This is what Texas governor Rick Perry (a pro life republican) said:

""In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice," Perry said."

I can handle Pro-Choice -- I just happen to like voting for those who prefer life for a child rather than death.

"In Texas we choose life . . . ," unless you are on death row. Web Link 488 executions since 1982, the most recent just this past week.

Kathleen, you're like a broken record on this subject. Even you can distinguish between an innocent life and one of a capital criminal, right? Your apples and oranges comparisons show a total disassociation with reality, making you an infanticide zealot.

All Americans are in jeopardy....remember what he was caught whispering on an open mic to Mr Putin "just wait, until after me reelection is over, then I'll have more flexibility" . . Yea, that's what I'm afraid off. He has some pretty scary leftists and some of his own restructuring of America ideas himself...Once he never has to worry about any elections of any kind, every again, our country would be reshaped, as he thinks it should be. Look at his Presidential order for 'Dream Act' kids attendance and financial aid at all states' schools...filling seats, telling our kids 'full'...and double costs to us, the ones who 'did build them'. No need to follow our system of Three-legged government. President commands..turned loose, scary.

Mittens, My comment was solely regarding the Governor's statement of choosing life vs the elimination of other lives.

In reality, how I personally feel is more complicated. I am for a mother having a choice (and the father if he is in the picture). I don't think government has a role here (and religion's role should be limited to the mother's personal decision process). But while government doesn't want to pay for abortions, if the child is born and neglected or poor or failing in school or ends up in foster care or is always unemployed or ends up in jail or even lands on death row, it's okay for the government to pay. I feel those wanting to eliminate choice don't like talking about what then happens to the child.

I also have a difficult time with people claiming it is for a god to pass judgement, except for the part where they feel they can intervene. So if a god teaches abortion is wrong and government legislates prevention; and a god also says murder is wrong, but government legislates a death penalty, how does that square?

OK, would someone tell me when Americans have become clueless with how they get pregnant or how to keep from getting pregnant? Seriously, are we, with our current liberal thinking, (have) enabled these people to go about life with a "loose" attitude? When will we come back to accepting our own personal responsibilities and live with them?
As a priest told me not too long ago....the real pro-life people are the ones tending to (and sacrificing to) the needs of those currently living. Again, when will we bone up to our personal responsibilities?

Marcia, Not all contraceptives are 100% effective, not even the pill. Not all people having sex have access to or are able to afford contraceptives. Plenty of blame to go around as long as there aren't frank discussions within a family about causes and a direct approach with a teen who becomes sexually active (boys or girls). And really, as we know, once is enough (the heat of the moment especially) and is often too late for conversations and preventive measures.

Interesting. Planned Parenthood doesn't "promote" abortion, it merely offers it. You don't just walk in and get an abortion. Good job, Texas, getting rid of a women's health program is a sure fire way to lower your high teen pregnancy rates.

Let's drop the hysterics. Texas isn't outlawing Planned Parenthood or abortion, they are stopping funding from the public treasury. The (large) majority of Texans find abortion morally wrong, they don't want their coerced tax dollars funding it. No one is preventing private funding.

>>and a god also says murder is wrong, but government legislates a death penalty, how does that square?<<

Check out the definition of murder: "The UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Even in Texas it generally takes a heinous act to get the death penalty. I don't know about the cost effectiveness of the death penalty, and I wouldn't put killing a law enforcement officer in the automatic death penalty category, but I don't live in Texas.

Oh that's funny. I thought all it took was overzealous prosecutors and bad science to get the death penalty in Texas.

"Check out the definition of murder: 'The UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.'" Who's law? It could be said the death penalty is premeditated murder. Take out UNLAWFUL, and you may have a better statement.

Since abortion is murder, I think Texas should round up all the gals who've had abortions over the past several decades and give them all the death penalty. Taking your own child's life is even more heinous than other kinds of murder -- e.g., murdering a stranger. Since the overwhelming majority of Texans think abortion is murder, let's take all of the mothers and string 'em up. If ya don't have the gonads to string 'em up, then shut up with the abortion is murder nonsense.

>> Oh that's funny. I thought all it took was overzealous prosecutors and bad science to get the death penalty in Texas.<<

Any research to back that up, or do you live in self-referential political bubble? That sounds like an emotional outburst rather than a reasoned position. Take a look at this paper from Cass Sunstein (hardly a right wing extremist) that says each execution saves 18 innocent lives.

Web Link

Do you think the white supremacists that dragged James Byrd 3 behind a pickup truck for 3 miles don't deserve the death penalty? He was alive for most of it. How about raping and killing a 9 year old?

There is no question in the history of civilization for the state to impose the death penalty in the interests of justice. If that's going to change we need to have a public political debate via our legislatures with all the evidence considered, including second and third order effects. Imposing policy preferences from the bench doesn't solve the underlying genuine policy disagreements and in the long run undermines judicial credibility.

Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

This site provides many articles regarding the death penalty and whether it creates deterrence: Web Link

woggut,

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is rather notorious. It was even in the news recently. How could you have missed it?

My preference for policy discussions is peer reviewed research rather than education / advocacy sources which is why I posted the SSRN (social science research network) link. They are well footnoted and you can drill into the statistics, models and assumptions. You can also find the counter-arguments from the citations links.
My personal opinion is the death penalty is not cost effective, but should be applied in exceptionally egregious cases like the James Byrd and child rape / killing I mentioned or similar torture - murder cases.

I want to move back from death penalty to females' rights which supposedly would be in danger if Romney will be elected.
In my opinion, the first right women have in order to prevent pregnancy is the right to say "no" when they feel that they are unprotected or just are not ready for sex. Somehow Obama and his supporters forget about this right, which in my opinion is the real limitation of women's rights.

Good thinking, Anna! Now if we can just round up all those 14 and 15 year-olds who violated their own rights, became pregnant because of their liberal-minded tendency to do the wrong thing, we can lynch them all as the murderers they are. Murder is murder, after all. We need to take the 30 percent of the women who've had abortions and send them all to the afterlife. Forever. They are murderers. Thank GOD there are still people like Anna, Mittens, Woggut, and myself. Our Republic stands on our shoulders. And the truth goes marching on....

Nice name Texas Sugarplum Bluebutton! Your assumption that it's normal for a 14-year-old girl to become pregnant makes it extremely important to be sure that your gender would be unidentifiable.
But, even if you don't like it, 14-years-old girls have brains. And in most cases they can protect themselves from pregnancy and from getting STDs, which is no less relevant with unprotected sex. And, by the way, easily accessible morning-after pills and STD tests can save lots of money for people, insurance companies and the government.

"But, even if you don't like it, 14-years-old girls have brains. And in most cases they can protect themselves from pregnancy and from getting STDs, which is no less relevant with unprotected sex"

But if a teen for some reason becomes pregnant, she should have the right to have an abortion if that is what she chooses.

The GOP wants to make abortion illegal AND stop "handouts" - well, if a poor girl gets pregnant and is not allowed to have an abortion, and she has no means to support the baby, what then? Is the GOP going to pay for prenatal care, delivery, child rearing expenses, college? I don't think so. So be quiet and let each woman decide if abortion is right for her.

The backwards thinking people need to shut up. Abortion is legal thanks to Roe v Wade and should continue to be legal. That is why it is important to vote AGAINST Romney and to vote all the not-so-smart individuals out (Akin comes to mind).

"Somehow Obama and his supporters forget about this right, which in my opinion is the real limitation of women's rights."

No one is limiting a woman's right to say "no." I've never heard any rape or sexual assault victim mention that they felt like they weren't allowed to say "no" when the situation presented itself, so to speak.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's funds go to abortion anyway. Most of these funds go toward services involving STD's, so the big fuss over the correlation between PP and abortion seems a bit unwarranted.

I would also like to point out, Texas Sugarplum Bluebutton, that it isn't liberal-minded tendencies that occasionally lead to pregnancy...it's teenage tendencies.

It's nice to see how someone who is 'progressive, open-minded, tolerant, concerned about women' handles discussions by telling people who disagree with them to shut up.
I never mentioned that I'm against abortions and never mentioned that raped women didn't try to resist.
But, I believe that it's ridiculous that about 30% women in America have an abortion. I can understand how a 48+ year old woman can decide that she is too old to get pregnant and confuse pregnancy with menopause. I see very few reasons why a young women with easy access to all the range of contraceptives and a knowledge of the dangers of unprotected sex would wait until abortion is the only remaining option.
Everybody agree that it's OK to have condoms in high school bathrooms. What would happened if they will also have morning after pills there? But of course, reducing the amount of situations requiring abortion would greatly reduce the efficiency of claims about GOPs war on women.

Well I think we are going to soon find out because Romney is still moving up in the polls and now ahead in Ohio by 2, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvanna are both back in play. It looks like he might win by a landslide.

Yes, and New York and California are just around the corner. Will Obama get any electoral votes except from Washington DC? It feels good for a change to be part of a Repubican landslide victory. I just looked at Princeton Election Consortium. 98% chance of Romney victory. And the objective, non-lying pollster Rasmussen -- "Will the American public reject Obama's deplorable policies?" (Rasmussen editorial) -- is singlehandedly winning the day! It is SOOOOOO exciting. Obama is toast. No, he already is that. Ha-Ha. He's burnt toast. Romney HEARTS forever!!!

" reducing the amount of situations requiring abortion would greatly reduce the efficiency of claims about GOPs war on women. "

You need to pay attention. The GOP is against abortion AND against birth control. Did you read their platform, announced before the GOP convention? Have you forgotten Palin? Her teen daughter had a baby because they taught her abstinence! That's the GOP for you these days. If it were up to them, there would be no sex ed taught in schools.

I look forward to a repeat of 2008. Even though I think deep inside Romney is fairly moderate, he is letting the extreme ones run the show. Santorum endorsing him, Ryan his VP pick - yikes!

"Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's funds go to abortion anyway. Most of these funds go toward services involving STD's, so the big fuss over the correlation between PP and abortion seems a bit unwarranted."

This is not true. It's what they want you to think but it's false. Three percent of their **services** are abortions, but they consider handing out a condom and performing an abortion to be on equal ground -- each is considered a 'service'. In reality, they spend much, much more on abortion services than they lead the public to believe.

Biden has nothing on Ryan. Paul Ryan is one of the smartest people in Washington. Joe Biden just does what his union donors tell him to do. Biden is like Pete Stark; can't control what comes out of the mouth but has little trouble following orders from the people that PUT him in office.

Time for change!

Ryan is brilliant. He doesn't hate women like some claim. He merely doesn't think they should have their own minds and own say on things.

Ryan learned a lot about the real world when he worked at McDonalds when he was a youngster. It has served him well in Congress where, over the past 16 years he has written and passed two bills. Now two doesn't sound like much, but they were really important. One was to remove excise tax on arrowheads sold in sporting goods stores. The other was to rename a Post Office in honor of Ted Nugent.

Oh, and Ryan says he likes heavy metal rock, especially the deep lyrics one finds in the genre.

That's why he gets my vote. He's clear thinking, hard working, and wants to keep women in their rightful place.

Please vote YES on 32! California needs to loosen the ligature unions have on our states politicians. It won't stop the hundreds of millions unions spend during presidential election cycles, or any election cycle, but it will eliminate the unions ability to collect/skim union dues from union employees that do NOT share the same vision of America as their union Boss's.

The unions literally run this state which is why California government is in the current sorry mess that is, and why we are literally leaving mountains of debt to future generations.

No on 30!
Yes on 32!
Yes on 32!
Yes on 32!

No on B1! Why would anyone of sound mind vote for a tax without a sunset clause?

Please vote Yes for Thorne, Pentin, Brown

The proposition prohibits corporations and unions from using payroll deductions for political purposes, but of course corporations don’t use payroll deductions; they use their profits. So, corporate donations would not be banned. Only unions would be affected by this ban.

So Arnold rants that its not fair for unions to support their candidates but for big corporations and millionaires it's perfectly ok. Koch and company are who Arnold supports- those who can donate secretly without accountability.

Hmmmm....Arnold, you certainly do expose yourself with this hypocrisy. More for the wealthy as you support here, and screw the middle class workers.

" dark money groups including the Koch brothers and Karl Rove have donated millions to pass Proposition 32. The American Future Fund (AFF), a front group for corporate special interests that’s linked to the Kochs, dropped $4 million to the effort to pass Prop 32. American Future Fund is an Iowa-based “advocacy organization” backed primarily by oil interests and directly linked to billionaire oil tycoons Charles and David Koch. As a 501(c)(4) organization, AFF does not disclose its donors and can receive unlimited contributions."

This is the future that Arnold is encouraging us to embrace- no ability for middle class workers to have a say, just the billionaires- they deserve to be above the rules.

Every worker should have a voice in their paychecks....like a basic American freedom ! 32 would protect that right to determine where their paycheck goes. For an employer or union to take money for politics, would require the worker's consent.

Americans desperately need Romney as President. Businesses will open up and turn loose, we'll have more jobs, Congress will cooperate more, Romney will get the frozen Dem Senate to loosen. As Mass.Governor he worked with his 85% DEM Legislature.
Life will be better with a more vibrant economy. We need a fresh
start. And for the flamethrowing partisans, Romney is very pro-contraception, and single moms are desperate for more and better jobs that a vibrant economy would provide for them and their families.
Obama said he'd be gone in 3 1/2 yrs if he couldn't keep his promise.....well, he didn't.

"Posted by Big B: The proposition prohibits corporations and unions from using payroll deductions for political purposes, but of course corporations don’t use payroll deductions; they use their profits."

Prop 32 only requires unions to get approval from their members before skimming money from their member’s paychecks to fund political actions. What's wrong with that unless you fear the members don't like your tactics or politics? What right is more basic than supporting the candidates or issues you want to support during an election? I think the union Cartel is only concerned about their paychecks, bonuses, golf outings at the expense of members, and their own political agenda.

And I thought the unions were concerned about workers rights. I guess the Unions only fight for workers rights when it doesn’t detract from their own slush fund.