November 25, 2009
Health-Care Deal Breaker
Washington's Senators Won't Vote for Reform Without Abortion Funding
Tools
If anyone tries to use the upcoming U.S. Senate debate over health-insurance reform as a way to limit federal funding for abortions—as happened in the House of Representatives earlier this month—Washington State's two senators will be ready to push back hard.
At an event in Seattle on November 23 to promote her health-care proposals, Senator Maria Cantwell said she would vote against any reform bill that includes language akin to the House’s Stupak Amendment. That amendment, which passed on November 7, would place severe restrictions on payments for abortions under any government-run health-care plan (the type of plan known commonly as the public option).
Stranger Personals
"I don't want to see the Stupak Amendment," said Cantwell, whose vote will be necessary to get to the 60-vote threshold for passing any Senate reform bill. "I think it would take what now is the full range of health-care options for women—if you are part of a public plan—off the table. I think it's the wrong direction."
Alex Glass, a spokesperson for the state's other senator, Patty Murray, said Murray has a similar feeling. "She thinks that what happened in the House was incredibly unfortunate," Glass said. "She will work in every way she can to keep language like that out of the Senate version... But yeah, it'll probably be a debate."
So that's one clear red line for our senators: Any reform bill should allow abortion funding in public health insurance. But Cantwell and Murray are deliberately vague about their other deal breakers.
Asked whether Murray would vote against a bill without a public option, Glass dodged by saying it was too early to say for sure. But, she added: "We're going to be working really hard to maintain that language."
Cantwell left herself wiggle room, too. "If we're going to spend money on trying to get access for the uninsured, then I want to see something that drives down costs," she said. "Whatever you want to call it."
While it may be infuriating to hear senators still striking a flexible tone on reforms that have been scrutinized in public for about six months—and have been discussed in Democratic policy circles for generations—Cantwell promised that the end is near. She expects a bill out of the Senate by Christmas. Assuming all goes as planned, it will be a historic achievement.
Granted, it will also have been a very slow-moving achievement. But our state's senators don't gain leverage by showing impatience now. In fact, acting like they've got all the time in the world forces the opposition to froth, play its cards, and, hopefully, sputter out. Which is why Cantwell, while predicting a Christmas finish, also sounds ready to talk and talk some more to get the right bill.
"We're going to have a lot of discussion," she promised. 
Share via
1
So our Washington State senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray will not support socialized medicine or shall we call it Obama Care unless the US Government pays for the elective killing of human embryos.
What about all the uninsured millions who are “dying” for healthcare?
Unless Obama Care pays for abortion clinics to suck out inconvenient zygotes with a vacuum or inject the unsuspecting fetus with saline solution, Cantwell and Murray are NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA CARE. Really????
Unless the Federal Government pays the contracts to kill the unborn, Cantwell and Murrary will deny tens of millions of people healthcare.
Wow, that’s monstrous on SO many levels.
What about all the uninsured millions who are “dying” for healthcare?
Unless Obama Care pays for abortion clinics to suck out inconvenient zygotes with a vacuum or inject the unsuspecting fetus with saline solution, Cantwell and Murray are NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA CARE. Really????
Unless the Federal Government pays the contracts to kill the unborn, Cantwell and Murrary will deny tens of millions of people healthcare.
Wow, that’s monstrous on SO many levels.
2
what's monstrous is some backwards right-wing asshole like you trying to frame the debate as a choice between "government paying for the elective killing of human embryos" or "denying healthcare to tens of millions of people" when all the senators want is for government subsidized healthcare to not restrict the rights of poor women to have a perfectly legal procedure done that any rich Bellevue twats can get done through their private insurers. Go die in a fire.
3
Rip City Hustle:
Debate is a discussion. The point of the exercise is to persuade the opposition while seeking the truth of an issue or subject. It functions much like a crucible. Arguments not well constructed or lack substance, get burned away in the process. The legal system uses an adversarial debate system in order to deprive the accused of their freedom or life before a judge and jury.
Calling names and wishing ill on an opponent in debate is out of order and an indicator ones argument or presenter is very weak and out matched.
This seems to be the case with you, Rip City Hustle. Since you wished a painful death upon me (someone you have never met who just happens to have a different opinion), consider getting some mental therapy.
Cantwell and Murray have supported Obama Care from the beginning justifying their actions and the expense of trillions of tax dollars because of 21 million+ uninsured. Now Cantwell and Murray are saying no healthcare for these 21 million+ people unless the government pays for abortions. This means no cancer treatment, no treatment for heart disease, no treatment of H1N1, sexually transmitted disease and mental therapy etc unless the government pays for the termination of the unborn.
As difficult as birth is, the amount of people that die due to childbirth in this country is not in the top 20 leading causes of death. Death from heart disease kills the most, cancer second leading killer; the two make up the lions share of leading causes of death in this nation.
Cantwell and Murray obviously have skewed priorities. If the 21 million+ truly are dying for healthcare as justification for their actions; holding it up over a procedure that directly affects only a fraction of this group is (as I said in my previous post), monstrous on SO many levels.
More...
Debate is a discussion. The point of the exercise is to persuade the opposition while seeking the truth of an issue or subject. It functions much like a crucible. Arguments not well constructed or lack substance, get burned away in the process. The legal system uses an adversarial debate system in order to deprive the accused of their freedom or life before a judge and jury.
Calling names and wishing ill on an opponent in debate is out of order and an indicator ones argument or presenter is very weak and out matched.
This seems to be the case with you, Rip City Hustle. Since you wished a painful death upon me (someone you have never met who just happens to have a different opinion), consider getting some mental therapy.
Cantwell and Murray have supported Obama Care from the beginning justifying their actions and the expense of trillions of tax dollars because of 21 million+ uninsured. Now Cantwell and Murray are saying no healthcare for these 21 million+ people unless the government pays for abortions. This means no cancer treatment, no treatment for heart disease, no treatment of H1N1, sexually transmitted disease and mental therapy etc unless the government pays for the termination of the unborn.
As difficult as birth is, the amount of people that die due to childbirth in this country is not in the top 20 leading causes of death. Death from heart disease kills the most, cancer second leading killer; the two make up the lions share of leading causes of death in this nation.
Cantwell and Murray obviously have skewed priorities. If the 21 million+ truly are dying for healthcare as justification for their actions; holding it up over a procedure that directly affects only a fraction of this group is (as I said in my previous post), monstrous on SO many levels.
4
so what you're saying is that trying to ensure that the rights of lower-income women to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies are not legislated away bit by bit is a "skewed priority".
You seem to have no regard for basic human rights, TylTay. You also seem to have no regard for actual intellectual debate, hence your use of strawmen and your framing of a very complex issue as a simple "either/or" argument.
My conclusion stands - go die in a fire.
You seem to have no regard for basic human rights, TylTay. You also seem to have no regard for actual intellectual debate, hence your use of strawmen and your framing of a very complex issue as a simple "either/or" argument.
My conclusion stands - go die in a fire.
5
Rip City Hustle:
You are attempting to redefine the argument by trying to accuse me of stating words I never wrote. I’m sure you use this tactic in order to manipulate others in your little life in verbal debate, but this is the written word and any objective reader can see I did not mention anything about what women do with their bodies or even the words you attributed to me by quote, namely “skewed priority”. An error only an unadulterated mooncalf would make.
This does indicate to the objective reader however that your argument is indeed very weak and you are truly out matched in this debate as I speculated in a previous post.
Trying to demonize me saying I have “..no regard for basic human rights.” is a groundless accusation. It is yet another pathetic attempt on your part to focus the debate upon the debater versus the issue at hand.
Finally, you fall back into your original pattern and wish a violent death upon me. A predictable ending to a poorly handled argument. Uncreative minds tend to follow simple patterns. Your pattern of wishing violent deaths upon others however is something worthy of addressing with proper healthcare professionals.
I will however restate my conclusion from my previous post; not because I can’t conceive anything else to write, but the true horror of the illogical actions of two veteran US senators res ipsa loquitur.
Unless the Federal Government pays the contracts to kill the unborn, Cantwell and Murray will deny tens of millions of people healthcare.
This monstrous on SO many levels.
You are attempting to redefine the argument by trying to accuse me of stating words I never wrote. I’m sure you use this tactic in order to manipulate others in your little life in verbal debate, but this is the written word and any objective reader can see I did not mention anything about what women do with their bodies or even the words you attributed to me by quote, namely “skewed priority”. An error only an unadulterated mooncalf would make.
This does indicate to the objective reader however that your argument is indeed very weak and you are truly out matched in this debate as I speculated in a previous post.
Trying to demonize me saying I have “..no regard for basic human rights.” is a groundless accusation. It is yet another pathetic attempt on your part to focus the debate upon the debater versus the issue at hand.
Finally, you fall back into your original pattern and wish a violent death upon me. A predictable ending to a poorly handled argument. Uncreative minds tend to follow simple patterns. Your pattern of wishing violent deaths upon others however is something worthy of addressing with proper healthcare professionals.
I will however restate my conclusion from my previous post; not because I can’t conceive anything else to write, but the true horror of the illogical actions of two veteran US senators res ipsa loquitur.
Unless the Federal Government pays the contracts to kill the unborn, Cantwell and Murray will deny tens of millions of people healthcare.
This monstrous on SO many levels.
6
pathetic patty and mushy maria are gonna do a ... gary locke or ron sims, and twiddle, fiddle and fuck around!
kind of interesting how the Stu-Pid-Pak's just keep kicking ass with their 13th century flat earth bullshit, but
our two mushy pathetics can't put up some STONE WALLS, with concrete holding the stones together, cuz ... that wouldn't be nice?
rmm.
kind of interesting how the Stu-Pid-Pak's just keep kicking ass with their 13th century flat earth bullshit, but
our two mushy pathetics can't put up some STONE WALLS, with concrete holding the stones together, cuz ... that wouldn't be nice?
rmm.
8
actually, you bubbling fucknozzle, you did use the phrase "skewed priorities". Someone who's best argument revolves around attacking someone for quoting them verbatim is not worthy of much more than, again, being told to go die in a fire. Please do so with utmost haste. I'd hate to think that my tax dollars might in any way go towards subsidizing YOUR healthcare.
And I notice that you seem to be quite reticent about elaborating on your own views regarding government-funded heathcare and reproductive rights. Why is that?
And I notice that you seem to be quite reticent about elaborating on your own views regarding government-funded heathcare and reproductive rights. Why is that?
9
There should be no amendment of any kind that discourages a legal medical procedure. Doctors and patients should decide which medicines and procedures are appropriate.. not senators.
If abortion is truly wrong, it should be illegal.. and a health care plan is not the place to legislate. As long as it IS legal, it should be accessible.
If abortion is truly wrong, it should be illegal.. and a health care plan is not the place to legislate. As long as it IS legal, it should be accessible.
10
Honestly, as someone who has only ever been lukewarm on either of our Senators, it has been kind of nice watching them on health care and coming away with my main complain being that I wish they would have been more visibly campaigning for public opinion.
That said, given the difference between the opinion polling and the debate in the legislature, I suppose that public opinion will not have a lot to do with the final bill.
That said, given the difference between the opinion polling and the debate in the legislature, I suppose that public opinion will not have a lot to do with the final bill.
11
rip city hustle is correctly analyzing this situation, albeit aggressively. TylTay, from what I know of you so far (4 comments) I hope I never meet you, and I hope your privileged, offensive opinions can one day be changed. For now, you suck.
14
I'm glad Murray won't support this health care deform bill if it denies women's right to choose, BUT this is all bullshit posturing for votes from her idiotic supporters if she's not fighting for single payer. It's easy to "take a stand" in Congress when you're not taking any stand whatsoever. The only health care reform is single payer. Anything less is worse than what we have now.
15
#13, the US government is already killing babies with your money. Heard of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars or are you just a fetus fetishist?
17
#14 - Single Payer is idiotic. How is removing all competition and giving more control to the government going to produce better results. As former Sandinista Gianconda Belli said in her book Country Under My Skin, "I want to rid the world of suffering not democratize it." She said that referring to the government run healthcare.
There are several ways you can look at this. Since Republicans will inevitably get control of the government again they will use government controled healthcare in ways that you will hate. So why on earth would you give the Federal Government more control is beyond me.
Also the Health Care industry is already heavily regulated already why give the government more control when they are doing a lousy job already.
Our social programs are bankrupting us already why would you add another.
If you point to another country that has socialized medicine, I will point out that they have not had to pay for a real standing military. The US has been their military protection by proxy.
There are several ways you can look at this. Since Republicans will inevitably get control of the government again they will use government controled healthcare in ways that you will hate. So why on earth would you give the Federal Government more control is beyond me.
Also the Health Care industry is already heavily regulated already why give the government more control when they are doing a lousy job already.
Our social programs are bankrupting us already why would you add another.
If you point to another country that has socialized medicine, I will point out that they have not had to pay for a real standing military. The US has been their military protection by proxy.
18
It is disappointing that they would draw a line in the sand and reject the public option if it does not include public funding for abortion -- but not draw a line in the sand and reject the overall bill if it does not include a public option. The message that sends is that public funding for abortion is a critical priority, but public funding for healthcare for all (i.e. a public option) is not. It's too bad that they aren't taking a strong stand for the public option, and all of our uninsured neighbors who are not being served by the current terribly broken private-insurance system.
If our senators scuttle the healthcare reform bill because they can't get public funding for abortion in the public option, then they will end up with no healthcare reform (i.e. uninsured people dying) and no public funding for abortion in the public option (because no public option). In my opinion, that would be a tragedy.
Then again, the quotes are not as dramatic as the headline/subheadline make the story appear, so I don't think we know yet where the senators will go on this.
@TylTay and @RipCity -- although the Stranger comment area tends to attract offensive comments, please let go of the personal attacks (in both directions). TylTay points out correctly that the point of debate is to "persuade the opponent", but the abrasiveness of your comments (tone, word choice ["Obama care" in all caps], etc) will only push your opponents away. Ditto on RipCity. It seems neither of you really want to persuade your opponent(s)... and that, in one blog comment section, illustrates the problem with our national discourse. Obama talked about this in "The Audacity of Hope" and I really had hopes for post-partisanship, but it's only getting worse (and truly depressing) at the national level -- pundits but electeds too. Let's try to have a real discussion of the issues here.
More...
If our senators scuttle the healthcare reform bill because they can't get public funding for abortion in the public option, then they will end up with no healthcare reform (i.e. uninsured people dying) and no public funding for abortion in the public option (because no public option). In my opinion, that would be a tragedy.
Then again, the quotes are not as dramatic as the headline/subheadline make the story appear, so I don't think we know yet where the senators will go on this.
@TylTay and @RipCity -- although the Stranger comment area tends to attract offensive comments, please let go of the personal attacks (in both directions). TylTay points out correctly that the point of debate is to "persuade the opponent", but the abrasiveness of your comments (tone, word choice ["Obama care" in all caps], etc) will only push your opponents away. Ditto on RipCity. It seems neither of you really want to persuade your opponent(s)... and that, in one blog comment section, illustrates the problem with our national discourse. Obama talked about this in "The Audacity of Hope" and I really had hopes for post-partisanship, but it's only getting worse (and truly depressing) at the national level -- pundits but electeds too. Let's try to have a real discussion of the issues here.
20
@2: RIGHT ON!!!
Fuck off TylTay!
Or are you just pissed that the twin pathetic disasters of McCain / Palin didn't get to buy their way into the White House?
And @7: then you need to get off the booze, bubbaGump!!
@8: I'd say that TylTay is a typically ignorant, bass-ackwards male PIG who thinks that all women are supposed to be subservient little trophy baby machines. Oh, woe to the bass-ackwards male PIG who suddenly finds himself in the company of---GASP!!!!!-----a well-educated, self sufficient WOMAN!!
Oooohhhhhh, the HORRORS!!!!!!
Go rot in a cage, TylTay, you pathetic sack of raw GOP-washed pooage.
Fuck off TylTay!
Or are you just pissed that the twin pathetic disasters of McCain / Palin didn't get to buy their way into the White House?
And @7: then you need to get off the booze, bubbaGump!!
@8: I'd say that TylTay is a typically ignorant, bass-ackwards male PIG who thinks that all women are supposed to be subservient little trophy baby machines. Oh, woe to the bass-ackwards male PIG who suddenly finds himself in the company of---GASP!!!!!-----a well-educated, self sufficient WOMAN!!
Oooohhhhhh, the HORRORS!!!!!!
Go rot in a cage, TylTay, you pathetic sack of raw GOP-washed pooage.
23
@11: I couldn't have said it better!!!
If only MEN could get pregnant.
Then George Dubya-washed idiots like TylTay would beg for abortion clinics on every street corner.
You'd make me laugh, TylTay, if you weren't so pathetic.
If only MEN could get pregnant.
Then George Dubya-washed idiots like TylTay would beg for abortion clinics on every street corner.
You'd make me laugh, TylTay, if you weren't so pathetic.
24
Please, both sides, listen.
No one wants more abortions. We all want wanted children to be raised in loving & unbroken families. And we get riled up about politics because we love our nation and don't want it to go to crap.
Free will and choice are the very backbone of democracy,- without freedom of choice (in the very ethical sense) you cannot have a way to make a vote. And in a legal sense it's wise to remember, the founders that gave us the right to bear arms also gave us the right to choose not to. Choice is part of freedom, part of our constitution, part of being a proud American.
There's no freedom-lite. No diet™ freedom. As fictional Andrew Sheppard put it, democracy is 'advanced citizenship and you gotta earn it'. Free will and choice, as such, are required in-full - they can be no less than 100% - and they must remain unabridged, if we hope to retain a state of liberty, to be the citizens of a nation of freedom.
Re: the news:
This seems like a simple choosing of battles. The battle either is against a bad health care system that could be a little better, or against the freedom of choice.
Anti-abortionists chant "we're pro-life" but they are rarely there to chant down the death sentence, and they are never there to chant/vote down the millions (lives, dollars, etc) we flush down the tiolet on war.
"Obama Care" as some call it is not a bill that instantly cures heart disease or cancer, so one cannot pretend the choice is a) millions saved from death or b) full freedom of choice. Besides, those with real full freedom are going to work harder to end those diseases than people that would feel oppressed in a nation trying to think / choose / feel for them. I'd prefer good people who read good books go out and do the hard work of getting choices -other than abortion- out to the folks that need it.
Pretending government bills can do that work? Would make as much sense as thinking a government agency like the public schools could teach my kids what I think god and religion are. There's a reason I vote to keep god out of schools - I don't want those bureaucratic and hippy fools screwing it up. That's a job for parents and pastors. So are abortion discussions.
We cannot legislate morality folks... certain nations have tried, and they often devolve to dictatorships, and fail.
I applaud Maria and Patty for choosing real core ethics above simple sum totals / stats. The 'good of the many' in this case is clearly defending choice. Forgetting to protect the health care rights of ALL citizens now (all citizens should have full freedom, whereas not all citizens are dying because of a bad health care system) would do a huge disservice to generations of people in the future.
Of course they won't back a flawed bill. That's their damn job. They're voting ethics above politics, morality above numbers. Ultimately, they -and WE- will all be prouder of that choice in the long run.
Thanks for reading.
@12 "object?" perhaps abject?
More...
No one wants more abortions. We all want wanted children to be raised in loving & unbroken families. And we get riled up about politics because we love our nation and don't want it to go to crap.
Free will and choice are the very backbone of democracy,- without freedom of choice (in the very ethical sense) you cannot have a way to make a vote. And in a legal sense it's wise to remember, the founders that gave us the right to bear arms also gave us the right to choose not to. Choice is part of freedom, part of our constitution, part of being a proud American.
There's no freedom-lite. No diet™ freedom. As fictional Andrew Sheppard put it, democracy is 'advanced citizenship and you gotta earn it'. Free will and choice, as such, are required in-full - they can be no less than 100% - and they must remain unabridged, if we hope to retain a state of liberty, to be the citizens of a nation of freedom.
Re: the news:
This seems like a simple choosing of battles. The battle either is against a bad health care system that could be a little better, or against the freedom of choice.
Anti-abortionists chant "we're pro-life" but they are rarely there to chant down the death sentence, and they are never there to chant/vote down the millions (lives, dollars, etc) we flush down the tiolet on war.
"Obama Care" as some call it is not a bill that instantly cures heart disease or cancer, so one cannot pretend the choice is a) millions saved from death or b) full freedom of choice. Besides, those with real full freedom are going to work harder to end those diseases than people that would feel oppressed in a nation trying to think / choose / feel for them. I'd prefer good people who read good books go out and do the hard work of getting choices -other than abortion- out to the folks that need it.
Pretending government bills can do that work? Would make as much sense as thinking a government agency like the public schools could teach my kids what I think god and religion are. There's a reason I vote to keep god out of schools - I don't want those bureaucratic and hippy fools screwing it up. That's a job for parents and pastors. So are abortion discussions.
We cannot legislate morality folks... certain nations have tried, and they often devolve to dictatorships, and fail.
I applaud Maria and Patty for choosing real core ethics above simple sum totals / stats. The 'good of the many' in this case is clearly defending choice. Forgetting to protect the health care rights of ALL citizens now (all citizens should have full freedom, whereas not all citizens are dying because of a bad health care system) would do a huge disservice to generations of people in the future.
Of course they won't back a flawed bill. That's their damn job. They're voting ethics above politics, morality above numbers. Ultimately, they -and WE- will all be prouder of that choice in the long run.
Thanks for reading.
@12 "object?" perhaps abject?
25
Bravo! That was probably the most eloquent and reasonable summation of this debate that I've read anywhere. Assuming you are an actual Reverend, it is good to know that there are men of the cloth who have not succumbed to partisan ideology and the superficial idea that God is somehow tied to a political agenda. Your congregation is truly a lucky one.
26
Rip Rip Rip:
It is good to see you can write 23 words without using profanity. From reading some other non-Rip written post however, your potty pen is not unique apparently. From the previous 25 posts, let’s recap.
I think that Murray and Cantwell are monstrous for holding up healthcare for MILLIONS over a single issue of the using tax dollars to pay for abortions. You and others slung a string of irreverent metaphors to primitively register your disagreement.
Rev Smith in an attempt to pseudo-mediate the debate, inadvertently introduced the logic flaw of the argument. He stated the “founders that gave us the right to bear arms also gave us the right to choose not to. “ The founders never offered to pay for the arms for every citizen.
If Obama-care is so necessary that we need to immediately vote in 10,000+ pages of unread legislation and spend trillions to help out the 20 million uninsured, it is amoral to hold up such urgency if it truly exists. If this urgency does not exist, then let’s slow down the process, read through the legislation and make intelligent changes versus VERY wasteful, costly mistakes.
This is not the case with the democrats however. They insist this is an emergency; it must be done before August 1st 2009. Their approach is similar to a declaration of war after an attack by a foreign power.
Let’s continue with Rev Smith point about the right to bear arms.
Imagine two senators holding up legislation to go to war with Japan in 1941 unless the US Government was willing to pay for arms for every American who wanted them.
Clearing away the emotionally charged issue of abortion and replace it with gun ownership helps clear the air to see the bigger point of the absurdity of Murray and Cantwell’s position.
Rev Smith:
Leave some contact information for Rip so he may attend your services.
More...
It is good to see you can write 23 words without using profanity. From reading some other non-Rip written post however, your potty pen is not unique apparently. From the previous 25 posts, let’s recap.
I think that Murray and Cantwell are monstrous for holding up healthcare for MILLIONS over a single issue of the using tax dollars to pay for abortions. You and others slung a string of irreverent metaphors to primitively register your disagreement.
Rev Smith in an attempt to pseudo-mediate the debate, inadvertently introduced the logic flaw of the argument. He stated the “founders that gave us the right to bear arms also gave us the right to choose not to. “ The founders never offered to pay for the arms for every citizen.
If Obama-care is so necessary that we need to immediately vote in 10,000+ pages of unread legislation and spend trillions to help out the 20 million uninsured, it is amoral to hold up such urgency if it truly exists. If this urgency does not exist, then let’s slow down the process, read through the legislation and make intelligent changes versus VERY wasteful, costly mistakes.
This is not the case with the democrats however. They insist this is an emergency; it must be done before August 1st 2009. Their approach is similar to a declaration of war after an attack by a foreign power.
Let’s continue with Rev Smith point about the right to bear arms.
Imagine two senators holding up legislation to go to war with Japan in 1941 unless the US Government was willing to pay for arms for every American who wanted them.
Clearing away the emotionally charged issue of abortion and replace it with gun ownership helps clear the air to see the bigger point of the absurdity of Murray and Cantwell’s position.
Rev Smith:
Leave some contact information for Rip so he may attend your services.
28
The Urban Institute estimates that 137,000 people died between 2000 and 2006 because they were uninsured.
As I said in my first post on this topic:
"Unless the Federal Government pays the contracts to kill the unborn, Cantwell and Murrary will deny tens of millions of people healthcare.
Wow, that’s monstrous on SO many levels."
Well Rip City, it shows you for what you really are: All potty mouth and no substance...
As I said in my first post on this topic:
"Unless the Federal Government pays the contracts to kill the unborn, Cantwell and Murrary will deny tens of millions of people healthcare.
Wow, that’s monstrous on SO many levels."
Well Rip City, it shows you for what you really are: All potty mouth and no substance...
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS