News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Fred Thompson on womb control, gay rights

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:00:00 AM EDT


Let's get this first bit of lunacy out of the way -- Fred Thompson on who should face criminal sanction for an abortion:
"Don't punish women who have abortions," presidential hopeful Fred Thompson says. Punish the doctors who perform them...Authorities "can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I'm concerned," the former Tennessee senator said while campaigning in Western Iowa according to the Los Angeles Times. But "if it comes down to giving criminal sanctions to a 19-year-old girl and her mama, I'm against that."
Wait a minute. If it's going to be a crime, why not punish the mother? If we're going to do the whole law and order thing (har-dee-har-har), when it comes to state womb control, doesn't the woman represent the one contracting the hit on the fetus?

As even one Freeper sanely noted, the inconsistency makes no sense:

Under Thompson's logic here, it's perfectly legal for a woman to use a coat hanger to perform an abortion on herself but illegal for her to receive medical assistance in doing it. In other words, it's not illegal to kill a child. But it's illegal to help a woman do such. That doesn't make much sense to me at all. I'm not sure how that's even a pro-life argument.
And what about the male partner in this equation? What if he agrees with the woman in question that she should have an abortion, perhaps even drives her to the clinic in support of her decision -- is he then an accessory to the crime? Shouldn't he be prosecuted, Fred? Maybe the fantasy candidate of the freeper set agrees with Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He recently said that women who seek out the abortion are too "impaired" to be responsible for their actions.

The newest occupant of the GOP clown car also made it plainly clear where his thinking lies regarding marriage equality:

Thompson chastised those judges in Iowa, Massachusetts and other states for rulings that opened the way to same-sex marriage, calling for constitutional amendments to curb judges' power to do so.

"What we're seeing here is a totally judicially created problem," he told a crowd in Sioux City, Iowa according to the Times. "You know how many states have affirmatively approved gay marriage? State legislatures? Zero."

He also would like a constitutional amendment called for an amendment to bar judges from allowing marriage equality unless it is approved by a state legislature.

Fred's setting himself up to have egg on his face fairly soon, because California's legislature again approved a marriage equality bill, which first passed in 2005 and was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. This year the Governator has until October 14th to sign or veto the bill.  He has cited in the past that the courts (I guess those "activist judges") should decide what to do about marriage, not the legislature.

Pam Spaulding :: Fred Thompson on womb control, gay rights
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
poor old Fred
sounds like he'll get the exact 28% still backing bushie.  but the """"Christians"""" won't go for him because daddy dobson sez he's not """"Christian""""" enough...slim pickins for the GOPers. HA. 

What about Massachusetts?

You know how many states have affirmatively approved gay marriage? State legislatures? Zero.

 Hmm, I seem to recall not one, but FOUR separate votes by the Massachusetts legislature on the question of marriage bigotry, and bigotry lost all but the first time (i.e., >50% of the vote). In fact, support for marriage equality in the legislature of that great Commonwealth has increased every single year since marriage equality was "imposed" by the courts.



They don't want to remember,
  that there was a legislative process in Mass. that followed the laws there.  They have to continue the lie of "Activist Judges" to keep the sheeple in fear.

  I meant to post earlier, that is why the Flunky dropped his law suit, as he did fire the first shot, so to say, as it would have brought to the front that a legislative process worked, by following the law.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
Ah, but notice Freddie's wording.......
The MA legislature didn't affirmatively approve same sex marriage so much as they disapproved banning it........

[ Parent ]
What about California?

This year for the second time the California legislature has approved Gay marriage.  The bill was vetoed by the Governor the first time, and he is expected to veto it again this year.

That quote makes me think that Thompson is a candidate for tomorrow's "World's worst person". 



Oops - Didn't read far enough


[ Parent ]
State Legislatures

Comments like his are very telling. The republicans really have no solid logic against marriage equality, and their reasons will keep changing as one by one they are proven wrong.

I remember watching a lot of news shows where all the right wing heterosupremacists love to come on and give their "one man, one woman" speech. One of their biggest points was that no state legislatures would ever pass a same sex marriage bill. Well they can't really say that anymore, what with California passing it twice.  So I'm thinking they'll stick with "let the people vote" which just means let the overwhelming majority (heterosexuals) vote on a question of rights for a small minority (homosexuals). I don't think I've heard too many discussions in the media about just how inappropriate that is.

And yes, even Arnold once said that same sex marriage should be decided by the legislatures or the courts. Imagine that, a republican saying it should be decided by the courts. ACTIVIST JUDGES! I'm surprised the collective GOP didn't bite his head off. 



They'll say "let the people vote" for a while,
but sooner or later they won't like that either because the people will include too many younger Americans who rightly realize that whole thing is nothing but a crock of bigoted shit.  Once the wingnuts realize the people will vote for it, then they'll start bleating for some other way to ban it.

[ Parent ]
I believe it will be sooner,
  Much sooner.  The court ruling in Iowa caught most by suprise.  The ruling when to the heart of the issue, denying the rights to a loving couple.

  All the silly catch phrases the wingers used are not working because they are seen to be the BS that they are.  It wasn't long ago we heard the "Sanctity of Marriage" line.

  Look at all the crap they are throwing at the wall, and none of it is sticking these days. And as you point out, the youth are not buying into the garbage.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
I'm a bit bummed
Today's DesMoines REgister has 3 of 4 letters on the subject negative.  I've tried reading some online comments on the letters, but can't stay logged in.  Previously I've seen comments balanced positive and negative.
I expect people opposed are more motivated to write.  I still contend ignorance is the enemy, most people have never had reason to consider the issue.  It first entered my zone of awareness 4 years ago.

[ Parent ]
Fred, look at what the Senate had to say
  The Senate voted to repeal the dangerous and divisive global gag rule dealing with womb control. 

http://www.reproduct...

  In fact, the policy was handily rejected by a vote of 53 to 41. This win shows just how extreme and unpopular President Bush's agenda on choice has become.

  http://www.senate.go...

  That is 53 votes with out
Biden (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Craig (R-ID) Lincoln (D-AR)McCain (R-AZ) and Obama (D-IL) voting.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


It appears to me

that Thompson is the annointed one for this go-round of the presidential primary by the Repub insiders. They've already chosen their candidate over on that side--just like they chose Bush back in 1999 well ahead of the actual primary, and then sold him to the righties. Now all they have to do is effectively sell Thompson to the right wing base--which is exactly what we are seeing them do. Thompson's rhetoric here is what they think the base needs to hear. I'm guess Rove is already telling Thompson what to say, and designing strategy (or strategery, for those conditioned by seven years of Bush) for his campaign

Whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being, we better make sure this person can defeat Fred Thompson, because that is what will matter most in November 2008. 



A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.

Vichy and Mussolini
His poster remind me of Vichy or Mussolini posters that also listed a trio of "values."

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

"criminal sanctions"

President Fred wouldn't want to charge girls and their mothers with a crime for terminating a pregnancy, but he is ok with therm suffering all of the unknown and/or unconsidered ramifications of giving birth.

I wonder if his 35 year old wife has ever had an abortion.  

 



No, I don't think he'd ever advocate for charging the woman...
...because it's far too likely that she and/or her parents are good, upstanding, "pro-life" Republicans.  We'd see these people taking to the streets if they, their wives, their girlfriends, or their daughters were arrested, and Fred knows it.  This is cynicism, pure and simple.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

[ Parent ]
Is 19 the cutoff?

"...if it comes down to giving criminal sanctions to a 19-year-old girl and her mama, I'm against that."

So, does that mean that he might be willing to send a 35 y.o., well-educated, upper-class woman to Gitmo for procuring an abortion for herself?

Kat



>^..^<

SHOW us your queer commuictions director FRED

First he works for frothy Santorum man-on-dog, now Fredtard,,,,Traynham are you a f*ckin Allen Keyes clone?

     http://www.ocbq.com/images/lead/rt.jpg

KAPO!



"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner


Short answer...
And what about the male partner in this equation? What if he agrees with the woman in question that she should have an abortion, perhaps even drives her to the clinic in support of her decision -- is he then an accessory to the crime?

Yes.  Longer answer, so is the person (or persons) who financed the abortion.  Those are oftentimes overlooked.


Being how
he is very scary looking and has a swaying platform, I have confidence in the fact that he will go nowhere in the election.
This is a good thing, remember what happened the last time we elected and "actor" into the office of president...........

Chickenshit Framing

Wait a minute. If it's going to be a crime, why not punish the mother?

Because Thompson knows the vast majority of American people would find that batshit insane. The reason that conservatives can't ban abortion is because most of America would never support it. People don't want government involved in medical decisions.



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox