Issue of the Week: Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Threatened
And
here’s the bad news: Women’s reproductive rights are under attack by
politicians who are more extreme than their predecessors. For example,
Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott Walker and Mark Neumann have both
accepted the endorsement of the extremist Pro-Life Wisconsin. That means that
they have promised to oppose abortion in all cases—including when a woman has
been raped or is a victim of incest, or if her life is in danger—and also
oppose all forms of birth control, including condoms.
In
contrast, Pro-Life Wisconsin did not endorse the Republicans’ gubernatorial
candidate in 2006, Mark Green. And former governor Tommy Thompson, while
reliably anti-abortion, also supported family planning programs and
contraception.
Walker
and Neumann are more radically right-wing than their Republican predecessors on
reproductive rights and, if elected, would have the power to undo hard-won
victories, such as the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Act, prescription
protection measures, and family planning coverage for men. The attack on
reproductive freedom may be a stealth one right now, but it should be on every
voter’s radar before the Nov. 2 election.
Event of the Week
Dryhootch Open House and
Grand Opening Celebration
Dryhootch,
a nonprofit peer-to-peer counseling organization for returned veterans
transitioning to civilian life, is launching its very own coffeehouse.
Celebrate the grand opening of the Dryhootch coffeehouse, at 1030 E. Brady St., and support combat
veterans and their families. On Saturday, Aug. 28, at 10:30 a.m., the grand
opening ceremony begins with greetings from Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Ken Black, Brig. Gen. Donald Dunbar,
Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Director Robert Beller and Dryhootch members. From
noon to 11 p.m., there will be free Palermo’s
Pizza for Dryhootch members (while supplies last) and music by Guitars for
Vets. On Sunday, Aug. 29, at 10:30 a.m., Chaplain Ray Stubbe will preside over
an ecumenical prayer service/blessing; later, Guitars for Vets will return. For
more information, go to dryhootch.org.
Hero of the Week
Jim Fiste
When Jim Fiste retired
from his career as an engineer, he never envisioned the role he would play for
children worldwide. But his post-retirement plans changed once he learned of
“Operation Christmas Child,” which collects and distributes toys and
necessities to children in need.
Fiste, the program’s
Milwaukee-area coordinator, organizes a year-round volunteer effort to get
items into the hands of children living in the world’s most adverse locations:
war zones, refugee camps and areas of natural disaster or extreme poverty.
Donors are asked to fill and decorate a standard-sized shoe box with gifts for
boys and girls in three different age brackets. Though the collection period is
the week before Thanksgiving, Fiste notes that the logistics require long-term
planning because gifts are shipped to often-volatile areas via oceangoing
vessels.
To see recommended items
for sharing and a list of collection points, visit www.occmilw.org.
Jerk of the Week
GOP Senate Candidate Ron
Johnson
Do
you like your home mortgage tax deduction? Then you may not like what
Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson wants to do with it. In an interview
with a Madison TV station, Johnson said he’d consider “horse trading” it to
simplify the tax code. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, roughly a
third of Wisconsin taxpayers claim this
deduction; the average deduction is about $8,700, a significant chunk of change
for a homeowner. Johnson may want to reconsider his radical tax plan if he
doesn’t want to raise taxes on Wisconsin
residents.
The
comments come on the heels of other Johnson gaffes that have drawn national
attention, such as claiming that sunspots cause global warming (they don’t),
trees “suck down” carbon dioxide (pollution is good!), that Greenland was once
green (it wasn’t) and that he didn’t want to “second-guess” Bush administration
claims that Saddam Hussein had “nuclear weapons capabilities” (Saddam didn’t,
but Bush invaded anyway).
Forget Mark Neuman and Scott Walker! Good thing that Jim Fiste is doing with his free time. It's good to give back. Ron Johnson is just looking to make sure that other lobbyists benefit instead of the taxpayers.
Has anyone thought of the RIGHTS of the helpless babies? They don't have a "choice". Why should they pay the price for the stupidity of the so called adults in the situation?
Kat -
Please keep your naive world view contained within the safe walls of your church. We govern this country by law, not by theology. I don't want your biblical stupidity getting in the way of my political and social well being.
Yes, Kat- shut up, slave! Your opinion does not fit with the liberal agenda, so it must be silenced. Classic "open-minded" liberal response to a fairly reasonable post: BE SILENT! Because ending an innocent, helpless life with a totally clean slate is OK, but we certainly cannot execute a multiple-murderer, drug-dealing thug. Gosh, no, that just wouldn't make sense, would it?
Did I tell Kat to be silent, Pyg? Of course I didn't. It's so typical of a naive Neo-Con to ignore fact in favor of running their fool mouth off. Keep the theology contained withing the walls of a church or your own home. Don't attempt to infiltrate my politics with it. We don't have time anymore to put up with that kind of childish behavior. Until Neo-Cons and Republicans are ready to admonish ALL killing, i.e. War, Capital Punishment, then they should keep their mouths shut about "killing" of any kind.
"Until no conservative thinks anyone should be killed for anything, we will continue to advocate the killing of babies." Brilliant- your logic is razor-sharp.
Thanks for proving my point, Pig. Why should any naive Neo-Con bother reading anything if they can just open their mouth and spew garbage. Being a hypocrite is your cross to bear, not mine. I'm not going to stand idly by and let some dimwitted, church-going, misinformed Neo-Con decide who should be saved from death and who shouldn't. Do me a favor, Pyg; if you're going to debate me, debate the points I bring up. Not the crazy ideas you get in your head.
louis cypher:
I too am puzzled by your request of Kat. What did Kat say that was in any way offensive? Further, what did Kat say that was in any way religous?
You expressly ask that Kat "keep theology withing the walls of a church or your own home." There was no theology present in Kat's statement. Many people believe that life begins at conception rather than birth. This is a biological concept and not just a religous concept.
You don't have to agree with Kat, but asking Kat to keep silent on this issue is uncalled for. And that is what you are asking for. Asking that someone "keep their mouths shut" simply because you might disagree with them is hardly tolerant of all ideas and beliefs.
Shame on you.
Sundae -
The statement, "Has anyone thought of the RIGHTS of the helpless babies? They don't have a 'choice'," is empirically and intrinsically theological. The anti-chocie movement is solely rooted in Western religion. It's the plight of American Christian's to oppress "non-believers" with their will. Until the day comes when American Christians denounce killing of all kinds, they shouldn't be so bold and hypocritical as to so vocally villainize a woman's right to choose. They should keep that chat confined to their homes and their churches.
Again- "keep your freedom of speech confined to spaces that I define." The classic "progressive" viewpoint. YOU interpreted Kat's statement as theologic and religious. It is not for you to determine what the "intrinsic" content of Kat's statement is- the statement is right there, for all to read. And to say that it is "empirically" theological is just wrong. If there is not a single reference to religion or theology in the comment, how can it be "empirically" determined to be religious or theological? Empirical means based on observed evidence. Your point that Christians must denounce all killing or none is childish. A system of justice can be applied to the application of capital punishment. Abortion lacks any justice at all- a life is ended on a whim. (By the way, I wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. That's just common sense.) The real right to choose lies in a woman's (and a man's) ability to refrain from unprotected sex if she is unprepared to be a mother. That is common sense, and acceptance of personal responsibility for this "choice" growing in the womb.
Pyg -
You've obviously no understanding of the words empirically or intrinsically.
Who gave you, or any Christian, the RIGHT to decided when the RIGHT to CHOOSE is acceptable or not. What "justice" is there in an innocent child being killed by a stray bullet or bomb during a war? What justice is there in executing a criminal? Eye for an eye is so Old Testament, Pyg. Your buddy Jesus condemned that with "turn the other cheek. How is killing turning the other cheek? How is it ok for Christians to absolve killing with the right hand, while the left is busy denouncing it? That's hypocrisy, Pyg.
BTW, Pyg, the "observed evidence" is that only Christians have presented the arguement of "think of babies! what rights do they have?!?" Hence, empirically theological.
The real right in America lies in our ability to choose to abstain from religion or practice which ever one we choose. Keep your naive practices away from those who don't subscribe to them.
Another thing, it's not an abortion issue and it never has been. It's a choice issue. I don't know a single soul who's "pro-abortion" as Christians are so quick to pronounce. The choice shouldn't be limited to the circumstances.
Assumptions are decidely not empirical, louis, and you're making several: 1. That Kat is a Christian, 2. That I am a Christian (not raised Christian, in church only for weddings- I'm a cheerful agnostic) 3. that I support any war (don't, not even Afghanistan after 9/11, more isolationist than anything), 4. that I support capital punishment (don't, wish I could, but it's not our decision to make to take a life) and 5. that all Christians support war and capital punishment. You support my definition of empirical, then defend it poorly. So, Christians are pro-life, thus anyone who is pro-life is a Christian? That's worse than non-empirical- many Christians are pro-choice, and many non-Christians (with common sense) see how abortion on-demand degrades our society's standards. And seriously- it's not about abortion, it's about the choice?? Abortion IS the choice! So, if I agree with Kat, but I'm not a Christian and don't have a church, where do you want me to go to sequester my opinions?
louis cypher:
I find you to be a fascinating combination of arrogance and hypocrisy. You assume that someone who believes that life begins at conception must be a Christian. Therefore, someone who believes that an unborn baby should have rights must also be a Christian. Therefore, since someone is a Christian, they are not able to speak their opinion because it must be based on ideas and beliefs that you deemed to be wrong.
Believe it or not, there a many people who believe that life begins at conception that are not Christian...or any religion for that matter. Just like I know Christians who believe that abortion should be allowed. It's a crazy diverse world out there and you should embrace the differences.
You also state that Christians are out to "oppress non-believers with their will." Yet, you wish to oppress Christians with your will simply because you disagree. Again, telling someone (who may or may not be a Christian) to keep their opinions to themselves is your attempt to oppress others. You cannot complain about others attempting to oppress you only to turn around and attempt to oppress them. You practice hypcricy at the highest level.
Now, let me state something that will probably cause your head to explode. Many Americans believe that killing unborn children simply because they are not wanted is wrong; but executing those criminals who kill innocent people to be right. This makes more sense than thinking it is good to kill unborn children and bad to kill criminals.
You state that nobody is "pro-abortion." I suppose you prefer the term "pro-choice." Yet what about the "choice" someone makes to engage in activity that could result in pregnancy? Many believe that once the choice that creates the baby is done, there are no choices left.
If you want to debate issues, then lets have a honest debate. Trying to win a debate of issues by insisting that someone who disagrees with you does not help your cause. Quite frankly, it makes you look petty and insecure.