Tucson Progressive

Pamela Powers Hannley, a progressive voice for Arizona

Republicans declare war on women: So, what else is new?

Women wearing burkas. (Photo Credit: Second City Style.)

Even though federally-funded abortions have been illegal in the US for more than 30 years, conservative Republicans campaigned on this issue during 2010. (Of course, we all know Republicans don’t allow FACTS to get in the way of their sound bites.)

Now Republican members of the US House of Representatives have introduced multiple bills to make illegal something that is already illegal. So, what’s up with that?

The bottomline is that with newly introduced legislation Republicans have declared a war on family planning, a war Planned Parenthood, a war on women’s health services, and a war on women– particularly poor women. Planned Parenthood offers family planning and preventive health screening to 3 million people per year– mostly poor women who don’t have health insurance. Less than 10 percent of Planned Parenthoods’ services are related to legal, non-government-funded abortions, but that hasn’t stopped Republican ideologues from targeting them and their services for elimination.

The Republican bills introduced in the US House of Representatives:

  • would severely limit access to all women’s health services, particularly birth control and family planning;
  • would eliminate all funding for any organization that offers legal abortions (even though the government funding is not paying for those abortions);
  • would penalize women who BUY THEIR OWN INSURANCE if that insurance plan includes abortion coverage;
  • would redefine rape;
  • and would eliminate federal subsidies to private insurance plans (purchased by individuals or employers under the Affordable Care Act) if those plans include any abortion coverage.

Essentially, Republicans are trying to eliminate a woman’s right to choose the course of her medical care.

Here is an excerpt from Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviewing Celie Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. You can listen to or read the full interview here. [Emphasis added.]

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at what’s being described as “the most dangerous legislative assault on women’s health” ever. Since taking power in January, the Republican-led House has introduced several major anti-choice bills that women’s rights activists say could place severe limitations on access to reproductive health services. This, despite a campaign pledge to focus on creating jobs. Republican House Speaker John Boehner hailed the proposed legislation.

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land. The current law, particularly as enforced by this administration, does not reflect the will of the American people. Last year, we listened to the American people through America Speaking Out. They spoke on this issue loudly and clearly. So we have included it in our pledge, and today we’re making good on that commitment.

Congressman Chris Smith has introduced bipartisan legislation that codifies the Hyde Amendment and other similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions across all federal programs. This commonsense legislation reflects the will of the people and deserves the support of the House. It’s one of our highest legislative priorities, and as such, I’ve directed that it receive the designation of H.R. 3.

AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker John Boehner. As he noted, H.R. 3, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would cut off public funds for abortions. A second bill, H.R. 358, called the “Protect Life Act,” would prohibit federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services under the Affordable Care Act. A third bill, H.R. 217, called the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” would deny federal family planning funds to any organizations that perform abortions, regardless of whether or not the organization uses that federal money for abortions.

To discuss the legislation, we’re joined now by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. Through its affiliates, Planned Parenthood provides family planning, contraception and abortion services at more than 800 health clinics across the country, serving more than three million patients a year.

Cecile Richards, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about what’s happening in Washington, D.C., today, where you are lobbying Congress?

CECILE RICHARDS: Sure. Thanks, Amy. Thanks for having me. It’s great to be back.

The House leadership in Congress has basically just declared war on women, really from day one. And I know you had that clip there from Speaker Boehner, but it goes much further than that. They not only are now trying to—federal funding hasn’t been available for abortion for more than 30 years, but what they’re really doing is trying to overturn the legal right to abortion in any context. As well, though, it’s way beyond abortion. Now they’re basically trying to end family planning and access to birth control in America. The Republican budget that came out basically gets rid of the nation’s Family Planning Program. And as well, we expect in the next day or two, with the support of the Speaker, there will be an amendment to basically end all federal funds going to Planned Parenthood, including funds that are used for basic birth control, cancer screenings and preventive care for more than three million people every year.

AMY GOODMAN: In your 800 clinics of Planned Parenthood, how much of the work is around abortion? What is the array of services that you provide?

CECILE RICHARDS: Less than 10 percent of our services are related to abortion. In fact, 90 percent, more than 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s care is preventive care. We do—we provide birth control to about two-and-a-half million people every year. We do almost a million cancer screenings for breast exams, as well as cervical cancer screenings. We’re now one of the largest providers of STD testing and treatment in the country.

And for so many women who come to Planned Parenthood, like other family planning clinics, we are their only doctor. You know, the vast majority of women who come to Planned Parenthood, it will be the only doctor they see all year. And so, I think one of the most damaging things about what’s being proposed by the Republican leadership right now in Congress is it would basically take away healthcare for three million people who currently have it.

CECILE RICHARDS: No, and it hasn’t since—it hasn’t for more than 30 years. So, I mean, I was really struck by the clip that you played from Speaker Boehner talking about the will of the people. I actually thought the will of the people, based on this last election, was to get the American economy back going and get people back to work. So it’s quite stunning to me that instead of focusing on jobs and really getting the economy going, they are spending all of their time talking about issues that I think the American people are settled. And the fact that they would, after this healthcare—you know, working over the last two years to finally expand healthcare access to folks in America, their very proposals would take away healthcare for more than five million women who currently have access to it through the nation’s Family Planning Program or through Planned Parenthood.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go through these three major bills right now before Congress.


AMY GOODMAN: First, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which critics call the “Stupak on Steroids” bill.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, the Smith—the Chris Smith bill that Speaker Boehner was referring to is the most far-reaching bill we have ever seen. And not only does it codify the Hyde Amendment, which of course we disagree with, but—that is currently the law that federal funds can’t be used for abortion—but it even says, if you use your own money, a woman uses her own money to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, she will have to pay higher taxes, because she can no longer get the tax benefits of having healthcare coverage that’s comprehensive. Same with small business owners. If you’re a business owner and you get a tax benefit from providing—from providing healthcare coverage, if that coverage also includes abortion coverage, you can no longer get that tax benefit. And it’s going to deny—essentially, the purpose of the Smith bill is to take away the right of women to have abortion coverage in insurance anywhere in America, even women with desperately needed terminations based on medical need.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the redefining of “rape” that’s included in H.R. 3, Cecile Richards.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, this is the most egregious thing and that absolutely has—I think defines the kind of attitude we’re seeing by the House leadership, which is it attempted to say there are only certain kinds of rape that now you would have the right to get an abortion, and that was forcible rape. They wanted to redefine what are good rapes and what are bad rapes. And it has created an enormous public outcry, and I think to the embarrassment of the leadership. But I think it’s just one indication of how far they are willing to go in taking away women’s access to healthcare in America.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, you have to explain that further. Good rapes and bad rapes?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, yes, if it wasn’t considered forcible, if it was simply you were raped, if it was a date rape or other kind of rape that wasn’t considered forcible, where you could demonstrate—I guess it would be up to the rape victim to demonstrate that it was—how forcible it was, you could not have access to abortion coverage as a result of the rape.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, because we just played in the headlines a group of women, and some men, who are suing around the issue of rape in Iraq, and a videotape—


AMY GOODMAN:—was made of one woman, and her commander saying, looking at the videotape that the men made who were raping her, he didn’t feel that she had fought back hard enough.

CECILE RICHARDS: Exactly. I just saw that, that you had played it. And I think it is incredible to me that at this time in the United States of America, we are talking about going so far back, basically repealing women’s rights in a way that is just unthinkable. And again, I think it’s—as you said earlier, it’s not simply about—it’s not simply about ending Roe v. Wade, which is really the purpose of Mr. Smith and Mr. Boehner, it’s literally taking away the access to birth control in America, which is unbelievable. How did we get here?

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go on to the federal legislation—yes, there are more bills that are being weighed now in Congress.


AMY GOODMAN: The Congress is saying that they are focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.


AMY GOODMAN: And then I want to talk about the state level and talk about states like, oh, South Dakota. Is it possible that the killing of abortion providers could be considered justifiable homicide? This is what we’re going to take on, as we continue after the break with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Cecile Richards. She’s president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation’s leading provider of reproductive healthcare and sex education and the country’s largest advocacy organization for women’s health and rights. Let’s talk about H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. What would that do, Cecile Richards?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I’m sorry, tell me—the number doesn’t—

AMY GOODMAN: H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions even when necessary to save a woman’s life.

CECILE RICHARDS: Right. I apologize, I didn’t remember the number. We have—as you know, there is a raft of bills that have now been introduced in Congress, really in the House. And the concern over this bill is what—is allowing hospitals to refuse treatment, even in the case of a woman’s life who needs an abortion. And, of course, this has been—there have been massive expansions of conscience clauses and legislation to allow hospitals and even, of course, pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. And this is a concern about this bill, that it would allow, if a woman—and as you know, in some communities, you don’t have a lot of hospitals to choose from. And this would—our concern about this bill is it would allow hospitals to refuse life-saving treatment, if a woman needed an abortion, based on conscience. And again, I think this is where the leadership of the House isn’t focusing on women’s health. They are focusing on an ideological agenda, and they don’t understand how this is going to affect real women’s lives. And that’s the story that we’re trying to tell to Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: H.R. 217, the measure which has 122 co-sponsors, called the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, that would ban federal funding for other services to organizations that perform abortions? How would that affect Planned Parenthood, and what does that mean?

CECILE RICHARDS: I know, there’s so many. So, essentially, the other—one of the big goals is to prevent healthcare providers who provide an array of healthcare services—if any of the services they provide include abortions or abortion referrals, they should not be—this bill says they should not be able to get any federal funds for family planning, which, on the face of it, is ridiculous. Right now, as an example, Planned Parenthood is the biggest reproductive healthcare provider in the country. We actually—under the Title X program, which is our nation’s Family Planning Program, we provide more than a third of the clients who come in through the Title X program, we provide them family planning. So this would essentially take Planned Parenthood completely out of that system, as well as any other family planning provider that provided abortion care.

And if I could—you know, to remember, abortion is legal in this country. This is basically taking something that everyone is—that family planning clinics are providing that is a legal service and saying, “If you provide this service, you can no longer provide family planning.” The most ridiculous part about it is that, for Congressman Pence and the others who are proposing these bills, Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in America. So I don’t really know where they think the millions of women who come to us and other providers are going to go for family planning anymore and what the result will be.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the state level, Cecile, to what is happening in various states. With at least 29 anti-choice governors, the battleground has shifted to the state legislatures. First, talk about what’s happening right now in South Dakota.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, South Dakota is one example of a very egregious bill that speaks to the interference of anyone who was trying to terminate a pregnancy. And it’s a complicated bill, so I don’t want to get into all of the details, but it is a—what we’re seeing in South Dakota—I could list states across the country—are state legislatures who unfortunately are much in the mold now of the leadership of the House of Representatives, who, instead of focusing on the really hard and important issues of the day—about their budgets, their economy—they are using this as an opening, with the sort of the shift to the right in the leadership and in these legislatures to now try to repeal every single—every single right that women have to legal abortion. And they’re focusing, as well, on providers. And the goal is not only to make sure that women don’t have access, but to make sure that doctors are afraid to even provide legal abortions in this country. And that’s really what the South Dakota bill is about.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what is happening in Kansas, Cecile Richards.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, there are so many things happening in Kansas, I don’t even know—I don’t even know where to begin. I mean, we have obviously—in the state of Kansas, we’ve been dealing with very bad legislation for years, for decades. So, I mean, we could talk about these specific states, but I think the important thing, just to sort of bring it back overall, is that what we are seeing—but it’s not just at the state level. I agree with you that there are a lot of problems at the state level, but we are literally seeing the federal government, the U.S. House of Representatives, trying to end birth control access in America. So, I agree that the states are where some of the most egregious state bills are, but it’s much bigger than that. And I think this is—what we are seeing around the country is this unbelievable overreach by the leadership that was elected in November, not focusing on what the people want, but in fact focusing on issues about abortion access, taking away birth control, allowing hospitals to refuse treatment, allowing pharmacists to refuse birth control. This is not what the American people voted for, and I think there’s going to be an enormous political backlash, which we’re already beginning to see at Planned Parenthood, folks coming into our clinics and saying, “I cannot believe I’ve just heard that the U.S. House of Representatives is trying to shut down Planned Parenthood.”

Ironically, the GOP– the party that will fight to the death for individual rights, gun rights, corporate personhood, and tax cuts for the rich– has jumped at the chance to squash women”s rights and harm families. What will be their next attack on American women– the country’s largest minority group? Are burkas in our future?

For a chilling list of Republican attacks nationwide on women’s health, check out this story: Five Ways That The GOP Is Trying To Eradicate A Woman’s Right To Choose. (Note the Arizona Legislature’s participation in this effort.)

For more of this interview, check out the Democracy Now website.

43 comments on “Republicans declare war on women: So, what else is new?

  1. Dan
    February 16, 2011

    More black are aborted then any other race. I guess that is a good thing.
    Just think what a person withthe mind of George Washington Carver could do . Cure Cancer. No want men do not cure things the goverment does.
    Cancer, hunger, poverty. will be cured by the goverment not some poor person with the will to learn. Keep aborting, it is not a child not a  potential, it is nothing, just like the old. No wonder childern kill each other adults kill there borthers and sisters. No they are not people that are in the way. 
    I lived in the middle east for 5 years. You have not lived untill you see a young women of 16 killed for wearing her dress above her knees. Or stoned because she was raped.
    What is wrong is now considered right and what was right is now wrong.

    This is one reason I willnever spend one time to read the paper here.  If it is not free I hope you shut down.


    • latin_pride
      February 16, 2011

      “More black are aborted then any other race.”
      People should read about the “Negro Project” of the founder of Planned Murderhood, Margaret Sanger. PP gives out awards each year named Maggies in her honor. The dirty secret of the American progressives is that it is they who were the developers of Eugenics in the early 20th century and it is from them that Hitler learned his craft.

    • leftfield
      February 17, 2011

      More black are aborted then any other race.

      Assuming this is so, I ask what conclusions you are inferring by citing this?  What do you think might be the relevant socioeconomic factors that contribute to this statistic?  Access to medical care?  Poverty? Education?

      • azatlan_pride
        February 17, 2011

        Read about the “Negro Project”. PP was founded upon racism.

  2. latin_pride
    February 16, 2011

    “Even though federally-funded abortions have been illegal in the US for more than 30 years”
    Another progressive lie. Planned Murderhood gets hundreds of millions of dollars per year in federal funding. Any of that money used for “education” and women’s “health” frees up other funds for the murder of unborn children.
    Have you ever seen the result of an abortion?  Clumps of “tissue” do not have hands:

    • tiponeill
      February 16, 2011

      Priests for life ? More like “Priests for Altar boys” , rallying to make sure that none of their female rape victims are allowed an abortion.

      • azatlan_pride
        February 17, 2011

        Ad hominem.  Go back to your coloring books and leave the discussions to the adults.

      • azatlan_pride
        February 17, 2011

        I assume you did not have the courage to go to the link.

    • leftfield
      February 17, 2011

      Planned Murderhood

      I don’t understand; what does the Pentagon and the military-industrial-governmental cabal have to do with the subject of women’s health care?

      • azatlan_pride
        February 17, 2011

        Misdirection. Thanks for highlighting that you have not serious arguemetns to contribute to the discussion.

      • leftfield
        February 17, 2011

        Planned Murderhood

        Name-calling.  Thanks for repeating an overused reactionary phrase.

  3. latin_pride
    February 16, 2011

    “Ironically, the GOP– the party that will fight to the death for individual rights, gun rights, corporate personhood, and tax cuts for the rich– has jumped at the chance to squash women”s rights”
    When will you fight for the rights of the child in the woman’s womb? Or are young females not really human beings and just  property?

  4. tiponeill
    February 16, 2011

    >Or are young females not really human beings and just  property?
    I think those who want to force the young female to bear her stepdaddy’s baby are the ones treating her as property.

    • azatlan_pride
      February 17, 2011

      stepdaddy’s baby
      So are we killing children because their parents commit a crime? Think logically about what you type.

      • tiponeill
        February 17, 2011

        If there is any lack of logic here, it is the irrational religious belief that having an abortion is killing a “child” – because it isn’t.
        The damage to the pregnant child is real, however – something that priests seem able to overlook.

  5. Anti-Commie
    February 16, 2011

    You guys have got to be as close to the Onion News Network as one could get. Every time I read the fecal matter you guys call news which obscures the light upon my laptop, I keep waiting for “Brooke Alverez” to pop out and give one of her snarky remarks.
    Please oh please use the “bottom third” technique that they use so I can read your crap twice in the same manner that I watch their show.
    Keep up the great work. ROFLMAO!!!!

  6. Pingback: Republicans declare war on women: So, what else is new? – Tucson Citizen | The Write Article

  7. Pamela Powers
    February 17, 2011

    A few points:
    1- If all men wore condoms, there would be little or no need for abortions. We should have a new rule: Any man who has ever had sex without a condom has no right to speak against a woman’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy, OK? Seems fair to me.
    2- If all men took financial and emotional responsibility for the children they fathered in and out of wedlock, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.
    3- Single mothers– especially teenage single mothers– are more likely to live lives of poverty than any other groups. All of you who are worried about the unborn, do NOTHING for these children or their mothers once they are born.
    4- Abortion is legal in the US.
    5- None of you have any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body… period.
    6- No one makes the decision to abort easily.
    7- Women’s health = public health. A society that cares for it’s women and children cares for its future.

    • RH
      February 17, 2011

      Wow that is bit of humor, guess one could counter if women kept their legs closed they would not need a abortion either! 🙂 Fact is men/women do things they ought not to, and have been doing so since Eve lured Adam to bite into that forbidden fruit getting them both ejected from the Garden of Eden! 🙂 I am a democrat, not pro-abortion, in fact against it on moral/religious grounds but that being said, do not believe man should make laws criminalizing or denying women this right, my view is its murder simple and plain and one atones for all ones sins on judgment day, am sure women who have had abortions can debate with Jesus whether it was ethical/moral or not, I am glad I was born male! 🙂

      • leftfield
        February 17, 2011

        …guess one could counter if women kept their legs closed they would not need a abortion either!

        This is a repellent argument that I find blatantly misogynistic. 

      • azatlan_pride
        February 17, 2011

        …guess one could counter if women kept their legs closed they would not need a abortion either!This is a repellent argument that I find blatantly misogynistic.”

        That is right. As the feminists have taught us, women are not able to take care of themselves, make decisions for themselves and need the government and approved liberals groups to control their lives.

      • RH
        February 17, 2011

        There is a old corny saying, about opinions “its like our unmentionable part of our anatomy, we all have one, we all think everyone elses stinks but our own”!:-)

      • x-23
        February 18, 2011

        I feel like every1 on this board is missing the importance of what is so absurd about these bills.
        The fast that HoR wants to cut funds to a clinic that performs abortions. whether you agree with abortion or not is not the case (it is legal.. remember that), the true problem is that if there is no funding for a clinic, that provides tons of birth control to women/young teens every day, then how will they get it otherwise ?
        women with no insurance depend on these programs to keep her healthy and to avoid pregnancy all together.

      • Kate
        February 20, 2011

        Gee, if men could keep their dick in their pants, we definitely wouldn’t need abortion then!

      • Pamela Powers
        February 20, 2011

        Right on, Kate!

    • azatlan_pride
      February 17, 2011

      ” Abortion is legal in the US.”
      Slavery was legal in the US too and the Supreme Court also said that it was a right. Legal does not mean lawful or moral.

      “Women’s health = public health. A society that cares for it’s women and children cares for its future.”
      Except for the health of the youngest children. We can kill them if they are preceived as a burden right?

      • leftfield
        February 17, 2011

        Except for the health of the youngest children.

        Hopefully, you know as well as other readers that calling a zygote or other multicellular early form of the developing fetus a “child” is simply a reflection of your personal belief system, though you present it as established fact.  Your personal beliefs are not the basis for a rational understanding of human development.  This is especially true where that belief system is religiously informed, as there is no place for religious belief in the promulgation of law. 

      • Human Being
        February 17, 2011

        Amen!  (pun intended)

    • tiponeill
      February 18, 2011

      If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

  8. fraser007
    February 17, 2011

    This blogsite is starting to look and sound more like the Three Sonorans every day. The writer seems to be an intelligent and a nice person but I bet fewer people are reading it every day.

    • leftfield
      February 17, 2011

      This blogsite is starting to look and sound more like the Three Sonorans every day

      You flatterer!

    • Pamela Powers
      February 17, 2011

      Re: readership– don’t get your hopes up.

  9. freeintexas
    February 17, 2011

    I completely believe that we need federal money for low income to receive health care and birth control.  That being said,  I DO NOT want my money to go to the biggest abortion provider in the country.  The only way to compromise is to give the money to health depts or clinics that are non-biased in this issue.    Planned Parenthood makes lots of money on abortion and the funding that they receive does offset the costs of their abortion practices.  Salaries, buildings, equipment etc are used by both the family Planning clinics and the abortion clinics.  So in part, my hard earned tax money supports abortions.
    Bottom line, clinics that provide federally funded exams and birth control should not perform abortions.  Conflicts of interest here.  Give MY money to abortion neutral clinics.  It is the only compromise between prolife and prochoice.

    • leftfield
      February 17, 2011

      So in part, my hard earned tax money supports abortions.

      And my hard-earned tax money goes to support invading small countries and killing the inhabitants of those countries.  I do not want my money to go to the biggest killers on the planet.  Too bad neither of us get to choose what to support and what not to support. 

      • azatlan_pride
        February 17, 2011

        You should befriend some people in the military and ask them if they “kill” the inhabitents of those countries in the way you mean.

        Justified killing during a war (look up our Rules of Engagement) is not the same as killing an innocent person/child. The later is murder and never justified.

      • leftfield
        February 17, 2011

        I don’t need to befriend people in the military to know what’s going on.  And the low-ranking members of the military are not the problem when it comes to American imperialism and the murders of millions around the globe.

  10. Human Being
    February 17, 2011

    I find it ironic that the anti-government GOP is quite content in creating legislation that is aimed to infringe on a person’s freedom. Less government was a platform used by many GOP and Tea Party candidates – seems they’ve fallen off the soap box.  Regardless of personal  opinions, keep the government out of a woman’s  ability to choose what is right for herself.   And limiting funding towards an organization that provides education and health services for women, teens etc is not only sad, but quite dangerous.  Untreated STDs, lack of contraception..Public health implications are not pretty – can you feel the burn?

    • azatlan_pride
      February 17, 2011

      If you reverse RoevWade there would be less federal government.  The states could then decide for themselves how they want to regulate the murder of children.

  11. RH
    February 17, 2011


    Its not surprising that so many Mormons lean to the GOP, even coming here to Tucson to tell us to “recall our sheriff”, guess Russell Pearce or Elder Pearce when he puts on his Mormon title, baptizing Neo-Nazi’s, is no surprise to me that northern Arizona tends to lean GOP and southern Arizona leans Democrat, abortion will always remain a controversy, its a sin, one can spin it anyway one likes but on judgment day the spin ends, and the atonement comes! I do not advocate criminalizing abortions, somethings need to be left up to the person and god, a persons body and how they deal with things considered medical issues is one of them, some people believe committing suicide is a sin, but one does not criminalize those who attempt and fail at suicide, one usually treats them with psychiatric treatment, guess the only unpardonable sin is “suicide” since how can one repent once one has killed ones self, as long as one breathe’s one can repent!

  12. RH
    February 17, 2011

    I can only agree with one thing on this story, GOP is merely a bunch of hypocrites, preach morality out one side of their mouths and out the other committing every manner of sin and having no guilt, no shame! 🙂 The only difference between the two parties is one makes no claims on holier than thou morality, and the other uses religion to win elections and fit the old biblical “blind biblical goat description” mentioned whom jesus will not know, and god the father will not even look upon! As a young boy of 15, I watched my dad argue with a 85 year old man on which was better democrat or republican, my mom was democrat, dad was a die hard republican, I had no opinion one way or the other, the old man used a analogy/story of two fat men eating a feast, one a democrat, one a republican, all us common folks on the floor uninvited to their feast, both ate greedily, the republican let not one crumb fall off the table, the democrat flicked a few crumbs off the table to those on the floor! The old man said it was the choice of the lesser of two evils, and told my dad do you want a few crumbs or none? My dad was speechless, stuttering and I laughed, he gave me a look which could have killed, but I have always remembered this old man who had more lived a long time and seen many things, age does sometimes give wisdom! 🙂

  13. Pingback: The Necessity for Public Radio « First Perspectives

  14. Pingback: MoveOn.org and the Left’s Abortion Demagoguery « Political Unicorn.com

  15. Pingback: America: Do you want the ‘people’s budget’ or the military-industrial complex’s budget? - Tucson Progressive

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me on Instagram

Follow Me on Twitter

Follow Tucson Progressive on WordPress.com


The Tucson Progressive: Pamela Powers Hannley

I stand on the side of Love. I believe in kindness to all creatures on Earth and the inherent self-worth of all individuals--not just people who agree with me or look like me.

Widespread economic and social injustice prompted me to become a candidate for the Arizona House, representing Legislative District 9 in the 2016 election. My platform focuses on economic reforms to grow Arizona's economy, establish a state-based public bank, fix our infrastructure, fully fund public education, growlocal small businesses and community banks, and put people back to work at good-paying jobs. I also stand for equal rights, choice, and paycheck fairness for women. I am running as a progressive and running clean.

My day job is managing editor for the American Journal of Medicine, an academic medicine journal with a worldwide circulation. In addition, my husband and I co-direct Arizonans for a New Economy, Arizona's public banking initiative. I am a member of the national board of the Public Banking Institute, and I am co-chair of the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus of the Arizona Democratic Party.

I am a published author, photographer, videographer, clay artist, mother, nana, and wife. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism from Ohio State University and a masters in public health from the University of Arizona. I grew up in Amherst, Ohio, but I have lived in Tucson, Arizona since 1981. I am a proud member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson and the Public Relations Society of America.

My Tucson Progressive blog and Facebook page feature large doses of liberal ideas, local, state, and national politics, and random bits of humor. I also blog at Blog for Arizona and the Huffington Post.

%d bloggers like this: