Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 12:55 PM
Thu Nov 26
64 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Email
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/25/09
Of course that money was going to rosaries! They assigned the government monies to the textbook fund, bought the same textbooks, and used the extra to buy rosaries! But it was symbolically important for SCOTUS that the funds be separate for many many years--until 2002, IIRC, in the Zelman school voucher case--so they were formally separate and the schools had to go through all the bureaucratic hassle Anna outlines up there as a constant reminder: the federal government does not wish to subsidize this product/activity.
But now that this supposed fungibility is benefiting women and not his organization, Cardinal Justin Rigali is worked up over it? Oh. Okay.
08/25/09
Pro-life/Blue Dog Dems can holler about not supporting all they want, but they know they either fall in line for the final vote or they're getting their asses primaried asap.
08/25/09
08/25/09
Fine ass holes. Block it. I don't need heathcare coverage. I have it. I'm sure there are some "pro-life democrats" who don't. Fuck them. Let them not get coverage. I'm really reaching the end of my rope when it comes to heathcare. Seems a lot of people who oppose it are the ones who need it. Well, if they don't WANT it...
08/25/09
Let's see how long they last then.
08/25/09
I like your style.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
Yesterday, I was at my mom's side when she passed from ovarian cancer at 74. She lived a long life, and she was fortunate to have insurance. If she had not, we would be in the same boat and all of us would have bankrupted ourselves to get her treatment.
I've said it before, it is obscene for anyone to make a dollar off of whether we live or die.
Randall Terry, et al: FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
What that young woman's situation shows, to me, is how NOBODY wins without health coverage. Not people. And, well, think like a Republican for a moment (i.e. Turn off your heart.): Those hospitals and doctors responsible for that woman's treatment will never receive compensation for their work. It doesn't even make sense financially.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
It's obvious Randall Terry doesn't watch The Daily Show, or he'd realize he's just making himself look crazier than he already is.
08/25/09
08/25/09
Obviously not.
*sigh*
The sad part is, he and his "audience" are what's wrong with this country. Apparently ignorance is more palatable than reason.
08/25/09
Unless, of course, you are willing to pay taxes.
08/25/09
I'd add that they need to stop letting horrible priests be in the presence of children.
08/25/09
I guess they just want to make sure the recipients of their tax dollars are miserable at the time. "If you're gonna take my tax dollars you better be suffering!"
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
Thank-you. Thank-you for someone finally saying it. And Randall Terry should be ashamed of himself (well whenever should he ever not be. The man is just plain disgusting). If he cares so deeply about "innocent life" then he should want to ensure it has the right healthcare to survive.
But alas, I forgot. For people like Terry, it has nothing to do with the fetuses or even the people they might become. It does have everything to with wanting to control women's bodies and their rights.
08/25/09
08/25/09
So if we don't allow people to get abortions when it's that kind of rape, what kind of message are we saying? Hey, you knew the guy, you have to have his kid? Or worse - we won't force you to have the child of a degenerate stranger, because they're a degenerate stranger?
If we're not drawing any kind of distinction, and just saying it has to be rape and the woman has to claim it's rape, how the hell does that really solve anything to anyone's satisfaction?
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
Thanks for your response - I definitely get that it's a red herring, it just bothers me when the language is so obvious. Especially in light of the invasive vaginal ultrasound as a requirement before abortion (for rape victims!?), it just... ugh. I would at least hope they had thought it through a bit. I know, there are Bad People who are pushing this through who *are* thinking it through. I just mean the people who are anti-choice who really feel it's ethically wrong. Are they questioning this? Are those people out there who really have a lot of inner conflict over this issue, or do all of those people pretty much wind up in the pro-choice side of the debate?
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
If the right continues to deny that women have and enjoy sex, then I'm tempted to organize a boycott of sexual congress with the male gender. Let's see how long their opposition to the reforms last then.
08/25/09
08/25/09