RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Excerpt: "Paul Ryan would ban all abortions, with no exceptions, even in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother. In other words, the mother could die as a result of complications from the pregnancy."

Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. gestures during a campaign stop at Walsh University in North Canton, Ohio, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012. (photo: Justin Merriman/AP)
Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. gestures during a campaign stop at Walsh University in North Canton, Ohio, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012. (photo: Justin Merriman/AP)

Paul Ryan Is an Anti-Choice Fanatic

By Amy Goodman, Guardian UK

17 August 12


Paul Ryan: the small government champion who could force transvaginal ultrasounds on pregnant women.

he floundering Romney campaign was thrown a life-ring of sorts last week, from aboard the USS Wisconsin, a decommissioned US Navy vessel based in Norfolk, Virginia. There, Mitt Romney introduced the man he said would be "the next president of the United States" - until he corrected himself.

"Every now and then I'm known to make a mistake," Romney confessed. "I did not make a mistake with this guy. But I can tell you this, he's going to be the next vice-president of the United States."

And with that, Paul Ryan became Mitt Romney's vice presidential running-mate, the man who, in the event of a Romney win in November, becomes a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Ryan is considered by many a champion of small government. For women, though, the federal government that Paul Ryan envisions is big, intrusive and controlling. Paul Ryan would ban all abortions, with no exceptions, even in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother. In other words, the mother could die as a result of complications from the pregnancy.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund highlighted several other issues, among them, "his budget plan to dismantle Medicaid, jeopardizing the basic health care millions of women rely on, [and] his vote last year to end funding to Planned Parenthood, putting at risk the cancer screenings, birth control, STD testing and treatment, and other preventive care that nearly three million Americans rely on each year." The anti-choice National Right to Life Committee stated, "Ryan has maintained a 100% pro-life voting record." He is a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, what critics call the personhood bill, now in Congress, that would define in federal law that:

"the life of each human being begins with fertilization ... irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood."

The law goes on: "a one-celled human embryo ... is a new unique human being." As reported in Mother Jones, this law would make normal in vitro fertilization (IVF) practices illegal, as the process creates multiple fertilized eggs, one or two of which might be used to help a woman have a child. The others are frozen, used for research or destroyed, which, under this bill pushed by Ryan, would become murder. Mother Jones points out that at least three of Mitt Romney's sons have relied on IVF to give birth to several of his 18 grandchildren. Likewise, the IUD, intrauterine device, which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, would be illegal.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell introduced Mitt Romney at the Norfolk event. McDonnell was recently in the national spotlight for promoting a state law that would force women seeking an abortion to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. Republicans, who accuse President Barack Obama of putting government bureaucrats between doctors and their patients, were trying to mandate a medically unnecessary procedure that required the insertion of a wand into a woman's vagina.

The provision was widely ridiculed, and may have been one of the reasons Governor McDonnell himself was not standing next to Romney as his running mate. Yet Ryan, who was, co-sponsored a similar bill, the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act. It contains a bizarre provision that states nothing in the law will "prevent a pregnant woman from turning her eyes away from the ultrasound images".

What we cannot do is turn our eyes away from just how radical Paul Ryan's plans are for more than half of the US population: women and girls. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist famously called for a government small enough to "drown in the bathtub". Representative Nita Lowey (Democrat, New York) told online news website Buzzfeed:

"House Republicans - of which Paul Ryan is a leader - would shrink government so small it can only fit under the door of a woman's doctor's office."

As the Romney-Ryan team stood beside the USS Wisconsin, it was clear that we are not all in the same boat. Corporations are people to be protected. One-celled human zygotes are people to be protected. But when it comes to the already born, flesh-and-blood people of this country, reeling from a massive recession, they would shred the social safety net. Sink or swim is not a plan. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+38 # Emmanuel Goldstein 2012-08-17 10:28
The only way Romney & Ryan can win is if millions of minority voters are disenfranchised via the new voter-ID laws the Republicans have passed in a number of swing states. Be forewarned! They did it in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio); they can do it again.
+27 # waltben 2012-08-17 11:08
I have difficulty understanding how Ryan can adore an atheistic nihilist like Ann Rand, claim to be an ardent Catholic & anti-choice, yet show no compassion at all for the poor and elderly. Normally, I'd say he needs serious therapy to resolve his conflictedness - but then he's just another GOPer!
+20 # macmartin 2012-08-17 12:09
Ayn Rand stated that altruism was the ultimate sin because it prevented you from focusing entirely on yourself. That philosophy fits perfectly with Ryan's attitude towards the poor, the elderly and women. Interesting that the self-centered Rand turned to Medicare and Social Security in her elder years, two programs that Ryan wants to eviscerate.
+10 # robniel 2012-08-17 12:56
Apparently anti-choice Ryan's wiring was defective in the womb. So now he tries to convert others to his way of "thinking": GOP-inspired small government, which would NEVER intrude into private life. Where in the Constitution rulebook is choice mentioned? Pursuit of happiness?
+20 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-08-17 11:23
The vipers & maniacs took over in Germany in 1933 & they can do it in the USA again, too.
+2 # Majikman 2012-08-17 13:05
Abortion was legal and safe in pre 1933 Germany.
+2 # mdhome 2012-08-18 11:11
I am not sure but what they have taken over already in many states.
+27 # reiverpacific 2012-08-17 11:25
What always kills me about the self-named "Pro-life" crowd is that when the fetus comes to term, healthy or not, all human rights and social safety net are then whipped away and they are on their own to sink or swim until they become ripe cannon-fodder age and go off to die or be maimed for the corporate State and Death-Culture.
Enjoy the following, put better than I could.
+22 # Adoregon 2012-08-17 11:26
When was the last time Paul Ryan was pregnant?

What right do men, who the last time I checked can never be pregnant, have to mouth off and pass legislation regarding a "condition" they can never experience?

-18 # JackB 2012-08-17 15:39
Fair or unfair it is women who have babies. The baby is a separate life that is housed in the woman for nine months. The pro-abortion argument is the baby is some sort of personal property like a gall stone or abscessed tooth that can be removed at will until such time as it crosses some arbitrary threshold & becomes a human being.

An embryo, left alone, will mature until it is born a human being. The idea that it is not a human being from inception is arbitrary & self-serving. It cannot be proved which is why the argument shifted from killing the baby to the "rights" of the woman.

If killing her baby is just one of a myriad of personal choices a woman can make why did it take a Supreme Court decision to make it permissible?

Just curious - what is the thing that gets tossed into the garbage called these days?
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-08-17 17:26
An embryo, left alone, will die. It must be housed in that shell some of us call a human being first before it can live on its own.

What do we do with adult human beings who can no longer live without being attached to an external apparatus? We pull the plug. When we do it, they die and we don't even refer to it as euthenasia.

A baby chimpanzee has essentially the same brain as a baby human until 2 years old. Do we execute people for the murder of killing chimps? Dolphins and whales are even more intelligent yet we kill them left and right. We don't know just how intelligent they are, but we know it's more than chimps.

It seems pretty arbitrary and self-serving to assuming unborn babies have the right to life, but born ones don't. You're a conservative.

Do you think all that conservative talk about war and cutting social services doesn't kill babies? If not, maybe you need to think a little harder with a focus on reality.

Why does it take the Supreme Court to make any law? That argument is completely "arbitrary" to use your word.

Just curious - what is the thing that ends up dead AFTER it's born because it's mother can't take care of it and conservatives no longer care?
-10 # JackB 2012-08-17 22:07
Yes, an embryo needs a womb. I assumed that was an accepted fact that did not require explanation. Babies in the womb & people on life support are not the same.

A baby in the womb is in the process of maturing. It is not being kept alive by artificial means. A person can create a living will to deal with artificial life support & a family member can make a decision if the patient is declared to be already brain dead with no hope of recovery. Euthanasia is a murder.

Where did I say "born ones don't"? You said it, not me.

Talk about war & cutting social services is a justification for abortion????

The Supreme Court does not make laws. Congress does.

People who cannot support themselves are society's responsibility. Conservatives don't challenge that. At least I don't. In any case it is not a justification for killing the unborn.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-08-18 00:19
You obviously know nothing about what it means to be "brain dead". The term "brain dead" is a LEGAL definition. Legally brain dead often means that you could be kept alive indefinitely as long as you're being fed. "Pulling the tubes" means literally starving someone to death. Feeding someone is not keeping them alive "artificially". I KNOW. I have had first hand experience with it. Apparently you haven't.

Legally "brain dead" people are often no more "brain dead" than many in the mentally retarded community. Is it ok to "pull the plug" on them? Retarded people ARE NOT in the process of maturing. Is it ok to pull the plug on them? Pulling the plug IS euthenasia, regardless of the legal definition.

Do you agree that waging the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are murder against children? IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU ANSWER THIS.

+7 # Billy Bob 2012-08-18 00:24

Do you agree that cutting funding for social services is murder? IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU ANSWER THIS. Children CAN NOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES. Cutting funding for social services KILLS THEM. Conservatives DON'T CARE. If you espouse conservative views, you ARE justifying the murder of innocent children.

“ People who cannot support themselves are society's responsibility. Conservatives don't challenge that. At least I don't.”

-THAT WAS PRETTY TELLING! You seem to be ADMITTING that conservatives REALLY DON’T care what happens to BORN children. Think about it:


Ryan DOES NOT care about children once they’re born or his MURDEROUS budget plan would never have been written. He WANTS to kill children to “save money” so the rich can have more tax cuts. If you don’t think Ryan’s budget cuts WILL KILL CHILDREN you’re living in a fantasy world with lollipop rainbows and purple unicorns.

The problem is that you have a religious argument that you're trying to turn into LAW. You can argue religion all you want. When you try to LEGISLATE that belief you run into trouble.
+6 # mdhome 2012-08-18 11:33
Ryan DOES NOT care about children once they’re born or his MURDEROUS budget plan would never have been written. He WANTS to kill children to “save money” so the rich can have more tax cuts.
That's it in a nutshell!!!!!
-4 # JackB 2012-08-18 22:37
No. That is not it in a nutshell or in anything else. Billy Bob made it up.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-08-19 11:01
What exactly did I "make up"? Does Ryan want to cut social services and cut taxes for the rich? If you think that was "made up", I'm guessing you haven't been watching, listening to or reading ANYTHING in the news for a long time.

I don't "make up" the news. I also didn't "make up" Ayn Ryan's budget proposal.
-4 # JackB 2012-08-18 22:31
What I said about brain death is true - legally & medically. Look it up.

The discussion is about abortion. If you want to discuss war & social services I have no problem with that but they are separate topics. I have no intention of bouncing around like a billiard ball. Stay on topic - put it to bed & we can go on to the next one if you like.

You are a typical liberal. You pull dumb ass "facts" out of thin air & then try to build a dumb ass argument around them. For instance - the nonsense about Ryan wanting to kill children - you made that up. You don't have one shred of evidence to support the statement. Not a shred.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-08-19 10:44
What you said about brain death is NOT true. Apparently no loved one of yours has ever been declared "brain dead" while still being able to eat and react to people around him. Apparently you've never worked with the severely mentally retarded.


If the discussion is about anything to do with the "RIGHT TO LIFE" then these are not separate topics. The right to life is the right to life. Either you believe in it ALL the time or not. Which is it?

If you don't want to discuss the "RIGHT TO LIFE" I have no problem with that, but where would that leave your argument.

You are a typical conservative. When you start losing an argument you start throwing insults and mentioning "dumb ass 'facts' ", which are just facts that disagree with your agenda.

If ryan wants to cut social services, then BY DEFINITION HE WANTS TO KILL CHILDREN.

If you can't see that cutting funding that allows children to live KILLS THEM, then you're refusing (once again) to deal with a reality that gets in the way of your political agenda.

Is this a discussion about a "RIGHT TO LIFE", or are you just trying to take away the rights of mothers to privacy?

It's either one or the other. If it has ANYTHING to do with "LIFE" then the discussion about bombing children and taking away their food and medical care is part of the debate.
-4 # JackB 2012-08-18 22:49
I am making this a separate response because I don't want to muddy the waters any more than they already are. The subject here is abortion & you had already added in war & social services & now you are bringing in religion.

Abortion is both a religious & a secular issue. The people who are pro-life consider abortion to be murder - pure & simple. Murder is a crime under both religious & secular laws. A person who is an atheist can be pro-life & consider abortion to be murder. There is nothing contradictory in that.

Another reason I am posting a separate response is religion is something else you pulled out of a hat. I never mentioned it yet you say I am trying to turn a religious argument into law. I never mentioned it but it seems I somehow have not only been arguing it, I have also trying to legislate it.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-08-19 10:51
Without religion THERE IS NO argument against abortion. Abortion is only a secular issue because religion has intruded into government.

The people who are pro-choice consider abortion NOT to be murder - pure and simple. Who are you to intrude in their private lives and FORCE your will against them? MOST Americans are pro-choice. Who are you to DICATE to them what they are allowed to define as “murder”?

Do you know ANY atheist anti-choice fanatics?

If you argue about a zygote being a human being you are arguing AGAINST SCIENCE AND AGAINST THE 1st AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

It IS a religious argument. Isn't it a sin to lie? Are you an atheist making this argument? Remember, this is SUNDAY.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-08-19 10:57
I've been thinking about this. The Supreme Court DIDN'T make any laws, at least not in the case of Roe vs. Wade.

You have the right to do ANYTHING YOU WANT, UNLESS a law is written against it. You already have the right to use toilet paper. It's not necessary to "make it legal" by writing a law stating that you do. The ONLY thing that could make it illegal would be a written law. For the record, I USE toilet paper. I’m not waiting for someone to “write a law making it legal”.

For thousands of years abortion was ALWAYS legal, INCLUDING in Jeruselem during Jesus' own life time. It only became illegal when someone wrote a new law MAKING IT illegal. The Supreme Court said that law was unconstitutional.

-3 # JackB 2012-08-19 22:57
Anti-abortion people consider abortion to be murder. Murder is both a religious & a secular crime. The fact that you cannot comprehend that does not mean it is not true.

I am not dictating anything. I believe abortion is murder. Obviously pro-choice people do not. If they are entitled to there opinion why am I not entitled to mine?

No. I do not know any atheist anti-choice fanatics. I do know people who are anti-choice & atheists. I leave the fanatic stuff to you.

A zygote is not human. PROVE IT.

Have you ever read the first amendment?

No, it is not a religious argument.

You are right. Today is Sunday. Very good. You seem to have the days of the week down. Want to take a shot at the months now?
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-08-20 18:35
Anti-choice people are entitled to their opinions just like everyone else. It's the SHOVING IT DOWN EVERYONE ELSE'S THROATS to make laws about it that is a problem. You DON'T have the right to make laws against the wishes of the American people. That's what you want. Hence, the temper tantrum.

If you want to argue that destroying zygoats is murder, that's your choice. Just don't legislate it.

Yes, I have read the First Amendment. It clearly states that religion and state need to be kept separate. Go read it yourself and report back...

If it's not a religious argument why are you not making a SCIENTIFIC argument against the freedom of choice? That's what's missing. The scientific community disagrees with you, but since when has that gotten in your way?

I'd like to hear your token "atheists" argument against allowing people the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion...
-3 # JackB 2012-08-19 23:19
As I said in an earlier posting - Congress makes the laws.

Some laws spell out things that are explicitly permitted. Anything not listed is prohibited. Some laws spell out things that are prohibited. Anything not explicitly stated is permitted.

I applaud your dedication to personal hygiene.

It is true that historically abortion has often been legal. It is also true that, while it is not legal today, there was a time when deformed infants could legally be exposed to die. Because it was once historically legal do you think we should resurrect the practice? I doubt if you do. I only bring it up because history provides guidance, not marching orders.

"...a law making it illegal." Yep. That's how things become illegal.

Do you support the idea that corporations are people? Of course you do. The SC said it is so & that's their job - not yours.
0 # Billy Bob 2012-08-20 18:43
So, abortion was "explicitly prohibited" even before there were any laws about it? Explain that one.

You don't need a law to make things legal. You need a law to make them illegal. The only reason pot smoking is not "legal" is that it's ILLEGAL. YES, a law HAD to be written for that to happen.

NOTHING is intrinsically ILLEGAL. Abortion was NEVER illegal until the 19th Century. Being that it was not IL-legal, it WAS LEGAL.

All of your smartassed comments have still not proven anything other than how angry you're getting about all of this. Since you've already denied Jesus three times, I'll take your word that you're not lying and that you really have no religious opinions about abortion.


What are your LEGAL and SCIENTIFIC arguments against it?

Saying nothing people have no rights unless a specific law is written granting those rights like a laundry list is NOT a legal argument. It's an example of not having any clue how the government works.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-08-20 18:53
About the Supreme Court. If the American people write a Constitutional Amendment making it legal to, once again, regulate campaign donations so the Chinese government can't buy an American election, we have that right. It will bypass the Supreme Court. Right now, it would stand a pretty good chance of being ratified.

What are the chances of ratifying a law taking away a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body? I'll give you a hint:

"Strong majorities of Americans say that abortion should be legal if the pregnant woman’s physical (86 percent) or mental (74 percent) health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, if the woman became pregnant as a result of rape (79 percent), or if there is a serious chance of defect in the baby (66 percent)."

In other words, when push comes to shove (as it always does) Americans ARE pro-choice, even when they sometimes don't like to admit it.
+4 # Adoregon 2012-08-18 13:29
Front line military personnel. War is very, very late term abortion (for the poor).
+8 # ghostperson 2012-08-17 22:10
Women have had abortions without permission for millenia. The S. Ct. affirmed what already existed. Moreover,there is no such thing as "pro-abortion." All woman have to have an abortion? There is only pro-right to make the hardest decision a woman will ever have to make and live with it without the ones who typically produce the conundrum in which women must make a decision of that magnitude purporting to treat them like brood mares at the males' unilateral election of course. If the woman carries a child to term and seeks support, it is all her fault for being a whore who got pregnant--all by herself apparently. The two party sex act only carries consequences for the female. The male, half of the act, can go along on his merry way unencumbered and unconcerned about morality. If the woman, for reasons she deems sufficient, decides to terminate the pregnancy, she commits murder of a single cell that cannot sustain life on its own. Carrying the murder analogy to its logical conclusion, men who masturbate, which is apparently quite often, commit mass murder because they ejaculate millions of sperm. As the hallowed repository of one half of what creates life, by failing to store their sacred seed until an egg can be fertilized,they wilfully--and joyously--curta il life. A baby is not a fetus. A fetus is not a baby. I for one am sick of tyranny of zealots whose religions are not my own. Freedom of religion means for me too.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-08-18 00:28
"Freedom of religion means for me too."


By the way, I'm a Roman Catholic and I have no problem keeping my religious opinions to myself. It cracks me up when social conservatives claim to be worried about "sharia law".
+19 # James Smith 2012-08-17 11:42
"Pro-life" applies only to an unborn, unformed fetus. The lives of children already born and the mother who would care for them and nurture them do not count. Only imposing some unproven religious stupidity is important.

The world will never be truly free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.
0 # tahoevalleylines 2012-08-17 12:31
Science closes in with religion in the case of the unborn baby: Research shows the fifth cell division after conception has imparted all the necessary information for every detail of the baby in progress.

Eventually US Supremes must come to terms with science, not only the verities of Judeo-Christian scripture.

It seems appropriate to mention an ongoing event, "The Great Revealing -US Marshalls..." for information of anyone interested in why the GOP likes throwing up smoke screens -to hide the financial rot?

Why does a US Navy ship deliberately turn in front of a tanker in a congested channel? Because the captain would rather face courts martial for incompetence than be part of a planned US/Iranian "Tonkin Gulf" setup?
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-08-17 17:27
"Research shows the fifth cell division after conception has imparted all the necessary information for every detail of the baby in progress."

Are you refering to DNA?
-16 # JackB 2012-08-17 15:51
Wow. The clear light of truth & rational thinking. I assume that, in all humility, you view yourself as being someone possessing that clear light of truth & rational thinking.

Being all lit up with truth & being a rational thinker I am sure you realize that for thousands of years people have believed they possessed the truth & were rational thinkers & who also believed in religion. Many are accepted as being among the most brilliant people in history.

For you to be able to just toss them & their beliefs aside you must be s truly special individual.

Schedule permitting, perhaps you could share with us some of your brilliant observations & conclusions & perhaps we could reach that glorious level of understanding that will enable us to be free of the "black yoke of religion".
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-08-17 17:32
One of those brilliant men who lived thousands of years ago was Jesus. He lived during a time when abortion was widespread and well known. The Bible itself even makes reference to it. Jesus never spoke out about it:

Why didn't he? As God incarnate, is it possible he "didn't know" about it?
+6 # ghostperson 2012-08-17 22:17
Religion like spirituality is personal. Beating others over the head with your black yoke of religion violates others' right to practice religion as they, not you, choose. Get off the cross, the wood is needed for something else.
+1 # Majikman 2012-08-18 16:00
Love it, ghostperson. I also wonder how the battle would go if instead of "pro-choice" vs. "right-to-life" it was simply a case of a woman's "right-to privacy". Would probably make dragging their cross over our rights one helluva lot more difficult.
+11 # CAMUS1111 2012-08-17 12:10
paul ryan: clearly the product of a back alley abortion gone wrong. okk closely and you see the wire hanger marks. He is what passes as "bright" in today's GOP?
+11 # pernsey 2012-08-17 12:56
Ryan is a right wing lunatic that only has credibility because the mainstream media wont call him and Mitt on their stupidity.
+15 # SOF 2012-08-17 14:26
Forget the 'Pro Life' tag. Call it what it is FORCED BIRTH.
+10 # AMLLLLL 2012-08-17 16:01
I hear even those on the left calling it 'pro-life', a misnomer. It is ANTI-CHOICE. Period.
+5 # ghostperson 2012-08-17 22:22
You have an absolute right to life until you are born, then, baby you are strictly on your own except when you have to go off to kill people for greater corporate profits (Iraq) or be killed by the state (executions). Some right.
+6 # mdhome 2012-08-18 11:54
Ryan DOES NOT care about children once they’re born or his MURDEROUS budget plan would never have been written. He WANTS to kill children to “save money” so the rich can have more tax cuts.
+6 # chrisconnolly 2012-08-17 19:01
Pro-lifers are such hypocrites. Ryan voted for every bill Bush put forward, including going to war. Ryan is also pro-guns, pro- capitol punishment, and now death panels via health care voucher's that fall far short of providing needed health car we. Somebody needs to ask him to define life besides the 'from time of contraception'. How much money does one have to have to qualify for the status of life?
+6 # mighead 2012-08-18 03:58
If the GOP is so concerned about 'life', why are they so eager to go to war and kill as many 'enemy combatants' as possible? Along with as many of our youth as they can muster - and PS: it's easier to 'muster' them when there are high unemployment rates in the age 18-26 group - especially for minorities.

Certainly, 'enemy combatants' and our own soldiers have as much of a right to life as embryos?

This kind of hypocrisy always bothers me. 'Right to life' blatantly means that women - as people - have NO right to their lives - which need to be controlled by the government. And 'right to life' NEVER applies to the military which is sent off on deadly missions by armchair politicians funded by 'interested' corporations seeking to enhance their profits.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-08-18 17:33
Many of those "enemy combatants" are babies, small children and pregnant women (including embryos and fetuses).
+3 # nemonia 2012-08-18 18:14
Paul Ryan is an idiot. What makes him dagerous is the millions of followers. Why is there no voice of sanity in American politics? I'm Canadian, but stories like this remind me how I felt the day Robert Kennedy was shot.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-08-19 11:05
I don't think he's an idiot. An idiot couldn't be this manipulative.

Shifty, calculating, underhanded, plotting, dishonest, slithery - YES.

Idiot - no.
+3 # nemonia 2012-08-19 12:52
You are right. Compared to Bush he is a genius. If Romney gets elected I will pray for his health. If smething happens to him, the whole world is in deep trouble.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.