Obama stated first when he became president, that his goal was to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies first, not expanding abortion rights. This is the better focus that we need to have at this point. The same social issues that keep some of these woman from access to abortion, are also the same issues that lead to them getting pregnant in the first place, so our focus here my be putting the cart before the horse.

The same thing is happening in this instance. Democrats are willing to compromise women’s rights to introduce health care, believing there will be something to fix it later. How can we progress while conceding previous progress? I agree health care is a very important issue, but with this amendment, would the concessions be worth it. Years would be spent trying to gain back the footing lost through the addition of this amendment.

I’m sorry, but why would there be an hysterical backlash to that? You’re basically saying that men should have rights they already have. No one can force a man to be a parent. It is a choice a man can make before he has sex with a woman, after she becomes pregnant, or after the child is born.

If you’re trying to say that men have no right to decide whether or not their child will be born after conception, you’re right. Sorry, but unless and until men are able to become pregnant they don’t get to make that decision. They have a voice, and I will never buy into the argument that men have absolutely no right to express an opinion about abortion or say what they want a woman to do about a baby once conceived. They have the right to say what they want, but the woman has the final decision.

There is true inequality in only one situation I can think of. That is where a man and woman have sex, the man uses protection, the woman becomes pregnant, the man says he does not want a child, the woman decides to give birth, and for the next eighteen years the man is forced to pay for that child. Such a situation places an unreasonable burden on a man who has been reasonable in his actions. However, that’s part of the risk you take if you have heterosexual sex.

If you bring a life into the world, wanted or unwanted, you have to take responsibility for it. Unfortunately, the law can only compel men and women to take limited responsibility, including making financial contributions. The law cannot compel either to actually be a parent to that child. The law cannot compel either to have any form of contact with that child. The law cannot compel either to want, like or love that child.

So I’m afraid your argument is without foundation. Every man has a choice at any time whether or not he wants to be a parent – he just doesn’t have a choice as to whether a woman he has had sex with gives birth to his child. And that is a choice no man should ever have the right to make.

Although Ms. Ruby-Sachs is one of the worst writers I have ever seen in any sort of publication, she does manage to make viable points. This isn’t a gay issue OR a straight issue, it’s a human issue.

For Heaven’s Sake – I will never understand how adults can be so ignorant of the political process, and yet claim to be sophisticated and analytical.

The amendment has ZERO chance of surviving what the adults in ashingotn call the ‘Reconciliation Process” – during which differences between the House and Senate bills are ironed out and those amendments that are deemed unacceptable to one house are removed.

Wht do you think is oging to happen to this silly amendment in the Senate? it is going to be removed from the bill – just as nearly every politician KNEW and KNOWS now.

The sole purpose of the amendment was to permit politicians in the House to appeal to their bases – without any risk of actually having the amendment signed into law. Everyone ‘wins’ – health care advances – abortion friends and foes get to brush up their street creds – and, sadly, less than sophisticated political analysts and commentators get to waste time and energy blowing off emotion on an absolute non-issue.