must have been difficult when the likes of Mitch McConnell (sp?  Don't care enough to look it up.) says that his mission is to make Mr. Obama a one-term President.  Our Constitution was written to make compromise the overriding mandate, yet when Obama tried to achieve that, he was viewed as "lying down" for the Republicans.  So on the one hand, Americans say they want both parties to work together, but on the other hand, they vote in people like Joe Walsh who see "compromise" as a dirty word.

Ultimately, we in a democracy get the government we deserve.  If we vote in extremists and obstructionists, then we will get a do-nothing Congress. 

I would like to pose a question about Mr. Romney.  If I am understanding him correctly, he is a strong advocate of giving/returning as much power to the States as possible.  He would like to see a myriad of issues returned to the states, along with the funding of things like health care and education.  Now, most of the states that comprise the Old South are heavily reliant upon federal funding.  These states are given more in federal funding than they return. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

So, why would states in the South, some of them the poorest in the nation, want less federal spending in their states?  Have you ever thought about how much these states contribute to the deficit?  (BTW, both sides of my family come from the South...Louisiana and Mississippi.)  Anyone have any thoughts about this? 

[Hemodoc]

Women can walk into the local Walmart and get inexpensive over the counter contraceptives as well as a month's supply of birth control pills for $9 or less.

Women don't take birth control just because they want to have sex. Many women have to take birth control pills for health reasons.

Yet, overall, Republicans do not believe that it is government's responsibility to pay for birth control pills--

Which was never the issue. The issue was whether or not private insurance companies would provide coverage for birth control paid for by the woman's insurance premiums, not by tax payers or government. The Republican Outrage Industry simply made up the story about Sandra Fluke wanting tax payers to subsidize her partying.

Hmmm, as a primary care doctor, I prescribed thousands of OCP's (Birth control pills) and the overwhelming majority were for birth control issues only. Only a handful were for health related reasons in those 20 years of practice. Sorry, what is the basis for your claim? The number of health related issues where the OCP's are medicinal is only a small percentage from my nearly 20 years as a primary care doctor. Sorry to disagree, but that was not my experience at all.

[MooseMom]

I don't understand why any man would do anything to keep a woman from getting contraceptives.  The pill has been the greatest invention for men's sexual pleasure.  Women certainly DO use contraception because they want to have sex, but they ALSO use it because MEN want to have sex.  If you really believe in personal responsibility, we should be encouraging more men to take responsibility for birth control.  After all, they don't want to be saddled with having to support an unwanted child, I'd guess?  But no; men don't like condoms, so that means we ladies have to take control, and that's fair enough.  But don't stand in our way when what we really want to do exercise that personal responsibility we keep hearing so much about.

For myself, though, I will say that I took oral contraceptives on two occasions for health reasons, and on one of those occasions, the pill saved my life, and that was just four years ago.  When I was younger, taking the pill for a number of years actually ENABLED me to finally conceive as it regulated my cycle.

[YLGuy]

Women can walk into the local Walmart and get inexpensive over the counter contraceptives as well as a month's supply of birth control pills for $9 or less.

Women don't take birth control just because they want to have sex. Many women have to take birth control pills for health reasons.

Yet, overall, Republicans do not believe that it is government's responsibility to pay for birth control pills--

Which was never the issue. The issue was whether or not private insurance companies would provide coverage for birth control paid for by the woman's insurance premiums, not by tax payers or government. The Republican Outrage Industry simply made up the story about Sandra Fluke wanting tax payers to subsidize her partying.

Hmmm, as a primary care doctor, I prescribed thousands of OCP's (Birth control pills) and the overwhelming majority were for birth control issues only. Only a handful were for health related reasons in those 20 years of practice. Sorry, what is the basis for your claim? The number of health related issues where the OCP's are medicinal is only a small percentage from my nearly 20 years as a primary care doctor. Sorry to disagree, but that was not my experience at all.

You are 1 doctor and you have had multiple patients who needed birth control for medical reasons.  How many thousands of doctors are in the U.S.?  Do the math.