Hoeffel is to the left of Lenin.

I hope the stupid D’s nominate this extremist.

He will get smoked like in 2004

Joe, you do NOT stand with all the women of this state if you are taking the incorrect and divisive stand that ALL women are pro-abortion.

If the Democrats are so concerned about women, why don’t they run one?

Michael,

Are you saying that you don’t think Republicans are concerned about women? In regards to electing women, Democrats have a better history of that than Republicans do. You’ve made your personal thoughts on this clear in your comments on Dawn Stensland — that women should only run if they can keep their spouses interested.

Michael-
How in your crazy, mixed-up, right-wing spin-machine does a male Democrat advocating for women become a question about whether Dem support women?
I don’t see you supporting Peg Luksik or women’s rights (or common sense). You certainly slammed Dawn (as aajane) pointed out.

Lisa-
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Did you ever notice how Sarah Palin is the hero of the pro-life movement because she made a CHOICE?? Yep, they thought about it and made a CHOICE.
Outside of crazy Octo-mom, have you EVER seen a pro-choice Democrat complain because a woman chose to have baby and advocate for an abortion instead.
As a woman, don’t you like having the freedom to chose? If you got pregnant and were in a bad situation (rape, financial ruin that you couldn’t provide care, no health insurance, or at extreme health risk), would you want the government to strap you down and force you to have a baby if you decided you didn’t want one?
Dems not only want you to have the choice, but if you want to have the baby, we want you to have health care so that ISN’T a factor pushing to abortion.

Stalin Jr-
Well, if you are advocating for Stalin over Lenin, you’ve pretty much shown how seriously we can take your opinions about extremists.

David, Without going off on an abortion debate and the oh-so-important semantics of “pro-choice” vs. “pro-abortion”, what I object to is a blanket painting of Kate Michelman as someone who represents “women’s issues” as if all women favor abortion by virtue of their sex. Surely you are aware that there are women out here who vehemently disagree with the positions of Michelman and NARAL. Michelman is not simply a feminist advocating for women’s rights; she represents a very specific abortion rights agenda and does not represent ALL women’s beliefs, whether you agree with those beliefs or not.

In embracing Michelman, Hoeffel has staked out the pro-abortion rights territory for himself, not the broader women’s rights territory. It’s an important distinction.

Lisa-
The “issue” is that women who want the choice are at risk of losing their right to it.

The women (like you) who would never have an abortion are not affected, nor harmed, even if you given the choice. It’s still an “issue” that you have the right to make decisions about your own body.
Besides, it’s it more “satisfying” for people like you or Sarah Palin to boast that you had options and “chose life”? Or would you rather say, “I had no choice in the matter. The decision was made by the government without the input of me, my family or my doctor. I’m happy that I had no say in the matter.”

The “issue” is defending your right to choose and have self-determination as a free thinking person. Who has the right to tell you what you should do with your own body? Even if you would have made the same “life” decision, why are so eager to turn over the decision to the government?

It’s pro-choice rights territory, so please stop calling it pro-abortion, since that is NOT what is being advocated.

Anyway, reproductive control is actually the fundamental core of the broader women’s rights movement. The advent of the pill in the 60′s freed up women to choose when to have a family or prevent pregnancy. Many young, married women had difficulty finding employment due to the likelihood they would become pregnant. Once they gained control of that, they moved up in the work force.
The pro-life movement has two sides. Besides the “preservation” of the unborn, parts of the movement are against birth control. This part is not only irresponsible, but it has the hidden agenda from the “traditionalists” who want the women barefoot, pregnant and back in the kitchen. Because if you remove birth control, that’s what the inevitable outcome is. Abstinence isn’t a fair option for married women that want to wait and build a career or a business before starting a family.
Look at the fight the conservatives put up against day-care and pregnancy leave of absence. Why? To make it more difficult for women to remain in the workplace.

The women that are willingly handing over their right to choose are taking a step backward for their overall rights.

If you want to “choose” to have a baby, fine. At least make sure that it was your own choice.

David,

Thank you so much for defining what “women’s issues” truly are. I’m sure you have a much better handle on it than I do.

For God’s sake, (requisite apologies to all the non-believers, agnostics, atheists, etc.) can’t we get rid of this y from the political scene already?