Posted By: sandybryant on

Thursday, July 17th, 2008, 11:46 am

The Bush Administration wants to require all federal health care monies recipients to sign a piece of paper that says they’ll not discriminate in hiring those who oppose abortion. If these organizations don’t sign, they don’t get federal health care money.

The even bigger problem with this is that the HHS memo defines abortion in such a way as to include any form of birth control that could possibly prevent implantation of a conceptus (fertilized ovum). It trumps state laws that require all hospitals to provide/offer emergency contraception to rape victims. From the NY Times article yesterday:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

This bothers me to no end. I have no problem with a doctor or other medical professional not wanting to perform abortions, but I have a huge problem with extending the definition of abortion to include most forms of birth control. In doing this we’re granting the right to refuse to provide women with necessary medical treatment.

Sorry folks, but if you do not agree with providing birth control you shouldn’t be a pharmacist or work in the OB/GYN field. Birth control comes with the territory and if you feel that providing needed care goes against your religious beliefs then perhaps you’ve chosen the wrong field of practice.

Tags: health, rant, politics

Posted By: sandybryant on

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 1:05 pm

When will politicians learn that negative campaigning really only achieves one thing—lower voter turnout? A friend campaigning for Congress spent much of his campaign attacking his opponent. When I asked others in his district what they thought of my friend, they said they knew little of his views and felt his attacks on his opponent were overly nasty. Needless to say, he lost the primary.

Back when Bill Clinton ran for President, his staff had a phrase they kept repeating to stay on message: “It’s the economy stupid.” Focusing on this message achieved exactly what Clinton needed to win the Presidency. Voters knew where he stood on the issues and why he would be better than his opponents.

Give me a politician who can clearly state his stance over one who slings mud any day!

Tags: politics

Posted By: sandybryant on

Monday, June 9th, 2008, 11:21 am

Back in 2004, I listened to coverage of the Democratic Convention, in particular all the buzz about a youngish man running for the Senate in Illinois. Despite this being his first foray into national politics, there was a certain excitement about him. The press loved him, and I remembered there was a similar excitement over Bill Clinton after the Democratic Convention in 1988. The public seemed to be more excited about Clinton than the national candidate back then, Dukakis. Barack Obama had that same sort of energy about him.

Right after that Convention, I told my husband that Obama was the man to beat in 2008. He laughed at me. So did many others when I repeated that statement. Everyone KNEW that 2008 was to be Hillary Clinton’s year. But you see that’s the problem with becoming the heir presumptive too early. It’s hard to build the kind of excitement Obama had just from making one great speech in 2004. And Hillary, much as I think she’d make an excellent President, lacks the sort of charisma that Obama and even her husband has.

Yes, when it comes to qualifications, Clinton is far more qualified than Obama. But if we’re really to argue about qualifications, neither of the Democratic front runners holds a candle to McCain. Not only has he served longer, he’s been known to work diligently for bi-partisan action on important issues. And of course the very big plus in his column for me is that he served in our armed forces. It makes a leader think harder about taking our men and women to warzones when the leader has also served. A leader with that experience knows their lives are not to be trifled with.

But I’m voting for Obama instead. 8 years of the Bush administration have convinced me that the GOP is not the party of fiscal responsibility. I particularly admire that Obama stood up and spoke out against a gas tax holiday. That took guts, and he’s right—it is a stupid, non-productive move. I’m also concerned with how many new laws are going on the books today that restrict a woman’s reproductive choices. I don’t want a pro-life President there when Ginsberg retires.

Good luck Obama. You will need it in fighting your way to an historic election. I just hope that the racism ingrained in so many does not lead to your defeat.

Tags: politics

Posted By: mommapolitico on

Sunday, June 8th, 2008, 9:13 pm

If you enjoy politics and raising your family, please visit my blog,

www.mommapolitico.blogspot.com

Hope you'll explore, make comments and enjoy!

Tags: family, mom, politics, blog, mommapolitico

Posted By: GeeCheGuy on

Sunday, June 1st, 2008, 6:08 pm

On the eve of a Republican debate, Representative Ron Paul discusses the history of peacemaking in the Republican Party, going back to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War. He traces the idea of an America "making the world safe for democracy" to President Woodrow Wilson and urges smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Tags: politics