Speaker of the House, Bob Bergren has lent his support to the group combating the CI-102 Initiative by holding a sign reading “Don't Sign Away Your Right to Privacy” at one of their rallies that they could use for campaigning against the CI-102 initiative. I am a little unclear how the passage of CI-102 will sign away the Bob’s right to privacy but I am glad he is at least out there doing something to advance his senate campaign. http://www.flickr.com/photos/no_on_ci102/page2/
This constitutional amendment, which is commonly referred to as the personhood amendment defines a “person” to be every human being regardless of age which would be interpreted by the anti-abortion groups as beginning at conception. The following is the initiatives ballot language
BALLOT LANGUAGE - CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE 102See the full text here; http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/CI-102.asp
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION.
The due process section of the Montana Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. CI-102 amends the due process section of the Montana Constitution to define “person” as used in that section to include every human being regardless of age, health, function, physical or mental dependency, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being. It directs the legislature to implement this definition of person by appropriate legislation.
[ ] FOR amending the Montana Constitution’s due process section to define “person” to include every human being from the beginning of the human being’s biological development.
[ ] AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution’s due process section to define “person” to include every human being from the beginning of the human being’s biological development'
Considering that absolutely no one has seen Bob in Havre in months it is good to know that he is actually still around and trying to line up some support from the pro-abortion folks to claim the Senate seat in his race against Rowlie Hutton. Where have you been Bob?
Ok...if I had ANY doubt you were a trashy right wing tabloid before, I have no doubt now. BTW...who is pro-abortion and what does that term mean. Not that I expect a response from the weasels who write this S*() but just askin?? Also I would encourage Bob...to get his s*() together....
ReplyDeleteRed, I think pro-abortion would be the opposite of the term anti-abortion but I think the politically correct terms are pro-life and pro-choice
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't get it. what privacy is bob being asked to sign away with the ci-102? (and I did read the secretary of states description of the inituative)
The loony left is taking a play out of the Sal Lewinski socialist book with it’s in your face opening of any dialog. If you don’t like Oboma’s policies you are a raciest. If you are pro-life you are against government but it is OK for the government to interfere with you personal choices: As though taking over General Motors is on the same level as killing the unborn. Each day the liberals wake up and telegraph the mantra of the day to all the bubble headed lemmings and it is like the pull string doll. The same question will get you the same answer who ever you addressing
ReplyDeleteThe liberals wake up each morning and wonder what they can do to help, what role government can take to improve the live of citenzenry, and work hard to bring these ideas to fruition for the betterment of society.
ReplyDeleteConservatives obstruct. It still amazes me how they can get the working poor to join the teabaggers particularly as a way to deny themselves decent healthcare.
The argument could be made that FDR was the most liberal of the presidents. Many historians, including this armchair one, consider him to be the greatest of all the presidents, and the accomplishments that happened under the New Deal not only saved the country, but also led to the Great American Society.
He also won the Big One at the same time.
It is time a new New Deal.
"pro-abortion" is a tacky term to use. It's like saying those who are for the death penalty are pro-electrocuting a criminal to death.
ReplyDeleteI believe "pro-choice" is the much better term. And it does not mean someone is all gung-ho on abortions, it means someone wants women to have the choice to make decisions about their own bodies.
Which CI-102 would take away.
Interesting that HDC didn't report on the tables set up during the primaries to persuade people to sign the CI-102 initiative to get in on the ballot, but now that Bergren hold's up a sign advocating it, its suppose to placate the liberals that read this blog.
Funny I didn't get any of that. It appears to me that the post was about showing Bergren was actually doing something to get elected even if no one in Havre ever sees him doing any campaigning
ReplyDeleteI have wondered why Bob hasn't been campagning myself. I went to the Centennial celebration in Rudyard this weekend and saw Republicans Rollie Hutton and Kris Hansen, Independent Jeff Lavoi, and one of the non-politicals for Justice of Peace, Cathy Huston but that was it. Are they the only ones that want to get elected?
ReplyDeleteI did see Bob driving around Havre on Saturday so I know he was in town. Maybe he doesn't think he can win this time and doesn't want to waste his time campaigning?
Pro-abortion? Is that the latest catch-phrase of the pro-ignorant?
ReplyDeleteThe pro-choice crowd is trying to get you to believe that CI-102 will diminish a woman's privacy between her doctor and her. There is nothing in it about a man's privacy
ReplyDeleteMaybe Bob thought he was a woman when he was holding up this sign?
On second thought I am wondering just how many people actually vote for a person strictly because they are pro-choice or pro-life? That issue is secondary to some of the other issues I hold more important when I vote
ReplyDeleteWhy sugarcoat it say exactly what it is "pro baby killer",works for me.
ReplyDeleteFed up said: "Why sugarcoat it say exactly what it is "pro baby killer"
ReplyDeleteAre you truly that stupid? I know of no one that is pro-baby killer and to suggest that it is a proper term shows you to be a complete idiot.
Sadly, it is apparently beyond your intelligence to understand what pro-choice entails.
Here is a little clue for you: Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. Two different things.
This blog makes baby Jesus cry.
ReplyDeleteYou are either for killing the baby or you are against it period.It's in your hands.Too many women have terminated babies as a form of birth control.There is a waiting list 1000 miles long of couples that would love to adopt.You can use the term pro- choice all you want,it still means the choice is to kill the child or let the child live.
ReplyDeleteFed up said: "You are either for killing the baby or you are against it period."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely false. But at least we know just how ignorant and simple you really are. Let's hope you haven't bred.
I am not the ignorant one here if anyone is ignorant its you.You don't try to explain your definition because there is no other definition,it is what it is.As a matter of fact I do have kids because i am pro-life not pro-death.
ReplyDeleteBy all means wallow in your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI am pro-choice. However, I am, personally, anti-abortion. That may be a little too deep for you but it is not at odds, logically, at all.
To be pro-choice means (to me) that a woman should have the choice when it comes to her body. Preferably she will choose to have a baby but it is not for me, you, or anyone else to dictate what happens with her body.
In the meantime, keep prattling on and showing all exactly how backasswards and uneducated you really are. LOL
And when your daughter gets raped by some man and he impregnates her you tell her to be "pro life" and not "pro baby killing."
ReplyDeleteI do love how so many pro lifers are the first to agree with the death penalty.
Being prochoice means you advocate the right for a woman to be able to choose her options in life and that she has the right to safe options.
A friend of mine inpregnated a 27 year old woman,it was not a long term relationship,but my friend wanted the kid.She went and killed the child.Don't you think my friend had A say in the matter?And to the dandelion flame I asked my 30 year old daughter about your rape comment and she said if it would have happened to her,she would of gave the baby up for adoption.
ReplyDeleteFirst off Fed up, abortion is not murder. Murder is taking the life of a living BREATHING human being and is illegal in most of the world. Abortion is ending the formation of a NON breathing fetus, usually done within the first 20 weeks, and usually only done after that in cases of potential death to the mother or severe mal-formation to the fetus. I say usually, because of course there are those who abuse these procedures. The infamous Dr. Tiller who was savagely murdered was one of a few doctors in the country who performed late term abortions. Did you know that in order for him to perform those late term abortions he legally had to have not one, but TWO recommedations for the proceedure by an obstetrician. Meaning that either the mothers life was in jeapordy or the fetus was not going to live outside the womb. Abortion is rarely used as just an easy alternative to following thru with the pregnancy. I too would likely choose to carry the child to term and either raise it or give it away, BUT I totally respect those who don't feel that is an option for them. Fed up, I know you could never possibly understand as you are a man, but carrying a baby is no easy task. It sounds like your friend was as irresponsible as his partner in making the choice to mistakenly get her pregnant. That was his first mistake, and I will tell you that until and unless men can start carrying their own offspring for the full 40 weeks then NO I don't think they can solely make the decision. Maybe he should of waited until he was in a long term relationship with someone who wanted to have a child.
ReplyDeleteOh and I meant to add that abortion is LEGAL in these United States of America and therefore cannot be classified as murder.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Red here. Nailed it! As far as Bob. I like that guy. What other family can pump drugs into our community for so many years and instead of prison, a race to the Senate! Oh no im not spose to talk about that kind of thing am I? Well I dont care. Talk about a corrupt little town we got here. Lindsey getting busted with a bunch of coke and never charged. Drunk driving adulterer biget mayor Bob. Drunk driving Chief of Police. The list goes on. The worse the kind of person the more power. Seems a lil bass akward doesnt it?
ReplyDeleteAnytime a person who professes to be pro-life starts using terms such as "murder", "pro-death" and the like they are attempting to define the debate on emotional terms and simply show the paucity of their position. A tactic that isn't viable in junior high debate classes let alone as a legitimate technique for a supposed adult.
ReplyDeleteFed up is a classic example.
TO Red thanks for not calling me stupid for my personal beliefs.To surelyyoujest i have 2 degrees and am probably more educated than you.There are 3,600 abortions a day thats 1.2 million a year in the USA,so maybe using a tougher terminalogy may not be such a bad idea.
ReplyDelete" i have 2 degrees and am probably more educated than you.
ReplyDeleteLOL - further proof that holding a degree doesn't always represent intelligence of said degree holder.
For the record, you are more than entitled to your opinions/beliefs. However, when you try to obfuscate the issue with emotions and your own provably wrong examples of facts you should, and will be, called on it.
Don't like it? Try a little intellectual honesty for a change or at the very least educate yourself.
well here is an interesting site Fed up: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177
ReplyDeleteHere in Helena we are trying to reconstruct our sexual eduaction curriculum. We are facing a stiff resistance from a minority (thank God) After reading this website, maybe you can help me to understand why we have been pouring Billions of our tax dollars into a failed system known as Abstinence only? You right wingers want to ban abortions and use inflamatory words like murder to stir the pot. You want to ban any and all sex education, then you want to eliminate social programs like SCHIP. Its like a perfect storm of ignorance and stupidity. You want to eliminate more abortions...than support us educating our youth!! And obviously I don't know your position fed up, but since you consider abortion murder I am "guessing" you lean this way, otherwise I am speaking to the right wingers floating out there.
SurelyYouJest11:
ReplyDeletePaucity?
Obfuscate?
I think I have a crush on you. ;)
Sincerely,
bsg
Incidence of Abortion
ReplyDelete•49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; almost half of these are terminated by abortion.
•In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred.
•Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.
•An estimated 43% of women will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
To RED i believe in every bit of sex education, and as far as the abstinence theory I knew that was a big waste of time and money when they came up with the idea,I was young once also.I am not casting stones at anyone,because i've done terrible things in the past,all i'm saying is these women are not going to an ice cream social and they should realize it,not make it in vogue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am to the point where I hate even coming to this blog because the comments have gotten so personal in their attacks. Here's shawn bithing about everything and anything even to the point of callling a whole family drug runners? I have known this family for years and while one or two may partake I don't think everyone is a drug runner.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's like the pot calling the kettle black isn't it?
Corrector I think Shawn has gotten even worse than NEO who you banned from here if I recall correctly
fed up, you are way off-base if you think that most women who have abortions do so lightly or without heartfelt consequence, generally life-long. I have known many women who have had abortions, and none of them didn't still carry the psychic weight of that difficult choice.
ReplyDeleteI am pro-choice and believe only a woman (who has to carry a baby to term at significant risk to her own health, and be primarily responsible for a child's future, whether by raising it herself or giving it up for adoption) should bear the ultimate decision-making authority regarding how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, or a planned pregnancy gone terribly awry. I would never want that right legislated away, especially not based on one group's (generally religiously-based) beliefs about when life begins.
There are enough abused, neglected & thereby often significantly messed up 'wanted' kids in our society that we don't need to be forcing parenthood on people who have the insight to realize they can't manage or cope with a child - for whatever reason.
The truth is that outlawing abortion isn't likely to result in millions more adoptions - it would likely result in millions more children growing up in difficult, if not dire, circumstances, and a return to the deadly black market in abortion procedures that existed prior to Roe v. Wade.
In an attempt (perhaps foolishly) to bring a tad bit of levity to a very serious subject, I would simple add that if men were childbearers that abortion would not only be legal but men would be bragging about how many they had.
ReplyDeleteHow can you even compare me to Neo? Common. I know i said the family. But i did not mean the entire family. Just a couple rotten apples. Its not like im the only person who knows. Pot calling kettle black? Im not a drug dealer. How can you say that? I apologize. Maybe i shouldnt speak the truth. Some people just cant handle it. I will try to stay on subject from now on.
ReplyDeleteI would completely agree with Bigskygal... excellent post. I also do not believe that banning abortion will increase adoption by any significant number. We will revert back to women (particularly scared teens) getting back street abortions and risking lives.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion wastes so much time, Roe verses Wade will NEVER, NEVER, be overturned. The day Women have Men decide what they can do with their bodies, they better watch out for their own because they will never have the equipment to produce babies. If all the effort for the Pro-Life movement was put into supporting women who are facing difficult choices, helping them raise children, or helping with adoption, maybe there would be less abortions. The debate it over, it is done and has been for a long time. That does not mean you have to agree with the law, by all means have as many children as you want, but be willing to raise them to be productive citizens. Please do not waste important time in the legislature on this debate, its been debated already, the women of America would make the current war we are in seem mild if their choice were taken away. Candidates should not even have to address this anymore, and if thats their only agenda, too bad for the taxpayers. I respect both pro-life and pro-choice, the reasons both have are passionate and meaningfull. Do not make this a campaign about abortion it WILL NEVER BE OVERTURNED!!!!!!
ReplyDelete