having joel connelly's wagging finger all up in your ass sounds gee-ross. you've just put me off my dinner!

Fuck you, Joel.

Alas, I have no Facebook account so I cannot comment directly on Joel's uninformed-pile-of-shit-writing that apparently passes for a factual article these days. Thus I'll have to join the "feminist writers" here at Slog and say that McKenna's bullshit abortion stance resonates with the non-feminist writers too, Joel. In fact, McKenna's uninformed response (and the "real journalist's" inability to track down the truth) makes me even more convinced that he is an idiot. Either he knew the truth and lied about it, or, as the AG for the State of Washington, he doesn't know what is in the legislation because he's no good at his job. Regardless he's an ass.

There is one good thing though. Joel said just enough to send the curious here to see what vile thing Cienna said. Which brought a little more truth into the world. Keep calling out the fuckwads Cienna.

McKenna is active in the Catholic Church. He has explained that, if asked, he and his wife would personally counsel against a woman getting an abortion, but that the decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy is ultimately a matter of choice.

--from your own published link

Sorry, Bailo but that's not how it works.

According to Pope Ratzie and the Redcaps in Rome abortion is a sin and McKenna knows that. The statement you cite is just another waffling dodge on his part. If he IS in fact an "active Catholic" as he claims, then he is compelled by Church doctrine to only take one position on the matter, and telling someone "it's ultimately a matter of choice" isn't it.

Otherwise, he's just another hypocrite saying he believes one thing, while practicing exactly the opposite...

I don't mind protecting insurance companies as federal rules are implemented, but I don't understand the name of the bill. What is it bringing parity to? And why is abortion coverage tied to maternity coverage?

#6

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

Mmm...interesting article on 2nd Trimester abortions off that Catholics for Choice site:

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/e8a5…

Catholics part company with U.S. Catholic Bishops, rejecting arguments that health care reforms including abortion coverage should be opposed.

Catholic voters reject the argument being made by some U.S. Catholic Bishops that Catholics are obligated to entirely oppose any health care reform plan that allows for the coverage of abortions. Sixty-eight percent of Catholics reject this argument, including 37% strongly. Even those who oppose Obama’s health care reform agenda (53%) or oppose creation of a government health insurance plan (46%) largely reject the
Bishops’ argument that they are obligated to oppose health care reform entirely if coverage for abortion is included.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics…

On his face, McKenna seems like the kinder, gentler Republican of GHW Bush's wet dreams. Unfortunately for all of us, he's a two-faced prick. I knew little about him until today, but I've searched out his actions and matched them to the words he speaks in public. There's more than just a little bit of a discrepancy there (and, I'm not talking about his personal views on how he would live his own life or counsel his friends either).

I got no problem with Catholics (hell, I got dunked in the holy water and indoctrinated into that abomination of an Anti-Christ organization when I was a baby...like it wasn't for me, it's not most Catholic's fault they're Catholic. You're born into that shit.). Catholic people can be quite wonderful, witty, funny and insightful, in fact.

Then, there's Rob McKenna.

I don't know much about Jay Inslee (including if that's the proper way to spell his name) yet, but I am pretty sure he can't be a whole hell of a lot worse than McKenna.

If anyone wants examples of what I'm talking about, I got plenty. All ya got to do is ask.

WHAT? A republican...that isn't pro choice? Color me shocked.

If Sir Mix-A-Lot joined the race for gov, id vote for him in a heartbeat. The choices we have are pathetic.

McKenna's claiming to be for choice while opposing attempts to insure access to insurance for reproductive services for all women doesn't pass the smell test: it is blatantly dishonest.

Dear @10:

Sorry, Bailo, but Catholics don't get to have it both ways - or so sez Pope Ratzie: you either follow Church doctrine, in which case you are considered a good, faithful follower of the flock, or you don't, in which case you're labeled a heretic and excommunicated.

In point of fact, according to Canon Law (Canon 1398, to be precise), any practicing Catholic who successfully undergoes a termination of pregnancy, or who aids and abets them, suffers excommunicado latae sententiae, that is "automatic excommunication" from the Church at the very moment the act is successfully carried out. So, the roughly 30% of women in the U.S. who receive abortions annually and who identify themselves as followers of the Catholic faith, and those who support them have, according to Canon Law, already taken a step towards permanently severing their relationship with the Church. Doesn't sound like something a "good Catholic" would be prone to do, now does it?

As for McKenna's so-called position, again, Pope Ratzie has already uttered the Church's official response:

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2007/05/…

In short, Bailo: McKenna is either a "Good Catholic", in which case he is COMPELLED to oppose abortion, or else he's a heretic and standing a hair's breadth from being excommunicated himself; because saying he's opposed to abortion on the one hand, while on the other intimating the decision be left to someone's "personal choice" IS NOT following the Church's official position on the matter.

Oh. He's pro-choice all right. As long as you choose to have that baby and keep your place little Miss McSlutty.

He's also for "raising" your chocolate ration from 6 ounces to 3 ounces.

It's all Doublespeak horseshit.