So, let me see if i have this right.....eliminate affordable healthcare...drive poor people into a state of disrepair and this accomplishes what?....The Federal Government has to step in and spend millions more than they already do...doesn't make any sense.....who is coming up with this crap?

What is this????....some kind of plan the Republicans have come up with to prove they are not Racist??..."Hey, look at us..we are not racist.....we hate Poor White People too".

I need a stiff drink!!!

I don't get it. Is Kansas advocating Unplanned Parenthood, the proliferation of STD's, an unchecked rise in cervical and breast cancer? I'm really not seeing how this will benefit Kansas.

It won't benefit Kansas. It's not really supposed to. It's an assault to beat back what the proponents of these measures see as threats to social order and stability. The "benefit" is that it makes the proponents feel like they're doing something beneficial, that they are addressing threats to society. It just so happens that their decision-making process is so distorted by their fear of social disintegration that they can't really think beyond their fear. They can't or won't see the harm they are doing because all they really care about is assuaging their fear.

Forget what they're explicitly saying. Subtext is everything.

That is an excellent description!!!!

It may be collateral damage for Dodge City Family Planning, but it's a direct hit on American women.

Good post, Combabus. It probably would be helpful also to hand out free birth-control to females, and for their men. Overpopulation threatens everyone on the planet, as you pointed out.

Somewhere along the way, we have been reprogrammed to ignore the idea of sustainability. It would seem that this overpopulation arguement has been silenced because of pressure for growth, growth, growth...but this planet remains the same size. Thanks for the encouragement, as I have only recently begun to opine.

I think the 70,000,000 is dubious. I assume it's the number of abortions since Roe v Wade. First, some -- maybe many -- of those abortions would have happened anyway because abortion was already legally available in some states and illegally available elsewhere. Second, women who had one of the 70,000,000, would not have had children later. Third, some abortion are due to traditionally protected reasons of rape, incest, life-saving circumstances. And finally, sadly, some of the abortions were due to problem pregnancies in which the fetus or the mother or both would not have survived.

Yes JustPixelz, The current estimations of procedures performed are between 50-60 million. Many of those that would have been born in the 70's 80's and early 90's would also have children of their own now. My guesstimation takes this compounding effect into consideration, but alas, there is no way of knowing what would have occured in this "parallel universe" scenario, maybe bigger bloodier wars, widerspread diseases, or walled borders.

...

Righty, perhaps you would prefer this rationalization...From Genesis KJV:

22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God
did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here
I am.

22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only
son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and
offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell
thee of.

22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and
saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and
clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of
which God had told him.

22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes,
and saw the place afar off.

22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here
with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to
you.

22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering,
and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a
knife; and they went both of them together.

22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said,
My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire
and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself
a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him
of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound
Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took
the knife to slay his son.

22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of
heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad,
neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and
behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham
went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of
his son.

I have often driven by abortion clinics and have yet to see a "ram caught in a thicket". The Almighty made a miraculous exception in Abraham's case, not a rule.

This passage should make the religous right pro-choice through the 75th trimester. Churches have chosen to reinterpret or ignore this passage over the years to boost their membership- growth, growth, growth.

May peace be upon you all, have a swell weekend.

@combabus

literal translation of any book, is never a good idea

liberals and even atheists generally have a greater awareness of the Bible, what it says -- and other religions -- than do conservatives and Christians themselves.

WWJD is only needed when it benefits or is needed to justify ones selfish agenda....not to help anyone else.....

You are wrong. Here is a survey done by "20/20" that contradicts your statement:

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

The above was intended as a reply to "restaurant refugee" and not Winston. I apologize.

Funny, but even in San Francisco there are conservatives. I think it's much more telling that the 'buckets' were placed outside a Macy's and a Wal-Mart. Why not place BOTH outside Wal-Mart? You'd have a much better idea who was doing what in that instance.

Jeff: There are no Walmarts in SF. The board of Supervisors will not allow it.

Robert,

I call bull@!$%# on you and your sourced 20/20 story. First it is absurd anyone would base such a broad decision on how groups of people behave in a charitable test from a TV show but I guess that is the best we can expect from someone of limited intellect.

I can tell straight off the bat why the 20/20 story is horribly flawed.

They conducted the test with Salvation Army kettles in Sioux Falls and San Francisco. Well my friend it is very well known that the Salvation Army is a horribly bigoted organization that is not welcoming to the Gay Community. Gay people have for several years been boycotting the Salvation Army fund-raising programs during the kettle drives and donations of goods at the retail stores. The Gay Community at large has been encouraged to give to other organizations instead of the SA.

So if you test this liberal vs. conservative-who gives more theory...you better not use the Salvation Army as your test subject in San Francisco with one of the worlds biggest gay communities.

The "test" is "crap"....oh and by the way....the top 10 states with the highest rates of divorce in the good old USA are all RED, REPUBLICAN, CHRISTIAN, CONSERVATIVE, AMONG THE POOREST, AND AMONG THE LEAST EDUCATED.

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

because how many conservative gay men are there?

maybe they're selling blood to buy drugs; addicts do that, ya know. #RickScottconservativelogic

Reply to Godley:

According to exit pols in the 2006 election people with no high school education voted 64% Democratic vs 35% for Republicans. Those people making less than $15000 voted 67% Democratic vs 30% Republican. Most middle class vote Republican. Source CNN:

Like O'Donnell says: " You are entitled to your opinion but not the facts" Have a nice evening.

As a liberal/progressive lesbian, I can tell you that I specifically avoid donating to the Salvation Army because I don't like that religion is attached to some forms of assistance that they provide. However, I contribute as much as I can to our local women's shelter and to the "rescue mission" for homeless people (both with money and with time). While I can't speak for all people in San Francisco (gay and hetero alike), it is possible that some of them choose not to donate to the Salvation Army but that they have agendas of their own.

As we all do.

In short, don't assume that just because the money wasn't in Salvation Army pots that people in San Francisco are greedy or that they don't donate to other causes. You really have no way of "proving" that point.

@Robert, how did the cited study control for the variable regarding people who only donate to non-religious charities? I, and many of my friends, will not give a plugged nickle to the Salvation Army or any other religious charity because we do not believe in its religious salvation message. However, we donate regularly and generously to non-religious charities.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says.

1) This statement is far more telling of the psyche of Arthur Brooks than the psyche of a liberal. I am a liberal and I patently do not believe this to be the function of the government. What non-wingnut thinks this? Believing the time and efforts of hard working people shouldn't be undervalued is not the same as thinking "incomes should be more equal" or that it's the government's job to make it so.

2) Statistics can be made to say things. Frankly, I don't dispute that church-going folks are probably significantly more giving as a social subset. I do think the Macy's/WalMart point is important though. The "working poor" were listed as more giving than the "middle class". This is a significant uncontrolled variable in the cited data, and I am saying this objectively. Again, I tend to see promise in the "giving" hypothesis. Why stack the deck during the experiment? Are there no similar places in these two cities where less skewed data might be collected? To further feed the demographic stereotypes for a moment, "working poor church goers" are being compared with "upper middle class liberals". Was this Brooks' goal? If so, I say he is trying to fuel a culture war, not trying to promote truth and a better understanding of how we all differently think and behave. Ultimately, only one of these ends promotes solution-building.

3) What does this have to do with the issue presented in the post? Why is it so difficult for everyone to admit that all actions have both intended and unintended consequences? Something bad is happening here, and those who caused it need to step up and own it and fix it. It's the right thing to do.

This clinic's problem exists because one group of people insist on legally compelling all other people to do what they morally believe is right, and their zeal in this pursuit ironically creates blind spots on their own moral path. That values voters cannot see this is part of their blind spot. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But I digress.

Everyone pretty much agrees this "collateral damage" is wrong. When all parties are basically in agreement, shouldn't it be easy to take action? These two people haven't been funded since June, and yet they are in effect donating (or at the very least least loaning) 100% of their time and income to charity because their work is more important than rhetoric. How does that rate on the personal sacrifice-o-meter of the righteous?

This situation is an ethical case study for understanding what's wrong with idealistic convictions versus practical realities in this country. Except it isn't theoretical. There is more to being moral than giving donations and voting for the like-minded. I submit the single most important demonstration of active morality is the commitment not to cause harm.

I would be surprised if many good and moral Kansans, once made aware of this situation, do not step up right away to help these people. The sad part is that their dire need for help exists. This did not have to happen. I'm sorry if this makes anyone uncomfortable, but it is no less true.

How curious -- a Salvation Army kettle instead of a large and diverse data set, such as regional (and even broken down by business sector) United Way collections?

As with many others, I don't give to sectarian groups. Food banks, womens' shelters, children's charities, medical research, ... different story. I'm not in it to trade pocket change for thanks.

Robert, your logic is flawed. Your story could also be interpreted that people who shop at WalMart give more than people who shop at Macy's.

i was just coming to pose the question to Robert that D.C. points out: 'for what or whom were the buckets for; how were they labeled?'

obviously conservatives -- if they're even aware of it -- are going to give to a conservative, sectarian Christian organization like the Salvation Army which attaches strings to receiving their aid, such as converting, while liberals -- who i'd say are quite aware of the SA's ulterior motives -- aren't. you might as well labeled them 'give to the tea party' or 'help repeal Obamacare'

there are plenty, almost innumerable variables which skew the results of this study: how people in those areas give, what kind of cash they carry, if any, etc. which goes to Heartlight's point. gee, conservatives conducting rigged, bad science? who'da thunk it?

what i feel this actually demonstrates is that conservatives give to themselves. hell, it's almost like money laundering. ok, #hyperbole, but it is kind of like saying Corporation X treats its employees well with the average employee earning $x, while the CEO gets 10x and all the factory workers get x/10.

now, certainly you may argue that liberals do it too, they give to liberal organizations, but liberal organizations are going to have as strict guidelines about what the end-recipient of that charity has to do to get it. they're more like Burger King -- "have it your way"; the Army and conservatives are McCharity -- "have it our way or do without" -- so in the end, not truly charitable.

there's also absolutely nothing to say who actually donated what at each site -- the study broadly paints each so that because Sioux Falls is generally conservative, everybody who went to Walmart and donated was a conservative, and because San Francisco is generally liberal, everybody who went to Macy's and donated was a liberal.

the costs of living in each is vastly different.

and the most affluent neighborhood in each may be more conservative in San Francisco, and more liberal in Sioux Falls. since it points out the average income of each, the study also or may only demonstrate that the wealthier you are the less giving, and that debate has been long settled: the rich sit on their money, while the middle class spends it.

and who knows how the SA skewed the results, by saying in San Francisco by reciting anti-gay scripture and preaching fire and brimstone.

like i said, infinite variables, unscientific study.

And the Democratic party is beholding to George Soros and Labor Unions. All politicians are beholden to somebody. Barney Frank is beholden to Fannie Mae. Goldman Sachs contributed a large amount to Obama in the last election much more than to Republicans. The jewish community contributes large amounts to the Democratic party. It is protected by the first amendment. If you belive that politicians are not beholden to somebody I got an island in the Florida swamps I would like to sell you.

Not all Jews are liberal. Generally, people from the Reform tradition do trend that way (not all), but those of the Orthodox and more conservative groups tend toward conservative politics.

It would be just as lame to argue that all wealthy people are conservative, and we know that while there is a statistical probability that this is the case, it is not an absolute predictor.

Robert, your post 8.1 indicates that your information comes from talking points rather than actual research.

Their minds are usually vacuum sealed and not open to other viewpoints. And I doubt that anything that contradicts what they believe would ever convince them to look at other ideas different from their own inbred beliefs.

I also feel that the "freedom" they seek is only another way for them to set the rules for everyone else. Smaller Government for them means bigger Government by them.

So Righty, if that's not what we're supposed to believe about the absurdities of the Right mouthpieces, than what do you stand for? What's the reason for fighting the President on everything he's done/tried to do? It's not like the majority of your party are all upper-middle class. Why would working class republicans want to crush the unions? Why would working class republicans want to destroy social safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Why would your elected representatives pledge never to raise taxes, and be concerned at all with programs like Planned Parenthood? There's no logic in these arguments. All of these programs are designed to help children, poor, disabled, veterans, widows, etc. What could possibly be the logic/objective to all of this obstructionism? That the banks stole our money? We all agree with that. None of us likes that there are powerful and wealthy lobbies lining the pockets of our elected officials. Why don't we stay focused on those issues that we all agree on rather than the insidious birther position, anti-abortion position, anti-equal rights for gays position, and the defense of traditional marriage position. If you want government out of your life except for protections from natural disasters, infrastructure improvements, terrorism, and social safety net programs, why bring up things like the President's citizenship, his religion, or anything else that has nothing to do with what you want? Why don't Republicans take a good, hard look at what the Republicans in Congress are doing versus what they're saying. They don't give a rip about religion, that's just to appease their base. They don't give a rip about whether you have a job or not, they don't want to increase unemployment benefits to help you out. They want to pander to big corporations to continute to pad their own pockets, and Democrats do that too, don't get me wrong, but why the allegiance to a party who obviously doesn't care about you?

Excellent suggestion! Let's also fund the police and fire departments with voluntary contributions. Who do they benefit anyway? People with houses on fire. People who are murdered. That's a small number on which to lavish costly public services.

good point, I wonder if we didn't pay taxes at all, and donated to the services we receive, if that would take care of the problems. Oh yeah, the poor can't donate so that means we'd have to kick in their share too. And we can do the same with teachers, if you can pay for it, you can be educated, if not, oh well. That's what the free market proponents think, right. And churches can take care of the rest. I wonder how much we'd save if we just eliminated the government and did it ourselves? Sound familiar? Think Ron Paul. Of course I'm not sure what would happen to those who need disaster relief like FEMA, I guess we'd have to help them out too right? Because we all know the insurance companies aren't going to kick down with handouts. This is what I'm talking about. The free market does nothing to protect us, it does everything to protect the wealth of the wealthy and big business/corporations.

I should be careful what I wish for:

In Rick Perry's Texas, Firefighters Forced To Pay For Gear, Engine Fuel

Afterthought on the courts and women's rights.

If States make laws that prohibit abortions or make it impossible.

One might argue that this is an unfunded mandate..

If a women is forced by law to carry to birth, then the State should assume all costs to the women from that point of which she is denied her legal choice, until the child was 18 or in school/college as a full time student..She being supported to the standard she is accustomed to, not welfare standards.

There would be a boat load of lawyers lining up for this gravy train....

Again, I think those numbers are speculative at best. Populations are constrained by other factors -- look no further than today's 2.1 births per woman (varies by ethnicity, religion, etc). A few decades ago it was almost 4. In the Great Depression it was about the same as now. If all those 36 million had been born, the birth rate would very likely have fallen leading to about the same population as today. That's my speculation.

I think you got the answer. Now get the women to ask the question and get to work. Men will not change unless they are forced to. and like it or not the people in power to implement this is WASP males.all you got to do is turn on the tv.