Hatch leaves Mikulski stuttering on Planned Parenthood health care funding question
When last I saw MD Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, she was introducing Hillary Clinton at the pro-abortion EMILY’s List “gala” (no food, no seats) in Denver during the Democrat National Convention last August, and she sure wasn’t speechless then.
But the cat got Mikulski’s tongue yesterday during a Senate Health Committee hearing after she introduced a murky amendment that caught the eye of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)….
Explained the Washington Examiner:
According to the amendment language, insurers would have to cover “essential community providers…that serve predominantly low-income, medically under-served individuals” such as Planned Parenthood.
Hatch called Mikulski on her amendment’s agenda and got the following response:
Back to the Washington Examiner:
Hatch… attempted to add language that would have blocked abortions from coverage, but Mikulski objected.
The amendment passed 12-11, with every Republican and one Democrat, Sen. Bob Casey, D-PA, voting against it.
Mikulski insisted that the bill “doesn’t expand nor mandate an abortion service.”
Hatch responded, “No, but it would provide for it.”
Mikulski answered, “It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”
Yes, like the A-word. Good for Senator Hatch, Republicans, and Sen. Casey.
Sign FRC’s petition against taxpayer funded abortions in any health care plan.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
We desperately need to see liberals defeated in 2010. Not just on the abortion issue either. Liberals are way out of the mainstream.
Good for Senator Casey for not following the party line.
I am George Tiller
I am George Tiller by Barbara Mikulski
When I see Senator Mikulski I am reminded Rush Limbaugh.
Rush used to frequently remind America that the woman’s movement was created to give unattractive feminists access to the main stream.
Whenever I hear ‘woman’s movement’ I think of Marilyn Monroe in a scene from ‘The Misfits’ whacking that paddle ball.
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index/?cid=198521
Who say’s Marilyn Monroe was not talented. That was not trick photograpy she actually hit that ball six or seven times in a row.
yor bro ken
Dang it Jasper.
You beat me to the punch but just wait til see what else I came up with.
yor bro ken
That’s two very scary looking women in two days.
Perhaps they are beautiful on the inside…
but I’d hate to see how many women like this would not make it out of the womb if pro-aborts expanded their wanting to eliminate ‘undesirables’ to include ugly women.
The angry, finger-waving feminist lives on. So not inspirational.
I’m telling you, prolife women tend to be on the beautiful side.
cough* Sarah Palin *cough*
I believe my post is stuck in purgatory, somewhere between cyber heaven and cyber hell.
Let it live or die, but do notl let it linger like one of those ‘democrat’ zombies wandering aimlessly with no hope and no future.
A post delayed is a post denied.
No post, no peace.
Know post, know peace.
yor bro ken
Carder 8:09PM
LOL. I’ve told men what happens when women meet each other, whether its the first time or a repeat.
1. They size each other up
2. They prefer the other is unattractive, overweight, and dressed like Princess Anne
3. They know exactly what the other is thinking
The response from men is “really”? I never knew that.
I am embarassed for us and this site that the only comments to this post revolve around physical appearance.
sharon,
Let’s face it. We women size each other up all the time. Also, no one is harder on women than other women. Have you heard some of the insults hurled at Palin by the so-called enlightened liberals?
I think a lifetime of anger and bitterness can’t help but reveal itself in one’s countenance–so it can go either way. I’ve known some women who, feature by feature they’d be called homely, but a lifetime of service, humility and peace renders them beautiful. And no, I don’t know Barbara personally, but the angriest women I meet are Deathscorts at the abortuary. Embracing death has that affect on women.
klynn73
I agree. Anger is so apparent. I think it takes a physical as well as emotional toll and I’m sure all of us can think of examples. I think Michelle Obama is a very attractive woman but is aware she looks angry and has a makeup artist soften her appearance. Some things just can’t be hidden. I think she still looks angry.
I am embarassed for us and this site that the only comments to this post revolve around physical appearance.
Same.
The “pro-life women are prettier!” meme makes the pro-life movement look like a freaking junior high girls’ restroom.
Though the rationalization usually goes, “Ugly women become angry,” so I suppose that the “Angry women become ugly” argument gets points for creativity.
And for the record, I don’t think the woman in question is ugly. Visibly aging, yeah. She looks a bit like my paternal grandmother, who was a wonderful person.
It’s a shame that women still don’t have “permission” to age or gain weight in the public eye without being mocked and having their appearance used as ammunition against their intellectual arguments.
I’ll second the comment about prolife women. Maybe it’s just “my eyes”, but they all look nice to me. (And not so the proaborts.)
Yeah, and sprinters totally get bulky thighs, swimmers get broad shoulders; better ask a distance runner to the dance instead or else you’ll get stuck with a fugly girl and who wants that.
And guys don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses, know what I mean? Nerds are fug, and fug is bad, so nerds are bad.
High School South has the ugly girls! Ours are so much hotter! High School North 2001 4eva!
….personally I think it’s pretty ugly to comment on people’s appearances as though that’s a rebuttal to the intellectual points they’re making (or failing to make, as the case may be). Ditto for adopting some “people are ugly outside as a result of being ugly inside” stance. But that’s just me — I’m no looker myself, so maybe I’m just angry. Or am I ugly BECAUSE I’m angry? Hmmmm.
“Ditto for adopting some “people are ugly outside as a result of being ugly inside” stance. ”
I think there’s something to be said for that being true….. look at some of these abortionist’s pictures.You can see the wear and tear of their lives on their faces. I’m not saying all pretty people are good people, but I think you can tell a lot about how a person lives, by studying their face.
Posted by: kbhvac at July 10, 2009 5:45 PM
Thank the powers that be for liberating my post from cyber purgatory and releasing it in the land of the living.
yor bro ken
I really, really disagree that you can know a person’s life by looking at their face. Yeah if you find a picture where someone is angry, they’re going to look angry. If you find a picture of an old person, they’re going to look old. And if people have a lot of stress, have unhealthy eating habits, smoke, don’t sleep enough, etc, then you can often see some effects of that eventually, over time — so in that sense, you can in someways, sometimes, see people’s lives in their faces. But that’s a pretty gigantic generalization to apply to all clinic workers, much less all pro-choice women. And if you see an unattractive woman saying something you disagree with, is it really worth mentioning her appearance? Why not just talk about what she’s saying?
I especially love these comments on a site where pro-choice commenters have shared pictures of themselves. And where people (myself included) jumped on SoMG when he commented on Jill’s weight.
As I have said, no one is harder on women than other women. I was quite surprised to hear an ardent feminist say she didn’t believe Paula Jones because she was “homely”. I was quite surprised since I thought one of the tenets of feminism was that a woman’s physical appearance is never an issue in sexual harassment or assault.
I didn’t ask her if not being a beauty queen herself would make her unworthy of belief.
I don’t understand your point, Mary. You were surprised to hear some cruel woman say that she didn’t believe Paula Jones based on her looks, but you maintain that commenting on a woman’s appearance when she is not presenting herself to be judged on appearance is an acceptable thing to do?
Because other people do it? Is that all?
“But that’s a pretty gigantic generalization to apply to all clinic workers, much less all pro-choice women”
I didn’t generalize…. just saying sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words…
I think you can tell a lot about how a person lives, by studying their face.
That sounded like a pretty general statement to me, but I apologize if I misread.
Alexandra,
No problem. I said “I think there’s something to be said for it being true”, by that I meant “sometimes it’s true”. Sorry if I sounded snarky. I understand where you are coming from.
Do you know what set Mikail Gorbachev apart from his predecessors?
He outweighed his wife.
I never said BM was ugly. I intimated she was ‘unatractive’. Her un-attractiveness is not just based on her physical appearance.
BM could get down to her ‘ideal’ body weight, and she would still be un-attractive to most men and some women. There are some liberal lesbian humnaists who might find her desirable.
Researchers have done studies with infants and their findings indicate that even babies prefer attractive people. The investigators have quantified ‘attractiveness’ by setting values for size and proportion of facial features.
BM is ‘ugly’ and it has nothing to do with her un-attractiveness.
yor bro ken
Here’s a clue: if you weren’t bringing the physical appearance of a specific woman, or a group of women, into a discussion that had nothing to do with that subject, then I wasn’t talking to you.
Wow. The arguements that go on here…
I’ve seen pictures of women and immediately assumed they were pro-choice–only to be disproven. I’ve assumed some actors were liberal when it turns out they’re quite conservative. And that’s all by looking at their faces. Eventually I learned to stop judging a book by its cover.
I think I can accurately state, however, that this woman is simply hideous on the inside–as proven by what she’s attempting to do here.
“Here’s a clue: if you weren’t bringing the physical appearance of a specific woman, or a group of women, into a discussion that had nothing to do with that subject, then I wasn’t talking to you.”
Posted by: Alexandra at July 11, 2009 9:36 PM
It might be a good idea to direct a comment to a specific person if that’s the case. Avoids confusion.
Political correctness says we must ignore the obvious, or at least act like we do, when we know someone may be watching or listening, particularly someone with a recording device.
We must take up or at least fein offense, for others, particularly when they are too ‘stupid’ to know that they should be offended at what was said or done.
BM is offensive to me on many levels and I do not need anyone to tell me so.
If I wanted a living example of what I would NOT want my four daughters to be, I would direct them to BM.
yor bro ken
————————————————-
Ellenor Roosevelt was giving a speech and the town drunk interrupted her and told she was the ugliest woman he had ever seen.
She was repsonded by saying you are drunkest man I have ever seen.
The drunk said, That may be true, but I will be sober in the morning.
Beauty is skin deep, but ugly comes from deep within.
BM is ugly from the inside out.
yor bro ken
Alexandra 6:24PM
Where did I say anything about commenting on appearance being acceptable? If anything I would argue there is a double standard. I’ve never heard any TV commentary on male politicians’ need for hairplugs, facelifts, and fitness trainers.
My point is that this is human nature. No its not right or fair, but women are vicious to other women. Also, even for those who argue that looks are not an issue, they are indeed an issue. That was my point about the comment the woman, who considers herself an ardent feminist, made.
Even the most ardent feminists will turn a blind eye to a woman being viciously attacked for her appearance, i.e. Katherine Harris, Linda Tripp, Sarah Palin.
Ken,
You’re so right about Mrs.G. She did create quite a sensation because she was so stylish and attractive. Sorry if that offends anyone but its a fact.
Jackie Kennedy the same thing. Crowds turned out to see her, not John F.
Ken,
Mrs. Roosevelt was such an incredible woman. She had a strong social conscience and spoke up for civil rights long before it was fashionable. Comments like that had to be devastating. One might laugh, but its through their tears.
Here is the Conservative Lady after a few more years experience.
I love the hat. She would fit right in at the Kentucky Derby or Missionary Baptist Church on an Easter Sunday.
God bless Maggie, the Iron Maiden and strongest man in British politics.
yor bro ken
Mary,
Thanks for the gentle rebuke.
I have this mental connection between Mrs. Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger. It may be the result of one too many Margaritas or one too many ‘joints’ (all before Christ) or maybe it was that closed head injury that knocked me unconscious for three days or maybe it was just her close proximity to Franklin.
Was Elenor a civil rights acitvist for all people or just white women?
yor bro ken
My point is that this is human nature. No its not right or fair, but women are vicious to other women. Also, even for those who argue that looks are not an issue, they are indeed an issue. That was my point about the comment the woman, who considers herself an ardent feminist, made.
Even the most ardent feminists will turn a blind eye to a woman being viciously attacked for her appearance, i.e. Katherine Harris, Linda Tripp, Sarah Palin.
I guess I see the comment, “That’s human nature,” in a discussion about the fairness of denigrating a woman’s appearance, to be dismissive of the objections to such comments. “Someone stole my wallet when I left it on the train.” “That’s human nature.” Whether it’s human nature is not the point (I disagree with you, but that’s neither here nor there) — it’s wrong, and someone is right to point that out. This ardent feminist does not turn a blind eye to people (women or men) being attacked for their appearance.
I agree with you about Eleanor Roosevelt! She was such an amazing woman. That’s one of my favorite names, too.
Janet — in my first comment I agreed with sharon that it was a shame that so many people were focusing on the woman’s physical appearance. Anyone not focusing on physical appearance would logically not be included in that group.
Alexandra,
I agree with you. Its cruel and its wrong. I do not approve or excuse. I only say people do this, period. I’ve seen it my entire life and I think we have all been guilty of it somewhere, somehow.
I have spent my life working with women, believe me Alexandra, women are incredibly vicious to each other and I don’t say that out of spite, only observation. BTW I work with men who are incredible gossips. Definitely a two way street in that department! I personally make every effort to avoid and never repeat gossip as life has also taught me that people can say ANYTHING!
Unfortunately too many of your ardent feminist sisters do not follow your example of not turning a blind eye to attacks on people for their appearance. I gave a few examples.
Like I said, I have yet to hear any discussion on male politicians’ need for hairplugs, facelifts, and fitness trainers.
Hi Ken,
Eleanor Roosevelt was a woman who suffered ridicule over her looks since childhood. That has to take a toll after a while, especially for a child. The final break came when FDR had an affair and totally devastated Eleanor. She could never quite forgive and forget and took on a life of her own apart from her husband.
Because of Eleanor’s influence, anti lynching legislation was introduced into the Congress. Eleanor wanted FDR to give it his moral support, which he did not. Despite Eleanor’s best efforts the legislation never passed in the Democrat controlled congress. Republicans supported it.
Eleanor also vehemently opposed putting Japanese American citizens in concentration camps, as well as the confiscation of their property and businesses. Over Eleanor’s strenuous objections, FDR signed the executive order.
I have to agree with you, Mary. Eleanor Roosevelt was a beautiful woman. She had a heart of gold. She had been given what Sarah Palin calls a servants heart since she was a young girl. Always helping others. Since her family was wealthy, she had the time, but many socialites of the day did none of that. She was an amazing woman. Personally I though FDR was a shitheel.
Abortion. Notice how deceptive she becomes when she avoids the word. Abortion.
She substituted family planning for abortion. If you abort the baby, there is no family coming from it.
I hardly find a few off-handed blog comments about Senator Mukulski being ugly to be offensive or cruel. Sure, her attractiveness (or lack there of) was not the point of the blog post and it’s always most effective to have discussions without reverting to insults. Still, I hardly find it damaging to the pro-life cause if a few comments on the internet take an occasional mean-spirited little jab at a public official’s appearance. It isn’t nice, it isn’t taking the moral high road, and I would be bothered if it became the general tone around here – but I’m having trouble conjuring up any outrage over this instance. Yeh, so, she’s kind of ugly and supports pro-abortion policies and a few folks decided to point out the ugly. I’m having trouble rushing to her defense, whether on moral principle or the sake of women everywhere. Perhaps my heart is a chunk of ice, or maybe I’m just not easily ruffled by internet comments.
“Uh…….uh……uhbuh……..Planned Parenthood.”
She can’t even metntion the A word.
How telling.