Kentucky senate president, a Republican, says women have two choices: "Conceive or not." After that it is up to the politicians.

Kentucky Senate President Robert Stiyers.

Courtesy of TPM: 

Justifying his support for a 20-week ban on abortions, the Republican president of the Kentucky Senate asserted that women had the "choice" of whether to conceive a child and "the legislature has its ability to determine" the course of a pregnancy after that. 

According to a report from the Lexington Herald Leader, Senate President Robert Stivers (R) said Tuesday afternoon that he would have preferred a ban on abortions even earlier than 20 weeks. 

“This is my belief: there are two viable beings involved,” he said, as quoted by the Herald Leader. “One had a choice early on to make a decision to conceive or not. Once conception starts, another life is involved, and the legislature has the ability to determine how that life proceeds.”

Holy shit! This is what happens when you sleep through biology class.

Until a fetus can live outside of a mother's womb it is simply NOT yet a person. And I don't care what the Bible says differently. (Spoiler Alert: It says nothing about this.)

The chances of a fetus surviving outside of the mother at 23 weeks are 20 to 35%. At 24 to 25 weeks that increases to 50 or 70%. But it is not until well around 26 to 27 weeks that a baby has a 90% chance of making it out of the hospital.

So suggesting that a baby is a person before 20 weeks is simply scientifically ignorant.

And until men can get pregnant, no man should ever even think about telling a woman what to do with her own reproductive organs.

Also keep in mind that if these knuckle draggers had their way women would also be denied access to birth control.

In their eyes a woman's only contribution to society is to make babies, and if they engage in sex they should be willing to accept the consequences and give birth to any baby that may result from that "sinful" activity.

(Of course it's not sinful when men do it because.....well because they're men.)

Ohio Senate passes bill to criminalize abortions once fetus has heart beat. Around six weeks.

Courtesy of HuffPo:  

Ohio’s Republican-led House and Senate passed legislation Tuesday night that would ban abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected― as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. 

The measure was attached at the last minute as an amendment to an unrelated child abuse bill. It has no exceptions for rape or incest. 

If it’s passed into law, physicians could face a year in prison if they perform an abortion after a heartbeat is detected or if they fail to check for one before a procedure. 

The measure is the most extreme abortion restriction in the country, effectively banning the procedure before most women even realize they’re pregnant, pro-abortion rights advocates said. 

“After years of passing anti-abortion laws under the guise of protecting women’s health and safety, they lay bare their true motives: to ban abortion in the state of Ohio,” said Dawn Laguens, a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Let's face it a lot of women will not even know they are pregnant by six weeks, which means that for all intents and purposes some of them will already be denied access to an abortion before they realize they might need one.

A similar thing had been tried in Arkansas, only in that case it was a 12 week old fetus, and the courts rejected it. However this definitely shows that conservatives are still focused on taking a woman's right to choose away from them, and once Trump starts appointing judges it might provide the tools for them to do just that.

I fear that Roe vs Wade will not survive the Trump administration intact.

Before yesterday's election a Catholic priest used an aborted fetus to make a case for choosing Donald Trump.

 Courtesy of WaPo: 

Ahead of Tuesday’s presidential election, the Rev. Frank Pavone took an aborted fetus, laid it upon an altar Sunday and posted a live video on Facebook. Pavone, a Catholic priest who heads New York-based Priests for Life, said the fetus was entrusted to him by a pathologist for burial. 

During an already heated and divisive campaign season, Pavone’s video has raised questions for some about what is appropriate antiabortion and political activism in the church. As of Monday afternoon, the video, which is 44 minutes long, had 236,000 views. In it, he holds up a poster of graphics of abortion procedures. 

In Pavone’s Facebook appeal, he wrote, “we have to decide if we will allow this child killing to continue in America or not. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic platform says yes, let the child-killing continue (and you pay for it); Donald Trump and the Republican platform says no, the child should be protected.”

Okay first off, that's really gross.

Secondly if the Catholic church REALLY wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country they would advocate for the use of birth control, instead of treating women like breeding stock and telling them that if they get knocked up it is God's will.

And thirdly what ever made this priest think that Donald Trump was going to be an anti-abortion advocate?

The only thing that Trump changes more than the person he calls "Mrs. Trump," is his position on abortion.

Apparently this stunt has really blown up Pavone's face and he is receiving criticism from all sides, and is actually in danger of being disciplined by the church .

Good.

Just a little something to chew on this Saturday morning.

Carly Fiorina doubles down on her claim that she saw a "fully formed fetus, with its legs kicking" in the doctored Planned Parenthood videos.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

“Do you acknowledge what every fact checker has found?” Fox News host Chris Wallace asked the candidate on Sunday. “As horrific as the scene is, it was only described on the video by someone who claimed to have seen it. There is no actual footage of the incident you just mentioned.” 

“No, I don’t accept that at all,” Fiorina shot back. “I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist, they’re trying to attack the authenticity of the videotape, I haven’t found anyone in the mainstream media who has ever watched these things.” 

“I mean, they will claim that somebody watched it for them,” she continued. “I will continue to dare anyone who wants to continue to defund Planned Parenthood, watch the videotapes.” 

“And anyone who wants to challenge me first is going to have to prove to me that they watched it.”

Okay well I accept that challenge as I watched the unedited versions of the tapes (These are the ones that Fiorina claims has the footage.) when they first came out and I saw nothing like what she described. 

I also watched this additional video which DOES show a fully formed fetus on a tray (Starts at around the 5:58 mark). However this was NOT filmed inside of a Planned Parenthood facility and there is no talk of keeping it alive to "harvest its brain" as Fiorina suggests.

And there are others who have made themselves sit through the video as well and they also did not find the footage that Fiorina claims was in those first videos released by the anti-abortion group.

It is really no surprise that Fiorina currently finds herself in second place in the GOP polls.

After all it seems that Republicans love a good liar, as evidenced by Trump's rise to the top. So why wouldn't they also appreciate Fiorina playing fast and loose with the truth?

Mike Huckabee supports Paraguay's decision to force a 10 year old girl to give birth to her rapist's baby.

In an interview with Dana Bash on CNN on Sunday, Huckabee was asked about a recent news item about a 10 year old girl who had been raped by her stepfather, and the decision of the government to deny her an abortion.

Here is more courtesy of CNN: 

"Let's not compound a tragedy by taking yet another life."

 "A 10-year-old girl being raped is horrible. But does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child? And that's really the issue," Huckabee said. 

He said his opposition to abortion is based in part on its lasting effects, including that of the woman making the decision. 

"There are two victims. One is the child; the other is that birth mother who often will go through extraordinary guilt years later when she begins to think through what happened -- with the baby, with her. And again, there are no easy answers here," Huckabee said. 

"I just come down on the side that life is precious; every life has worth and value. I don't think we discount the intrinsic worth of any human being, and I don't know where else to go with it than just to be consistent and say, if life matters, and that's a person, then every life matters," he said.

This is really the danger of adopting this whole "personhood" idea.

First off it is not based on biological facts, and secondly it allows people, usually men, to deny the rights of females by suggesting that the rights of the fetus supersedes those of the woman.  Or in this, case little girl.

And yes do keep in mind that this is NOT an adult woman who made the decision to have unprotected sex, this is somebody's baby who was assaulted by an adult she trusted, and was then forced to be the biological incubator that allowed his violent act to take human form.

Huckabee talks about facing guilt years after having an abortion, but first of all that is a fallacy, and secondly it pales by comparison to the emotional stress this child has endured by having her innocence ripped away from her and and then being thrust into the role of a full grown woman when she barely understands what is happening to her, and to her body.

Compound that with having to raise the child when you are a child yourself, or perhaps instead having the child immediately taken away for adoption so that you can feel that sense of loss after suffering through the pain of childbirth.


Clearly Huckabee is zealot who places religious doctrine over the rights of this fellow human beings.

Well the ones without boy parts at least.

Texas is now heavily funding anti-Abortion clinics with tax dollars, while slashing the funding of actual health clinics that offer access to abortions, or even counseling which includes that option.

Courtesy of The Austin Chronicle:  

Persuading women to "choose life" is the core mission of Austin LifeCare; in fact, under the terms of their state funding as well as their stated mission, the center cannot refer clients for an abortion, no matter if their clients need or request the service. Despite the religious overtones, overt anti-choice agenda, and documented claims of dispersing medical inaccuracies, LifeCare and 24 other "crisis pregnancy centers" – from Dallas to Houston – are generously subsidized by the state of Texas. And even as the women's health network drastically erodes at the hands of conservative lawmakers, taxpayer dollars to CPCs stand to receive an unprecedented increase in funding this legislative session. 

Texas crisis pregnancy centers – pseudo-clinics designed to discourage abortion – have seen an infusion of taxpayer funding over the years, beginning with a 2005 effort by Republican legislators who succeeded in diverting funding intended to assist low-income households into the "Alternatives to Abortion" program. Former state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-Woodlands, initiated a new program redirecting $5 million of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding to instead offer "pregnancy support services that promote childbirth," underwriting organizations that do not refer clients to any group that provides abortions. In following sessions, lawmakers redirected funding dedicated to family planning into the Alternatives program. 

In each subsequent session, lawmakers have maintained or increased funding for the Alternatives to Abortion program – starting with $2.5 million in 2008, steadily rising to $5.15 million allocated for 2015 – while deeply slashing family planning funds and otherwise blocking women's access to health care. For example, in 2011: As conservatives cut the family planning budget by $74 million (two-thirds of the previous allotment) and blocked state dollars to Planned Parenthood, they simultaneously raised funding for the unregulated, unlicensed CPCs. By the Department of State Health Services' own estimation, some 180,000 women lost access to basic care each year following the cuts as 82 state-funded family planning clinics eventually closed their doors or stopped offering services.

Not only has reduced funding put some low income women in a desperate situation, the anti-abortion clinics are spreading dangerous misinformation.

One oft-perpetuated falsehood espoused by CPC counselors is a purported link between breast cancer and abortion (long discredited by the National Cancer Institute, and other medical authorities) found in the state-funded "Woman's Right to Know" pamphlet, which also propagates the notion that abortion causes psychological trauma to women or "post-abortion stress syndrome" (a condition not recognized by the American Psychological Association). Some CPCs even linked abortion, incorrectly, to a higher death rate, all to dissuade women from undergoing the procedure. "CPCs frequently use lies, deception, and intimidation to achieve their end goal," said Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL-Texas. 

One investigator was falsely informed she would be four times more likely to die in months following an abortion, while another was told she would be eight times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. "Those are crazy, false statistics. That's not true by any stretch of the imagination, and they don't even have a fake study to support it," said Busby. Instances of victim blaming (in sexual assault scenarios) and refraining from discussing contraception altogether – or claiming contraceptives are ineffective at preventing pregnancy – also made the list of CPC strategies. 

One CPC tactic, in particular, has the potential to place pregnant clients' health at risk; delaying doctors' visits and ultrasound appointments are integral to the CPC strategy. Counselors assure clients they have ample time to decide whether they want an abortion, while pushing visits further into the future – making pregnancy increasingly irreversible. As costs associated with abortion increase after the first trimester, and the procedure itself has been made illegal after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the delay can add substantial barriers to access.

 Just a reminder that Texas conservatives see women as nothing more than baby factories, and idolize the fetus. Yet of course after the fetus is born and becomes a child suddenly Texas has more important things to do rather than provide access to necessary medical or child care.

Texas legislator is pushing a law that would give fetuses their own attorneys. That's right, fetuses with lawyers.

Courtesy of The Dallas Morning News: 

The fight over the death of Marlise Muñoz, the pregnant and brain-dead North Texas woman who was left on life support for two months, appears likely to begin again soon at the Capitol. 

A Fort Worth lawmaker is pushing a new state law that would provide representation for fetuses in court hearings — an idea that Muñoz’s family opposes. 

A blood clot caused Muñoz, 33, to collapse at her Haltom City home in November 2013. Two scans taken at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth revealed that she was brain-dead. Her family immediately asked the hospital to remove her from life support, as her husband said she would have wanted. Doctors refused, saying that because she was 14 weeks pregnant, state law compelled them to keep her alive. 

Her parents and husband recall the “torture” of watching her body deteriorate for two months before a judge ordered the hospital to grant the family’s wishes. 

“We felt that they were pushing aside her wishes — pushing aside our wishes — and using Marlise as an experiment, if you will, to see how long the baby could survive,” said her mother, Lynne Machado. 

The proposal by Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, would appoint a representative to speak on behalf of the fetus if a pregnant woman is declared brain-dead or otherwise permanently incapacitated. Krause is working with legislative bill-drafters and has yet to introduce a specific measure in the House. 

“You’ll hear what the family wants, and you’ll also give the pre-born child a chance to have a voice in court at that same time,” Krause said. “The judge weighs everything and he or she makes their decision based on that.”

Watching your loved one deteriorate because there is a life growing inside that has no hope of survival. Does not get muhc more macabre than that.

So of course we can all see where this is going and what it could mean for women thinking of getting an abortion. It will not be long before Texas starts to assign lawyers to embryos the minute the plus sign shows up on the pregnancy test.

Of course once the little bastard is born, Texas could not give two shits about them.

I think we can all agree on this.

Tennessee becomes first state to put mothers in jail for actions harming the fetus.

Courtesy of Salon:  

Tennessee has become the first state in the nation to pass a law criminalizing women for their pregnancy outcomes. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam took the 10 days allotted to him to consider the advice of doctors, addiction experts and reproductive health groups urging him to veto the punitive and dangerous measure that allows prosecutors to charge a woman with criminal assault if she uses illegal drugs during her pregnancy and her fetus or newborn is considered harmed as a result. Haslam ignored these recommendations — and the recommendations of nearly every major medical association, including the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy — and signed the measure anyway. 

Opponents of the new law share a concern that a lack of access to health care and treatment facilities will result in the disproportionate targeting and jailing of poor mothers and mothers of color, particularly in rural districts throughout the state. 

Republican state Sen. Mike Bell, one of the seven Republicans in the state Senate to vote against the measure (every Democrat in the state Senate voted in favor), recently told Salon that this lack of access is a problem he thinks will hurt the women of his district and their families. “I represent a rural district,” he said. “There’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.” 

Only two of the state’s 177 addiction treatment facilities that provide on-site prenatal care allow older children to stay with their mothers while they are undergoing treatment. And only 19 of these facilities offer any addiction care specifically oriented toward pregnant women. Tennessee has also refused the Medicaid expansion, leaving many women without reliable access to basic medical or prenatal care, much less drug treatment. 

The law does nothing to expand treatment options for women in Tennessee, a fact that did not seem to trouble Republican state Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, who sponsored the House version of the bill and remains one of its most vocal defenders. “I don’t know what to say about [how] some [women] have insurance and some do not,” she recently told Salon. “It’s a terrible thing, but I don’t want to get into that because that’s another subject.”

This is one of those laws that almost feels like the right thing to do, but once you consider the possible ramifications it becomes immediately clear that it certainly it NOT.

I personally work with children born with FAS, or coke addicted, and I can certainly testify to my anger at their mothers fro being so uncaring and irresponsible that they condemned their children to a lifetime of suffering.

However this law is guaranteed to keep expectant mothers, who desperately need prenatal care, away from physicians and health care workers who could identify potential problems with the pregnancy, or even provide nutritional advice.

And of course this opens the door for more stringent laws in Tennessee's future that will almost certainly further restrict a woman's right to choose.

Because if you don't think that this is ultimately about abortion then you certainly don't understand Republican politics.

Federal judge overturns the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

Courtesy of BBC News:

A US federal judge has overthrown a North Dakota law banning abortion after the foetus' heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks in some cases. 

District Judge Daniel Hovland found the law "invalid and unconstitutional" on Wednesday. 

The North Dakota abortion law was considered the most restrictive in the nation. 

The state attorney general has not yet announced whether he plans to appeal against the decision. 

"The United States Supreme Court has spoken and has unequivocally said no state may deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at a point prior to viability," Judge Hovland wrote in his ruling.

If this law had been allowed to stand it would have essentially outlawed abortions after only eight weeks. That means that many women would lose the option before they even realized they were pregnant.

It is pretty clear that these attacks on woman's right to choose are going to keep on coming until the anti-abortion crowd can get a court case all the way to the Supreme Court.

I believe they feel that if they can get it to the highest court in the land that the Justices will either dramatically undermine Roe vs Wade, or do away with it all together.

I wish I could have confidence that they are wrong in that assessment.

South Carolina Senate subcommittee seeks to extend "Stand your Ground" defense to include unborn fetuses. So where does the baby get the gun exactly?

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

A Senate subcommittee in South Carolina is seeking to expand the state’s “Stand Your Ground” defense law to include protections for all children, including unborn ones, beginning from the moment of conception. 

Current South Carolina law permits the use of deadly force to protect oneself or others against “imminent peril of death or great bodily injury.” According to Republican State Senators Chip Campsen and Greg Hembree, by that definition the law does not fully apply to pregnant women, since injuries that they face might not put them in “peril of death or great bodily injury,” but could put their fetuses in just such jeopardy. 

Democratic State Senator Brad Hutto shared with The State his concern that any new law would be redundant, as it is already legal for a pregnant woman to respond with deadly force. He asked supporters of the measures — three are currently pending — to provide him with an example in which an unborn child’s life would be threatened when the mother’s isn’t. 

The subcommittee passed a bill it called “The Pregnant Women’s Protection Act,” but abortion-rights activists claim the name of the bill is a misnomer used to disguise the fact that this bill is actually a back-door effort to grant constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception.

You know, the only thing that stops a bad fetus with a gun, is a good fetus with a gun.

I swear these idiots will do just about ANYTHING to try and restrict a woman's right to choose.

The dark side of the pro-life movement part deux. Protecting the life of a "distinctly abnormal" fetus that has no hope of survival.

Courtesy of Slate:  

Marlise Munoz has been brain dead since Nov. 26, and the suffering of her family can only be getting worse. Munoz was found unconscious on her kitchen floor in November, probably because of a blood clot in her lungs. At the time she was 14 weeks pregnant. Ever since, she has been kept “alive” with a ventilator because the hospital where she was taken, John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, believes it must not withdraw “life-sustaining treatment” from a pregnant patient, based on a Texas law that so mandates. And now, lawyers for Erick Munoz, her husband, say that the fetus that his brain-dead wife has been kept on life support to carry is “distinctly abnormal.” 

So Marlise remains hooked up because the hospital is misreading Texas law. NYU bioethicist Arthur Caplan laid this out last week, explaining why the hospital is misinterpreting the law (and also why that law must be unconstitutional). “The fact that the fetus apparently has significant abnormalities shows just how awful, misguided and cruel the Texas law is,” he emailed me Thursday morning. “The uncertainties about the pregnancy—damaged fetus, almost no cases of trying to bring a 14-week-old to term in this circumstance, what he the dad is able to cope with, his dead wife’s wishes about wanting to have a child if she cannot parent, the massive costs involved and the impact of a tragic outcome on his other child—they point clearly in the direction of who should be making the decisions and who should have been making them all along. Not the hospital, not the legislature, not pro-life or pro-choicers—the husband.”

So this abnormal fetus is kept alive in the body of its deceased mother, with virtually no hope that it will be born alive and functioning, while the medical bills stack up and threaten to bankrupt the father, making it almost impossible for him to care for the child that he and his wife had earlier that IS alive. How is any of that "pro-life?"

And let's say that the best case scenario comes to fruition and the baby is born alive, severely deformed, and with a lifetime of hospital visits and surgeries in its future. Does anybody really think these anti-abortion people are going to adopt this child and pay for its future medical care?

Hell no!

As we know the anti-abortion movement only cares about fetuses, not children.

The dark side of the pro-life movement.

Courtesy of Salon: 

Marlise Munoz’s heart hasn’t beat on its own since she collapsed in November at home in Texas. A machine currently breathes for her, and her doctors have concluded that Munoz has no brain activity and no hope for recovery. Her husband and parents desperately want to honor her end-of-life directive and remove her from life support, but the state of Texas won’t allow them to do it. 

That’s because Munoz was 14-weeks pregnant when she collapsed, and Texas law requires that she remain on life support to “sustain” the pregnancy — regardless of her end-of-life directive, her family’s wishes and the viability of the fetus. 

As Andrew Grimes at RH Reality Check reports, the family has described the prolonged grief and heartache the law has caused them as “pure hell”: 

“We know she’s gone,” Munoz’s mother, Lynne Machado, told RH Reality Check. ”There’s just no brain activity. To see this body, it contradicts itself. It’s hard to really comprehend.” 

A paramedic herself, Munoz never wanted to be kept on life support, having seen the effects of brain death regularly as part of her job. According to Machado, Marlise and her husband had had many conversations about their end-of-life wishes. But those wishes have been overridden by a state law that says the 14-week-old fetus that was growing inside Munoz when she collapsed takes precedence over her advance directive.

I guess it doesn't matter what a woman's final wishes are, after all what are women in Texas except potential incubators for new life?

 And don't be fooled into believing that this is for the greater good of the fetus, because it is not:

“I understood that the intent of the law was to protect the fetus, to help it survive if it was viable,” said Machado. “But at 14 weeks, a fetus isn’t viable. We were told the fetus weighed between four and five ounces.” Doctors have as yet been unable to assess the damage that the many drugs used to revive Munoz’s heart, and her hour without oxygen, may have done to her pregnancy. 

It seems insane that if this is what the woman wanted, and her family agrees, including the father of the unborn fetus, that it is NONE of the business of anybody else.

Pretty much says it all.

Somebody really needs to explain to the Republicans that nobody is ignorant enough to believe that a party which votes AGAINST necessary social programs, and FOR every war that comes down the pike, is pro-life.

Well unless of course if you're a Republican that is.

Bill Maher's final New Rule takes on Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and those who fear Atheists.

Courtesy of Mediaite:Maher said that between Republicans talking about masturbating fetuses and Sarah Palin rejoining Fox News, “this kind of was Christmas in June.” But Texas took that to the extreme, passing a law that would make sure that no one would be punished for saying the phrase “Christmas tree” in a public school, even though that never happens. 

Maher mocked the comments Perry made at the bill’s signing, likening him to a “bimbo” and Miss Utah. Maher noted how Perry was flanked by six santas and a rabbi, because in America, “it doesn’t matter what you worship, as long as you worship somebody.” He argued that religious people don’t truly fear other religious people, but they do fear atheists.

I could not agree more.

By the way if HBO pulls the video up above you can still see it by clicking the Mediaite link at the top.

Texas Congressman says abortion should be banned at 15 weeks because fetuses masturbate. Wait, what?

Masturbating fetuses are such a problem in this country.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said Monday that abortion should be banned as early as 15 weeks after conception because he has witnessed male fetuses masturbate at that stage. 

RH Reality Check first reported Burgess' comments, which came during a late-night House Rules Committee hearing on a GOP bill that would ban abortions starting at 20 weeks after conception. 

"This is a subject that I do know something about,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. "There is no question in my mind that a baby at 20 weeks after conception can feel pain. The fact of the matter is, I argue with the chairman because I thought the date was far too late. We should be setting this at 15 weeks, 16 weeks." 

"Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” Burgess continued. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?"

First of let me just express how embarrassed I am that it took me so long to figure out how pleasurable it is to masturbate. I was ALREADY born when I first polished the bishop, if you can believe it.

Second I finally understand whey we have original sin.

Here I thought that babies were all innocent and everything, only to discover that they have been wanking like drunken sailors since BEFORE they left the birth canal. (Personally I don't how they can do that with their mother so close. My mom walked in on me when i was sixteen and I almost jumped out of he window.)

And thirdly, how is it that even after a Republican says "This is a subject that I do know something about," they can STILL be so completely thick headed about the subject?

And here I thought I had already heard the stupidest thing a Republican could say. Gotta keep lowering that bar.

Lawrence O'Donnell addresses Mitt Romney's investments in a fetus disposal company.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is not the only place where the story is showing up.

New York magazine, the Atlantic Wire, and the Examiner are also hot on the trail.

If this continues to receive attention from news outlets it could prove to be a very difficult stumbling block for Mittens to overcome.

Personally I waiting to see Mitt's reaction the first time a reporter gets the opportunity to ask him about this. The guy has NO poker face.

Pro-Life logic 101

One has to wonder how much good could be done in this country if the people who are so aggressive about protecting every fetus in America were suddenly to actually BECOME "pro-life" and take that energy to apply it to the ending of poverty, and hunger, and war?

Just imagine how many lives could be saved, and the increase in the quality of each of those lives as well.

The ultimate hyposcrisy, as some pro-life advocates condone the murder of doctors who provide abortions.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As I have stated many times I am not somebody who embraces the idea of abortion, but I certainly support the crazy idea that a woman should be in charge of her own body. I am also not one of those who considers the idea of terminating a pregnancy constitutes murder.

However using a gun to murder a doctor offers no such moral quandary.

Nor should it to anybody who truly considers themselves a "pro-life advocate."