An open letter, and a promise, to Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Governor McDonnell, you have the power to stop this atrocity.   The government of Virginia is poised to retrogress to a patronizing, sanctimonious mass of social laws designed to step on women.

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject in whatever form the “personhood” bill and the “ultrasound” bill reach you.  Reject them outright.

I am so repulsed by the ideas espoused in these bills that I will make a promise.

I will promise, should these bills pass with or without your signature, that I will not cast a vote for a Republican in Virginia until they are repealed.  Nor will I cast a vote in a national election for any ticket with which your name or your endorsement is affiliated.

I will do what I can to get other women and others who value individual freedom to join me.

Hypocrisy

You can’t rail against rationing health care, then pass laws that outlaw medical procedures because you don’t like them.  That’s rationing the health care people can get.  Or if you decide your medical plan can’t cover certain procedures, that’s rationing health care.

You can’t argue that the “other party” will stand between a doctor and patient, then define which medical procedures that doctor and that patient have as options.

You can’t insist your tax dollars won’t pay for one thing without allowing there are lot of things that are an anathema to many, even most, taxpayers.  Therefore, you can’t single out abortions without singling out plastic surgery, war, congresscritter staffs, bailouts, government takeovers of private industry, and myriad other things.   When you’re ready to present a menu from which ALL Americans can pick and choose, you’re free to not fund health care.

Why women should abandon the Republican party in droves, immediately.

Talk about a disrespect toward women.  The national Republican party has directed its health insurance provider that it will  opt out of abortion coverage.  No one who works for the party can elect a perfectly legal procedure, making her own choice, and have it covered by insurance.  (Want to bet they can have breast implants, face lifts, or liposuction, though–things that make the little woman more attractive?)

Because, of course, the little women can’t make the choice for themselves.

Because the little women need to be “protected” from their own decisions.

Republican party chairman Michael Steel said “”Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”  This from the man who thinks Democrats’ power has gone to their heads.  ( He also said [about the NY-23 race] “If you don’t live in the district, you don’t vote there, your opinion doesn’t matter very much.”   Funny how that doesn’t apply if he isn’t a woman and didn’t fertilize that egg.)

Damn, I almost wish I worked for the Republican Party, just so I could publicly resign.

Now it’s up to the General Assembly

We need the Virginia General Assembly to keep the theocrats in check, now that they think they have some kind of mandate.  (It amuses me they’ll assume “mandate” on issues they didn’t mention during the campaign.)

They need to be reminded it’s GOP, not GOD.

Turn the tables …

Imagine, just for a second, this quote came from US Attorney General Eric Holder, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, or Democrat Steve Shannon:  “I will not defend what I, in my judgment, deem to be an unconstitutional law.”  (K. Cuccinelli, 4/4/09) [emphasis mine]

The fearmongers would be having a heyday.  Fox News would go national (probably giving it even a more tabloid spin).  Anti-liberals would be apoplectic, sputtering all over themselves about people who would ignore duly passed laws.  They’d be arguing that it’s not the government’s role to make those determinations, but the people’s.

So I cannot in any way comprehend why these same people are endorsing that attitude for the Virginia Attorney General seat.

What are they thinking????  Don’t tell me “conservatism” (in Cuccinelli’s case, conservatism manifests itself as anti-gay, anti- non-traditional family, anti-choice, holier-than-though power plays to control what choices you make for yourself), or logic.    Call it what it is … hatred of “liberals” – another undefined term.

I guess he doesn’t know the word “hypocrite”

Ken Cuccinelli.

You know, the guy who’s been running for AG in Virginia for longer than Terry McAuliffe has wanted to run for Pope.

Yeah. That guy.

Who started a “don’t tread on me campaign” … forgetting that “don’t tread on me” means leave me the hell alone. From the same man who thinks “choose life” is the only choice, forgetting to take in to account that he has no say in someone else’s moral choices, that he would deny women choice of a perfectly legal medical procedure (good stance for an AG, eh?), and that “Don’t tread on me” means mind your own flipping business.

The same man who led the fight to deny two perfectly rational adults the right to marry.  Who still insists they have no right to marry – because they don’t fit into his idea of what love and marriage might mean.  Who forgot that “Don’t tread on me” means mind your own flipping business.

Ken … don’t tread on me.  Get out.

Well, at least he did what few others have been able to do — seriously consider making me actively support a Democrat.  Attorney General is a position where legal skills and clarity of thought should be significantly more important than ideological extremism, and so far he has campaigned on his priorities to target lawbreakers, while  Cuccinelli has gone negative and stressed ideology.  I’ll be watching Shannon closely, but so far he seems the more honorable man.

Guess who said this?

In 2001, when Vermont’s Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords switched from the GOP to the Democrats, handing control of the Senate to the Democrats in the process, none other than Arlen Specter decried the move as unethical and unfair to the voters. “I plan to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a senator’s change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting,” he said then.”

and in March:  “I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role — a more important role — to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two-party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense, and I don’t want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.” –Sen. Arlen Specter

Not that it matters.  You see, he doesn’t place the rights of the unborn over those of the born, or decry medical research that may save lives.  So the Republicans don’t want him.  It’s called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Published in: on May 4, 2009 at 7:07 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Candidates who have lost any hope of my support …

Ken Cuccinelli.  First, he’s been bugging me for two years; he can’t take “no” for an answer (i.e. I will not guarantee him my support yet); he claimed victory in debates, and then slammed his opponents for doing the same.  Hypocrite.  Plus, he’s anti-family and anti-choice.

Dave Foster.  I’ve spoken with Foster, and told him some of the things that are important to me.  Yesterday, I got a pre-recorded phone call that said his number one priority is getting Bolling and McDonnell elected.  So he’s putting politics over the job.  No thanks.

Bill Bolling.  I got the most hateful letter today, lambasting “liberal democrats” for being pro-abortion and pro-gay.  Good for them.   His letter includes these paragraphs…

I will continue my fight to stand up for your family by defending pro-life policies, fighting for traditional marriage and stopping leftwing (sic) extremists who want to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Our opponents will continue the Obama-Kaine legacy of high-taxes (sic), big government and fiscal mismanagement and turn our entire state government over to liberal Democrats and their pro-union, pro-abortion, anti-marriage, anti-gun owner (sic), anti-business friends. …

As I’ve mentioned before, pro-choice is NOT anti-abortion.  And anti-marriage?  I suspect he meant to say “pro gay marriage”.  He apparently doesn’t want gays to vote for him.  Pro-union I can agree on, partly, but only because unions as a rule went way beyond what they should have done — they went beyond “fair” to “greedy”.

Kris Amundson.  Not that she’ll be opposed, but once again she’s playing the “House Republicans obstruct my agenda” card, this time in her blog.  Note, no link, so no indication of which Democrats also agreed.  Not even a “x Republicans and x Democrats voted …”

Someday, perhaps one of these four will realize that you don’t always win voters by placing the party above all else.  I will not vote for you BECAUSE you’re a Republican, or BECAUSE you’re a Democrat.   I might support you in spite of party affiliation, but you have to earn it.

The “conscience clause”

Seems the “conscience clause” is becoming news again.  Some health-care workers (IIRC, it began with pharmacists) don’t want to participate in health-care options they see as against their moral code.  Interestingly, though, no one is against plastic surgery, or lasik, or other elective options.

A person who chooses to enter the health-care field should not be able to pick and choose whether to deliver options normally within the scope of his duties.  If he can’t perform the functions of the job, he shouldn’t be in that job.

Don’t want to perform abortions or sterilizations? Fine. Become a chiropractor, or dentist, or ophthalmologist, not a gynecological surgeon.

Don’t want to participate, nurse? Work hospice. Work ICU. Or don’t work medicine.

If you want to be a pharmacist, be one — not a preacher.

Enough said.

Pro-life AND pro-choice

I don’t know ANYONE who is pro-abortion, despite the labels that vocal pro-lifers use.

I do know a number of people, and I suspect there are lots and lots more, who are pro-life and pro-choice.

We respect life. We also respect a woman’s choice to do what’s best for her and her family. We hope she needn’t choose abortion, but it’s not up to us to choose for her.

It is even more abhorrent that some among us would choose to legislate the choice. I get so furious when I hear someone speak of free will, and liberty, and making one’s voice heard, and on the other hand takes liberty and free will from another.

Published in: on March 12, 2009 at 6:49 am  Leave a Comment