I'm a neonatal nurse. Bear in mind that we routinely have babies born in the third trimester who live viable lives. They also feel mental and emotional stress. In the neonatal units they display this in many ways. I am absolutely pro choice, but third trimester abortions should have a lot better reasons than that the mom decided not to be a mom and she waited until the third trimester to decide. If we're going to do that, it would be much, much kinder to make a law that allows for the baby to be humanely killed after birth. I'm not in favor of that. But that's the reason for partial birth abortions. The idea is to kill the baby before it's completely out of the birth canal because it's illegal once it is completely out. There are times when that's a kindness as in the severely deformed, but I don't think that most people would be in favor of it just because the Mom decides she doesn't want to be a mom and she's upset about it. She has six months to decide before we get to that point. She has an ultrasound at five months to check for abnormalities. Late term abortions should be for the physical health of the mother. This is a traumatic procedure for doctors and nurses too. It should only be done for very good reasons.

Posted at July 5, 2008 3:59 AM in response to thoughts on Obama's recent statements on abortion

It means that if you didn't get an abortion early on and now you decide that it's stressful, you can get one at a late date. I'm a neonatal nurse. We deliver babies that live healthy lives at weeks gestation no later than some of these abortions in late term. An abortion of cells is defensible. A baby that feels pain and fear and may actually live for a while is a different story. Women should have control over their own bodies, but for my money, they can decide sooner. If you've been raped, you know it. If there is incest, you know it. If your belly is getting big, you know it. If people know that they need to make decisions earlier, they will. Abortion is still an option at the fifth month when the ultrasounds are done if there is gross abnormality. It's pretty disgusting if a woman just didn't get around to deciding sooner than six months pregnancy. These are fully formed human beings. They suffer. I am strongly pro choice, but cruelty is hard to stomach.

Posted at July 5, 2008 3:42 AM in response to Obama: Mental Distress Shouldn't Qualify As Exception For Late-Term Abortion

How do you spell kickback? The campaign doesn't care that out of a half a million they only get $17,000, oh please.

Posted at July 5, 2008 3:32 AM in response to Georgia Campaign Doesn't Complain About Hefty Fundraising Fees

Oh for Pete sakes. Telecom immunity as far as this bill goes means simply that a few people can't sue them. They're still liable for criminal prosecution. Is the responsibility to the American people the key point or is the key point the ability of a few to get rich off the telecoms? Personally, I'd rather see some people lose their freedom for a while. It would be much more of a national satisfaction than knowing that forty people got a bunch of money. Those forty people are important, but after they got their money I'd still feel that justice was waiting. The telecoms are not protected from criminal prosecution by this bill. Bush and Cheney aren't protected by this bill. I want the people responsible to experience consequences that are more compelling than money. I want these activities to be deterred in the future. Money won't do that. Jail time will. Bush and Cheney would be a good place to start.

Posted at July 5, 2008 3:25 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

Oh for P

Posted at July 5, 2008 3:17 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

It isn't that it would hurt so much if they disagreed. It's that they're doing it so loudly that they've taken the wind out of the sales of hundreds of thousands of others who were just riding the winds. They're stealing the energy of this campaign. They may still be willing to vote for Obama, but they've influenced swarms of others who won't. If they just wanted to feel differently, they could have done it quietly and writen a letter to Obama. But they've made a big splash of it and their influence has done harm if the goal is other than McCain.

Posted at July 5, 2008 3:00 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

You're dreaming if you think McCain doesn't stand a chance. The netroots have taken 50% of the steam, at least, out of this campaign in the past ten days. Go read Obama site comments and see how discouraged many of the most faithful are. And then think about how the fence riders feel. Obama has gone considerably down in the polls of numbers of Hillary fans who say they'll vote for him in the past ten days. It comes out to a lot more than Gore lost by.
Anybody who thinks a candidate can afford to lose a million voters here and there hasn't been looking very closely.

Posted at July 5, 2008 2:51 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

Oh kitty bunny, you're so right! I hear so many comments that don't seem to remember what strategic planning is and aren't willing to allow their candidate the luxury of same because they'd rather be "right" than win an election now and then. Hence the dems have had only one two term president since FDR. I like strategists. I think they make good presidents. But hey, it probably won't make much difference to the country and the world if force it down their throats McCain is the next pres. Who cares? It's all a game. Right?

Posted at July 5, 2008 2:45 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

I think it's more like two thirds is in the middle and the left overs are right and left.

Posted at July 5, 2008 2:40 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

Amen and more of the same!

Posted at July 5, 2008 2:34 AM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach