« OBERSTAR IMMEDIATELY GOES NEGATIVE AGAINST GRAMS | Home | BLOGGING AT THE HOOVER DAM »
LOUREY ENDORSED BY MINNESOTA NOW
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 9, 2006
It shouldn't be a surpise that a women's organization that supports abortion on demand endorsed a woman who supports abortion on demand.
##
"Minnesota NOW (National Organization for Women) this week announced an 'A' rating and endorsement of Becky Lourey for Governor. The Lourey campaign will receive a political action committee donation and in-kind assistance from the group. No other candidate for Governor has received the Minnesota NOW endorsement or an A rating" Source: Becky Lourey for Governor e-mail, May 9, 2006
Tags: Becky Lourey, NOW
Topics: Becky Lourey, NOW | 32 Comments »
32 Responses to “LOUREY ENDORSED BY MINNESOTA NOW”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:45 PM
“Abortion on demand”? What is this, the 1970s? Who uses words like those these days?
Besides, what’s the alternative? No medical care for pregnant women until Bill Frist looks at a video and makes a conclusive diagnosis?
Seriously, what the heck is “abortion on demand” supposed to mean? Is there an alternative, like “abortion in a few years” or “abortion after refinancing the house”?
May 9th, 2006 at 8:05 PM
Hello,
Here is a definition. NOW may be using another one in their litmus tests for candidates.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0303695.html
1. the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.
2. an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request.
Abortion on demand is what happens without moral guidance, shared responsibility, and principles
Regards,
MN1
May 9th, 2006 at 9:13 PM
Ok, so what is your proposal then – if you think abortion should be illegal, what should be the penalty for the woman? 10 years, 20 years, Life without parole, the death penalty?
May 10th, 2006 at 8:23 AM
“An abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request.” That sounds like abortion on demand to me.
I assume punitive measures, whatever they may be, would be directed against the doctor performing the abortion, not the individual requesting it.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:37 AM
Lefty is again distorting the facts. Since they can’t defend their position with factual retort, they add in and change the argument to something they feel it should be. Maybe you might want to add something about global warming since it doesn’t have anything to do with Abortion either.
Bottom line is that Lib’s don’t think before they react, they simply feel and that’s good enough.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:55 AM
OK, how about air embolysums on demand? That’s one of the ways women die from illegal abortions. Or maybe septicimia (infection). Of course, there was also often the rape that would be added by the “back-alley” abortionist when abortion was/is illegal.
Every three minutes a woman dies of the effects of an illegal abortion, in fact giving childbirth is 8 times riskier to the health of a woman than an abortion.
All illegal abortion does is kill women. Does not stop abortion, never did, never will. Just makeswomen criminals and increases the odds they will die trying to deal with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:04 AM
Why do pro-lifers always say that women shouldn’t be punished for abortions, only the doctors? If you think abortion is murder, then why shouldn’t the mother who gets an abortion be charged with murder? If a mother paid a doctor to kill her 5 year old child, would she not be charged with anything? What’s the difference, if you think abortion is murder of a human being?
May 10th, 2006 at 9:37 AM
How far back should it go? Say a guy rubs one out, and spills sperm for a purpose other than procreation. Should that person be charged with individual counts of homicide for every individual sperm killed? How about a womans menstrual cycle? It is the ejection of unfertilized eggs. Should having a period also be a crime?
I find it hillarious that Republicans want to protect every baby up until the moment it is born, but then, like absentee daddies, they run far and fast to make sure they never have to pay a dime again. And not only that, they harp on democrats for their dastardly desire to help take care of all of these unwanted kids.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:43 AM
Ummm mn1 and KenT, no one is forced to get one.
You don’t like abortions? Stay away from them!
If your PARENTS and FAMILY and PASTOR are influential in your life then you will make the responsible, morally guided decision.
Now, if you already define that decision as NOT having an abortion, then you want to legislate behavior- not morality. Let me tell you, if you want to go down that road- fine. Us Libs got a lot more behavior we’d like to legislate that goes beyond the bedroom buddy.
Emotional morons.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Emotion, eh? How about logic? I thought you libs were all about the “community” and taking care of one another, hence the never-ending demand for more money for your social programs that never solve the problem, which is eradication of poverty.
So, which is it? Do we have an obligation to one another or not? If so, why are you so inconsistent when that obligation involves those who are dependent upon your decision? Because if we don’t have an obligation to one another as you all have preached, then why are we supporting all of these social programs? After all, according to your logic, your decision is your decision and I should not be concerned about its effects. Remember? Stay away from abortion? Well, be consistent by staying away from my wallet when you want to raise taxes to support yet another social program that pretends to ameliorate another societal problem borne by others’ decisions.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:24 AM
I’d like to know who had the first abortion? Who got pregnant and then went, “Damn, I wish I weren’t pregnant. Hey, wait a minute, if I just…” and who on earth responded with, “Yeah, I’ll help you with that.”
It’s really quite sick when you think about it.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:32 AM
WTM, you can always get your ass out of my country and go to Mexico where your money will be your own- or Cuba or China where you will only have to appeal to a few to get to keep all that you own.
South Africa is good for that too. Of course they pay for police, schools and roads by the wealth of the neighborhood.
What have you done for all of the American children that are in abusive situations or raised in the foster care system? Hundreds of thousands of them. What do you say when you see people coming back from China and Eastern with adopted children while we have so many here we can’t keep count?
If a woman feels that she cannot, will not or shall not provide unconditional love and consistent support for a child- and the father is unable, unwilling, or unlikely, then maybe, if she can handle it, should consider an abortion in the first trimester. THEN- how abotu some comprehensive birth control discussion availability? Sex Ed works! SO does birth control.
It seem you Republicans are more upset with thought of people screwing each other a lot more than with the state of children today.
Actually isn’t that your problem with gays too? Can’t stand the thought of them having a little or a lot of fun?
Why the hangup with sex?
May 10th, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Tommy –
Maybe it was the the first 14 year old incest victim impregnated by her father? Or maybe it was the first woman to eat the dust of the Father who took off the second he found out about the pregnancy? Or maybe it was the woman working a minimum wage job, who already had three kids and couldn’t afford the cost of proper pre-natel care, much less the cost of raising a child?
I know it wasn’t my Mother, who had a partial miscarriage the year before I was born but because the Doctor’s we so afraid that removing the dead fetus (died after my Mother was exposed to measles) would be a violation of the state’s abortion law. As a result they waited almost too long and came within a hair’s breath of having to do a total hysterectomy due the infection that had started as a result. Again, year BEFORE I was born.
Very, very, very few women say “damn I wish I wasn’t pregnant…” and of the very, very, very , very few that may say that …. do you really want them to be parents?
May 10th, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Bob makes a good point; in fact, it’s what I came here to say. If abortion is illegal, shouldn’t the woman be punished if she hires someone to perform an illegal abortion?
If she hired a hit man to rub out her husband, she would be punished. If she paid off some crooks to rob a bank and give her a cut, she would be punished. But according to many pro-lifers, if she hired someone to kill her unborn child (to use their terminology), she gets off scot-free. Why is that?
May 10th, 2006 at 2:17 PM
I’m confused. So the pro-choice crowd is saying that if we put restrictions on abortion, a women who has one outside of those restrictions should go to jail. Is that what you guys want? You’re pro-choice, yet you want women to go to jail for having an abortion?
I think it’s like underage procedures. If a state has a law that says juveniles can’t get fake tans, I run a tanning both and bake 12 year olds, I get fined, not the 12 year olds who walked in to get the tan.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:22 PM
“Should that person be charged with individual counts of homicide for every individual sperm killed? How about a womans menstrual cycle? It is the ejection of unfertilized eggs. Should having a period also be a crime? ”
Where did you take biology? Minneapolis public schools?
“I find it hillarious that Republicans want to protect every baby up until the moment it is born, but then, like absentee daddies, they run far and fast to make sure they never have to pay a dime again.”
Apparently you haven’t done much research on the social volunteer work and financial donations that conservative make. Perhaps you need to get some diversity in your life. Find out a little bit about the other side. You may find out some things that don’t match the bumper stickers on your Volvo.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:50 PM
“WTM, you can always get your ass out of my country and go to Mexico where your money will be your own- or Cuba or China where you will only have to appeal to a few to get to keep all that you own.
South Africa is good for that too. Of course they pay for police, schools and roads by the wealth of the neighborhood.”
Wow, such strong language. I thought you were above the fray, that you were not an “emotional moron.” Apparently, not. Anyway, sorry to disappoint you, but I’ve got to stay here to help my wife raise my son. Regardless, I thought it was you libs that were going to move out of the U.S. when Bush was re-elected. What happened? He’s in for another two years, you’ve still got time to move.
“What have you done for all of the American children that are in abusive situations or raised in the foster care system? Hundreds of thousands of them. What do you say when you see people coming back from China and Eastern with adopted children while we have so many here we can’t keep count?”
Since you asked: previously, I was a Big Brother in Big Brothers/Big Sisters; now that I have my own child, I devote my time and effort to raising him. I also know many, many families who have adopted children both here and abroad.
“It seem you Republicans are more upset with thought of people screwing each other a lot more than with the state of children today.”
Nope, I’m just concerned about making sure that would-be children actually have an opportunity to become children.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:27 PM
My reasoning on abortion goes something like this:
If we are ever able to determine conclusively when life begins (at conception, at birth, at our tenth birthday party, etc.), then I would be in favor of abortion up to that point, but not after.
Unfortunately, we don’t know when life begins (leaving aside the hot-heads on each side who are convinced that THEY know when life begins). Additionaly, with each passing year, our medical technology becomes more advanced, allowing us to save babies at earlier and earlier stages of their development (i.e. babies who are born two months premature can now survive, thanks to advanced technology). Taking these two things into consideration, I would prefer to err on the side of caution: maybe an abortion ISN’T ending a life…but maybe it is. Until we know for sure when life begins, I don’t think we should take the risk.
I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the potential preservation of life over the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy.
Just my two cents.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:49 PM
Quick joke …..
What did they have at the last MCCL meeting?
OMELETS!!
May 10th, 2006 at 4:05 PM
If life begins at conception does that mean if a couple comes from France and conceives a child on American soil that child is an American?
So many straw men, so little time.
Fact of the matter is Lourey has nothing about ‘abortion on demand’ on her website. Nor will abortion be an issue that will be overturned anytime soon, especially by a governor. In Minnesota the gop controls the house, governors mansion, and up to federal controls the house, senate, white house, and 60% of judges were appointed by gop presidents.
If it is not going away yet, we need to come together and do what we can to reduce the number of unintended pregnancy’s. Such as education, and contraceptives over the counter including Plan B. If women had more options for help after the birth more would keep the child. GOP slash them children’s throat every time they slash a social help for women program.
May 10th, 2006 at 4:24 PM
“GOP slash them children’s throat every time they slash a social help for women program.”
Can you give me some specific examples of programs with reduced to eliminated funding? I see Republicans spending money like 1960′s Democrats.
I’ve owned a house for 4 years now, so itemize my deductions. I never realized how much I donate to chartible groups (and how much I increase that every year). How about you? And mean real charities. Not the Gutherie Theater or Sierra Club.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:16 PM
Sounds like the Abortionists are really angry today. I certainly hope that I can take some credit for stirring you up.
Thanks to all of you morons for proving my original point.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Dan – the point is that the women we are talking about are adult women having abortions. We are not talking about juvenile justice here. What should be the penalty for an adult woman who has an abortion?
Those who want abortion to be illegal, should answer that question. It’s revealing that you want to say the woman is a victim and she doesn’t know what she’s doing or is like a child. Adult women are not children.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:16 AM
Dave, I just had to google WIC cuts.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:qyDqRG5rFaEJ:www.afscme.org/action/fy2006.htm+WIC+funding+cuts&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
I commend your charitable donations. It is people like you that keep the weakest among us a float.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:32 AM
Demrock, You linked to AFSCME. I’d like to see something put out by non-Bush haters. It’d be like going to the Taxpayers League to get info on mass transit.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Dave,
It’s Bush’s plan not, what AFSCME thinks of it. It’s the Republican Agenda.
You were saying…
May 11th, 2006 at 3:14 PM
The first question is are these actual cuts or simply reductions in the rate of growth?
May 11th, 2006 at 4:03 PM
“Dave,
It’s Bush’s plan not, what AFSCME thinks of it. It’s the Republican Agenda.
You were saying… ”
I’m saying you can make statistics say anything you want. If one program is being cut, but another is being funded to replace it, then you just talk about the cut, not the replacement. Is it a cut in funding or a cut in the rate of growth? Is it being shifted to the states with grants going to the state and local gov’t to help? I’m saying that the AFSCME newsletter is left around town. I’ve read it. Those guys are nut jobs. They have Hate Hate Hate for any one to the right of Sheila Jackson Lee.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:39 AM
OK Dave, let’s go point by point:
The President’s budget sets a new, record-setting deficit of $427 billion. It wipes out the $5.6 trillion surplus President Bush inherited from President Clinton just four years ago. The budget pretends to reduce the deficit in half over five years, but it doesn’t even start. The President’s budget omits the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ($80 billion), the true cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent ($1.6 trillion), modifying the Alternative Minimum Tax which is hitting increasing numbers of middle class taxpayers ($774 billion), or the $4.5 trillion cost of his Social Security plan.
—————————————
Where are the statistics in the above? What is debatable about the above?
Go ahead smart guy.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Um, the issue here is whether WIC was “cut.” Go to comment 24 and re-read it if you need your memory re-freshed.
Again, are these “cuts” cuts, that is an actual reduction in spending BELOW the prior year’s base appropriations, or are they reductions in the rate of growth?
May 13th, 2006 at 5:00 AM
Eva,
23 “the point is that the women we are talking about are adult women having abortions. We are not talking about juvenile justice here. What should be the penalty for an adult woman who has an abortion?
Those who want abortion to be illegal, should answer that question. It’s revealing that you want to say the woman is a victim and she doesn’t know what she’s doing or is like a child. Adult women are not children. ”
I think Lesbian Republican women like you are alone among most women in the desire for an adult penalty.
The woman IS the victim here. Normal non victims share the responsibility with the father and dont use biological circumstance to justify unilateral homicide. Should the law allow for exceptions? Yes. But legislation should be informed and morally guided not depraved. That includes abortion on demand
Again I believe your opinion is in the minority Eva
MN1
May 13th, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Demrock6,
24 Your link says WIC was NOT cut in 2006 and MAY be cut beyond FY 2006 but specifies nothing.
I’ve seen elsewhere their budget is 4.9 billion
MN1