So Bob, you support kicking puppies? Snide remarks don't help the discussion.
In any budget you have to make decisions. Those decisions reflect your priorities. Walker's first decision was to shrink the revenue to the state through tax cuts. This resulted in a cascading series of cuts to the budget. So Walker & company valued the tax cuts over everything that is being cut. You may argue that the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and improve the lives of women so they don't need government assistance for health care, but I have not seen any evidence of this.

Bill, you consistently don't get it.

This is an opinion piece by a partisan Democrat, not a statement of fact. There is no "attack" on women's health. It's nonsense - more of the same "sky is falling" rhetoric we've been hearing from the Dems and their sugar daddies from day one of the Walker administration. It's designed to justify the recall process.

As usual, if any of the stuff Walker proposes and does ends up not working, the electorate - at the regular election cycle - has the ability to throw him and the rest of the Republicans out of office, vote in Democrats who can reinstate cuts he's made and go beyond even that if they so please, target those they don't like with punitive taxation or whatever else they want to do. That's the way it's been for years, it works and there's absolutely no need to make everything sound like the end of the world as we know it.

The great fear on the part of the Dems is that that's not going to happen if the disaster they're predicting doesn't come to fruition. So far, it doesn't even look remotely close to happening, so gin up the rhetoric, march in the streets and see if the trappings are enough to take the place of the real thing.

Yes, Bob, it is an attack on women's health when you deny them health care and cancer screenings simply based upon their income. And when you deny women and men access to birth control, the birth rate goes up and so do the welfare roles. When that happens, your tax rate goes up as well. Is that what you really want?

Linda, an "attack on women's health" implies a willful desire for women to be unhealthy and implementing a plan of action for those purposes. It's nonsense, it's partisan garbage and all you're doing by parroting the nonsense is supporting your party in its continued refusal to accept the results of the last elections and its attempts at costly do-over after costly do-over.

Wrong again, Bob. But I won't waste my time arguing with someone who thinks he knows everything. It is "willful desire for women to be unhealthy" when you deny them health care based solely on their ability to pay. What better way to get rid of the poor in this country than to simply let them die? You right-wing terrorists even cheered that concept at a republican debate recently. You people are a disgrace to humanity.

Perfect, Linda. When the first round of bombastic claims don't hold up, crank them up a notch. Maybe this is why your side is left to resort to attempted recalls and marching in the streets.

If I understood/remembered this correctly, the federal government reduced the money being sent to Wisconsin for healthcare related spending,as a consequence, Wisconsin adjusted healthcare spending. I thought the State actually increased healthcare spending, but not by the total amount the federal government cut. Please correct me if am wrong.

Bob, I don't get what? - that a politician is partisan? Next you will tell me that I don't understand that water is wet. As articles go this one isn't bad. First she states the reason for her concern - "...proposed cuts totaling $550 million...". Next she states why this is bad - "For every $1 spent on family-planning services, the state saves $4." Finally she proposes what to do about it. Perhaps you could stop reflexively lashing out and actually explain why Walker's cuts are a good thing?

Jay:

You are correct. The state increased health spending by $1.2 billion, but with the loss of federal funding, the total ended up $500 million less than it had been.

Bill, the title of this article is "Walker mounts attack on women's health" and I'm lashing out? That's what you don't get, Bill. This is always the way it plays out. Make an outlandish statement (as a way of purging frustration), then after that's out of the respective party's system, we're supposed to have a rational discussion.

Try that on your wife sometime, Bill, see how well that works for you.

Jay and CD, you don't get it. It doesn't matter if that's what actually happened. WALKER IS MOUNTING AN ATTACK ON WOMEN'S HEALTH. Please stick to the topic.

You don't endanger people just to save a few bucks. You might try applying a simple test to see what you can support. It would go like this: How would I like this being done to me, my family, or anyone else I loved, particularly if I didn't have too much money, like the average citizen these days? Dave Koven

Bob, you really don’t get it. You are blathering on about a lead headline rather than the substance of the article. Do the cuts threaten women’s access to their specific health care needs or not?
As to this being an example of typical liberal partisan garbage, I suggest you spend five minutes watching Fox News, or listening to Rush Limbaugh for real partisan garbage. Or just read some of your rabid tea-bagger friends on this list.

Andrew,

The headline, which is repeated in the opinion piece, states that this is a purposeful attack on women's health. It's no such thing and there's absolutely no proof that this prevents any woman in this state from obtaining needed healthcare. In fact, part of what's bemoaned in this opinion piece is the demise of a couple of programs that were instituted just last year. How you can determine what the effects of removing those programs a year past implantation are when you most likely don't even have any stats reflecting what help, if any, they provided is beyond me.

This is not a serious opinion piece, it cites no specific facts and figures to back up how many women are going to suffer as the result of the changes being made and, therefore, it's merely an attempt to justify a highly specious claim that Scott Walker is mounting an attach on the women of Wisconsin.

Stop worrying about Limbaugh and the Tea Party and all the rest of that and focus more closely on the games being played at a higher level. Like this one.

Robert,

The issue here is whether or not Walker has mounted an attack on women's heatlh. He hasn't, the opinion piece by a member of the Democratic legislature offers no proof of the claim nor is anyone else able to offer any proof that any woman in this state will be denied access to needed healthcare as a result of these cuts. Neither are you, apparently.

Robert,

If someone makes a statement, as this mouthpiece for the Democrats in the legislature has, that Walker is mounting an attack on women's health and offers no proof to back it up (i.e., that that was Walker's intent in implementing the cuts and that there's actual proof that women have been denied access to needed healthcare as a result of his actions), I'm not obliged to prove the opposite. It's entirely possible that absolutely no woman in this state will be denied access to needed healthcare as a result of the cuts and the suggestion that Walker's purposefully targeting women's health is, frankly, absurd.

If your obsessive hatred of Scott Walker and seething desire to see him removed from office means all you're capable of doing is ranting on and on about him, fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the person who wrote this piece of tripe has offered nothing of substance to back up their claim - nor has anyone else for that matter. It's nonsense.

Robert,

I think this statement of yours pretty much sums it up:

"I'll admit this may not be Walkers fault here, but he is still a dishonest prick and I can't wait to get the recall on."

And that's exactly the sentiment that a highly charged accusation like this one, with absolutely no solid evidence to back it up, is designed to elicit. There's no attempt at creating a common ground. Regardless of whether or not the Democrats feel they can work with Walker, they could attempt to reason with the general populace on stuff like this if they wanted to through a reasonable argument and possibly cause those who don't view Walker as some sort of beast to put pressure on their representatives to act on this bill they're introducing. But that's not what this is about to them. This is about adding more fuel to the fire of recalling Walker. This is about maintaining the divide and fanning the flames. And it works.

He's, as you would say, "a dishonest prick" and now he's "mounting an attack on women's health" to boot. One more reason for you to hate him, more reinforcement of your predisposition, another fix to get you through another day. You're being played.

All of which indicates, once again, that this really isn't about women's health at all.

Jeez, I sure hope so. I wouldn't want them to go "postal".

Craig, by federal law, federal funds do not pay for abortions. This is very old news going back to, I believe, the '70's. You say birth control is a choice. Based on that, the only other option is for a woman to give birth once a year, every year. Can you really afford to have all those children to support? As I have said, when you deny people access to birth control, the birth rate sky-rockets and then so do the welfare roles. Do you really want to pay more taxes to support all those unplanned for and unwanted children? Are you willing to start adopting some of those babies whose parents are not able to support them? Or are they to be condemned to die like the rest of the poor are supposed to, according to the right-wing ideology? If you answer no to any of these questions, then I suggest you keep your pants zipped and practice abstinence.

How do they keep the money separate though? If money is going to an organization that provides abortions, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the money isn't funding abortions.

CowDung, every program that receives federal funding for anything is audited by the feds every year to ensure compliance with the regulations. If they are found in non-compliance, they lose their funding. When Wisconsin denies health care dollars to any program which receives federal funds, Wisconsin loses those funds. And when Wisconsin loses those funds, Medicaid in this state dies. That means your elderly parents/grandparents will be put out of their nursing homes and will be moving in with you. You see, it's not just women who are victimized by this whole process. It's everyone who depends on Medicaid for health care and that includes the elderly, the disabled and children. This isn't just about women. It's that whole "trickle-down" concept you people love so much at work.

Yes, the audits check to make sure that the money comes out of the 'correct pocket' so it 'complies' with the law. Thing is, both pockets are on the same pair of pants.

Why are you blaming Walker for the loss of Federal funds? Walker increased the amount that the state was paying by $1.2 billion dollars--shouldn't we be thanking him for making up for much of that big loss of funding?

The state ends up paying for the lack of birth control, right up to age 18 for the unplanned children and beyond that age in prisons.

Well if that's the argument, Randy, maybe what we need to be looking at is government funded sterilization. How much does that cost relative to cost of repeated applications of birth control that we can't even be sure are going to be used?

@Bob, having seen it from the other side (the kids who end up in the system) one sometimes wishes we could do that. There are some people who should not be having children. We can't do that, though. What we can do is be generous about long-acting contraceptive shots and other effective methods.

And don't assume that every low-income woman is someone too irresponsible to understand what end the condom goes on.

Randy, as you know there was a time in this country where there was some stigma attached to having a baby out of wedlock. Those days are long gone - in fact we've gone in the other direction - we celebrate single motherhood. Which is fine in the upper classes, I guess, where someone can provide the proper support.

You've pointed out one of the consequences of what happens in the lower end of the economic spectrum - I don't know that I'd generalize that all or even a major portion of children born to unwed, lower economic strata mothers end up in prison, but so be it.

The point is that the act that creates a child is specific to that purpose. It needs to be reinforced that that's what that purpose is. Putting it in a class of just another activity that may have a less than desirous outcome if caution is not taken, defeats the purpose of that reinforcement. But that's a personal decision and that's one thing. Having our government essentially reinforce, instead, that personal decision is another.

The cost of anti-contriceptives is not prohibitive. I haven't priced out a pack of rubbers lately, but I doubt it comes close to the amount of money both sexes put into enhancing their opportunity of coupling successfully. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to pick up that cost. The rest of it is education, which we spend boatloads on already and which, in reality, should fall on the backs of those preceded them in the coupling game.

What happened to good ole responsibility? Linda your comment that a women would have a child once a year without government funded birth control is crap!!! Stop having SEX!!! If said individual can stop having SEX then yes sterilization!!!

STOP HAVING BABIES!!! PROBLEM SOLVED!!! If you can't afford it don't have babies!! SIMPLE!!

Dave, if poor women have access to birth control, the unwanted baby problem would be resolved. As for telling women to stop having sex, let me let you in on a little secret - women don't impregnate themselves. How about you men taking some responsibility and using birth control yourselves? Or do men have no responsibility since they are not the ones who get pregnant.?

@Bob, there ought to be a stigma attached to having a baby that you lack the ability or the will to raise safely, lovingly and sanely, in wedlock or out of it. Too few people manage it.

Linda your absolutely right. It takes two for sure. But there are many young women having babies for more of my hard earned money. That's BS period!! So stop making the excuse its because they are poor. The system is flawed and needs to be fixed. Not pointing fingers but when I travel the north side or any side for that matter and see the young lady at the register checking out with her 5 or 6 kids and pregnant again, then sliding her welfare card thru the card reader to pay for her groceries I tend to get a little upset. Poor my ass, can u say lazy? Why work when she can just have another baby at my expense

Randy, I agree, and even sans that one should be able to explain to someone why it's less than desirable and it should make sense to them why not. But for some reason, that doesn't seem to be the focus any more. Not imposing on a person's right (apparently) to engage in sexual activity as they see fit, regardless of the consequences, is the focus. And now we as a society, apparently, must foot the bill for consequences associated with that activity if the participants are unable or even just unwilling to do so - even if all that really does is remove one more barrier to making a bad decision.

Don't bring Jesus into this Barb. He is lovingly shaking His Head in shame at what you so-called christians (un-capitalized intentionally since you are anything BUT Christ-like) are deliberately doing to those less fortunate than you. In case you haven't been keeping up, many people who previously had been able to take care of themselves and their families are no longer able to because their employers gave their jobs to people over-seas who will work for $1 a day. People who have always taken care of themselves and their families now find themselves unable to put food on the table or pay their mortgages/rent because there is simply no money to do that anymore. Walker lied in his campaign. He continues to lie. If that's what you elected him for, then you're getting your wish. But someone who was elected by only 26% of the people is by no means representative of all the people. Believe me, those 50% of the voters who did not bother to vote because their only choices were Milwaukee and Milwaukee are deeply regretting their decision now. They are the people now ready and willing to sign those recall petitions to get rid of this pariah. Yes, had they voted in the first place, this would not now be necessary. But luckily, they have the right and the process with which to rectify the wrong they did by not voting. He will be recalled and this insanity he has engendered will end once and for all. When you or your husband lose your jobs, I suspect you will be singing a different tune.

Linda, I'm sure Jesus would be shaking his head at the Democrats who fight tooth

And nail for the right to kill unborn babies. He'd be disappointed in the self-righteous expectations of people who want things handed to them. Although 'from whom much is given, much is expected,' people also need to step up

Linda:

Are you suggesting that Walker (or whomever you would like to replace him) make it illegal for companies to give jobs to people overseas that will work for $1 a day?

Don't those people overseas have to feed their families? It seems that those of us in the US are much more capable of finding alternative work than those in developing countries that are now doing 'our' jobs.

Yes, CowDung, that's exactly what I am suggesting. When corporations who are exempted from US taxes send their money and their jobs to other countries at the expense of American workers, that is treason in my opinion. And since these corporations are now legally called "people", they should suffer the same fate as individuals who commit treason. If you don't know what that fate is, try reading the Constitution.

Lets blame it all on Walker because your boy Doyle did a WONDERFUL JOB. This is all about the UNIONS and the UNIONS only

Dave, it is exactly that kind of ignorance that is causing all the problems we now face in Wisconsin. This is not about unions. It is about people. People who are being denied the basic necessities of life for no other reason than that they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and can no longer afford health care for their children, themselves or their parents; people who pay their taxes but see their public school systems being gutted by our cut-and-screw-the-people governor. Keep blaming it on unions. Keep blaming it on the poor. And while your blaming people, remember, when you are enjoying your weekends and holidays off and enjoying your vacation time each year, that you have the unions to thank for them.

Linda:

Once again, you seem to be blaming Walker for allowing companies to have zero FEDERAL tax liability. I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that a governor has very little control over FEDERAL tax policy...

Let's say that Walker did make it illegal for Wisconsin companies to outsource jobs. How exactly would that be enforced? Could it prevent companies from moving out of Wisconsin to a state with a more favorable stance toward business? Would it mean that Wisconsin companies would no longer be allowed to purchase parts or equipment from overseas? Would a similar policy be implemented to prevent companies from employing people from outside the state as well?

Ignorance.....Please explain to me the ignorance of a young women with 5 or 6 kids, pregnant again and using her welfare card to purchase groceries. Its time to put an end to all that and those who live off the system. Maybe then there would be funds to take care of our elderly and those

Having a rough time due to circumstances beyond their control.

Dave, that was an ignorant statement. Wellfare reform as passed under Clinton limits recipients of wellfare to no more than 5 years during ones lifetime.

CD, you are right that it is a federal problem with outsourcing. I see what companies sometimes do in these overseas factories as a new slavery, not in all cases, but in many. Free trade as we have enacted it the last 50 or so years has not worked to our advantage but it has worked out well for our corporations and as long as they can dump money on our government officials it ain't gonna change. Paying people to work for 3 or 4 dollars a day is immoral. They should be paid a fair wage just as you should. It is the fault of our government as well as theirs. We live here in this country under a social contract of, by, and for the people. Our government in Washington is not looking out for us just as our government in Madison isn't looking out for us. There are too many people in need here in this state and across our country and that number is rising.

Why is paying $3-4/day necessarily immoral? I see nothing wrong with paying wages that correspond to the standard of living. When the average salary in an area is in the hundreds of dollars per year, it seems appropriate to pay salaries in the range of hundreds of dollars per year. Eventually, the labor pool will tighten up and wages (and the standard of living) will increase.

I see outsourcing as similar to the introduction of the personal computer in the workplace and the way it initially wiped out lots of secretarial jobs. While the job losses were unfortunate, I believe that the long term gains were worth it. I see globalization as being a good thing for everyone (in the US and overseas) in the long run.

It's corporations as predators taking advantage of a people for the sake of profit. Immoral. I'll stand by that one all day. Remember the Apple factory in China where they had to bar the windows because the workers were jumping out of them because the conditions were so bad?

Your crudeness says an awful lot about how your parents raised you. I am way too old to have to worry about birth control, and way too old to allow a very immature and ignorant young boy to succeed in a crude attempt to insult me or my parents. But, for the record, my late parents were very much pro-choice. They also chose to raise their children to be practicing Christians and patriotic Americans, something you and your ilk do not seem to be able to comprehend the meaning of. Now, do us all a favor and ask your parents to begin teaching you what you should have learned by age 2 - to respect yourself enough to respect others.

Linda..that explains a lot. Perhaps when your mood swing and hot flash passes you will be able to have an intelligent debate on the issue, until then- go lay down.

Craig, spoken like a true ignoramus (look it up dear, it's in the dictionary). Your mother failed you and it's not my responsibility make up for that. I'm quite sure I'm old enough to be your grandmother. If your posts are any example of your respect level I feel very sorry for your grandmother, even though she is at fault for not raising your mother in such a way as to raise her sorry-excuse-for-a-son properly.

Linda, where do all these stupid, stupid people come from. Craig, it's a wonder you still know how to breathe.

I don't know Robert, but they seem to come slithering up out of the sewers every time they see an opportunity to get their names in print. This one is particular is probably no more than 12 years old and acting very much like a typical poorly-raised pre-pubescent boy would.

I'm not a Christian, but I've read the Gospels enough times to suggest that you go back and read them too. Carefully.

Randy, don't waste your breath on Sunny. She that brand of "christian" that believes in hate. People like her hate everyone who is not exactly like her and who does not believe exactly as she does. If she ever has read the Gospels, she hasn't understood a single word. Don't waste time on her - she's too ignorant to understand.

Sunny, I am not a Christian either, and I would say based my knowledge of the bible (I have read it and did 9 years of catholic school) and what I have seen from the two main political parties, the Dems are far more christian than the Republicans. My question is how can you say your pro-life, but then be anti-single payer healthcare and pro-war?

I don't condone or support anyone having babies out of wedlock, whether they can afford them or not. Children have a God-given birth-right to be raised by both parents. If you want women to stop having babies, first, make birth control easily available; second, love your children enough that they don't feel a need to have a baby to ensure that they are loved; and third, you men have to take responsibility and stop impregnating women who you assume are on birth control. Have yourselves sterilized if you want the baby-making to stop. And stop having sex with women you're not married to. All the blame and consequences gets heaped on the women (in some cases, girls), and the responsibility for raising those children gets put on the woman/girl as well. How about men start taking some responsibility here. Unmarried women would not be having all those babies if not for willing men, who talk a good game out of one side of their mouth, but then don't want birth control available spewing out of the other side. Make up you mind and take responsibility. And while you're at it, start taking responsibility for teaching your sons to stop having sex as well. This is not a one-sided problem and it's time to stop putting all the blame and responsibility on women. If you don't want your taxes going to support all those babies, start adopting some and get them off the welfare rolls. But, you won't do that, will you?

Linda-Listen to yourself. The A typical LIB response. Lets blame the other guy. How about taking responsibility for self!!! Again you fail to respond to my comment about all the young women who have multiple children for the money. More children more money on the card. Take the card to those businesses who have no problem giving cash. Let see then take that cash to the crack man. Linda get a clue

Dave, how is telling men to take responsibility for their actions "blaming the other guy"? Those young women you complain about do not impregnate themselves. Yes, they have responsibility to prevent pregnancies, but so do the men who impregnate them. How about you man up and speak to that issue? How about men start supporting the babies they help make instead of forcing the mothers onto welfare? How about it Dave, are you man enough to take a little responsibility?

Last I checked, it required two people to impregnate someone. Can't the call for more personal responsibility include both men and women?

Linda-Once again you fail to address those young ladies who use the system for financial gain. All you have done is blame the men. Lets look at the real issue. The young women who has discovered more babies equals more money!! But like most LIBS lets not deal with the root cause, rather lets look for someone else to blame. I agree the young men should be more responsible as well. But ultimately the young women has the final say!! Otherwise I believe the system calls it RAPE!!
After the first baby there should be a system in place, when an individual continues having babies on the system steralize period!!
Its not my responsibility to support the money sucking, lazy, drug addicts with birth control!!!
As for me I support my 5 with no help from the State. I have taken responsibility as has my wife for our children.
Stop making excuses and address the fraud that takes place with many of these young ladys. As a matter of fact I was at Woodmans just the other day and a young women with a huge cart of groceries, 4 small children and she was also pregnant again. She needless to say looked like a street walker strung out on drugs. So there she is a victim!! My ass she has figured the system out and takes full advantage of responsible, hard working citizens such as myself. Maybe if the system cracked down on people like her cuts would not be needed for those that really need it

Linda- Again address the young women and men who use the system so their lazy asses can stay at home, sell their crack and buy all the latest electronic items. Hmmmm seems to me if they need to rely on the system to eat then why do they all have I-phones, I-pods, nice designer clothes, cable TV.
Thats the real issue here Linda

Dave, I am addressing the real issue here. That people abuse the system is a fact that will probably always be with us - they are called criminals and if you know of any of the abuses, you have a legal obligation to report them. But that is not the issue. The issue is that more and more people who have never had to use the social safety nets that we ALL pay for are now having to use them through no fault of their own. And the social safety net is being yanked out from under them so Walker can say he's cutting costs. They have been paying for those benefits all their working lives through their taxes, and now that their jobs have disappeared, it's being denied them. And I will always stand by my opinion that it's time for men to start paying for the babies they help make. If you don't want to see that happen, then as I said earlier, start teaching your sons to stop having sex (your daughters, too, for that matter). It's a two way street and it's time to stop blaming just the women for having all those babies. As long as you're going to play the blame game, blame ALL the responsible parties. You don't want to support the babies of the poor, but at the same time you don't want them provided with birth control which they cannot afford. You're going to have to make up your mind just what it is you want. Are you even able to do that?

Linda:

Shall we go back and review your claim about Walker is 'yanking out the social safety net from under people'? Walker increased state spending on that safety net by $1.2 billion...

Again Linda address the real issue here and those who actually need the system will have the system. As long as we continue to ignore those who abuse it, your right it wont be available to those who need it. Mandatory drug testing to start!!

@Linda Motley -

Nobody is "blaming just the women." The point is, we (the taxpayers) shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's sexual activities and/or poor life choices/decisions pertaining to said sexual activities, PERIOD! Instead of funding and doing all of the things you mention, why can't society simply expect people to be personally responsible for themselves when it comes to sexual activity?

If you can't afford to pay, then you don't get to play - whether you're a man or a woman! And if you do, don't come crying to the taxpayer asking us to pay for your mistakes.

Pretty simple, right?

If your personal ideology supports having the taxpayers paying for the mistakes of the individual, then I guess you also fully supported the Wall Street bailouts, correct?

Dave, think about that statement. Women have children for financial gain? Really? Do you have children? They are expensive. What one gets from wellfare, and I remind you that wellfare can only be collected for 5 years in ones lifetime, is not enough to raise a child.

@Lovinlife.... In Wisconsin, the law requires employers to garnish child support payments and forward the funds to the State for disbursement to the parent with custody;if a parent is is employed, via garnishment they will pay child support. Furthermore, the state has a general percentage of earnings that are required to be used for child support. The law allows the employer to charge/collect $3 for each pay-period we garnish and forward those funds to the state.

@M. Doyle, your speculation about Linda's personal life and family are rude and uncalled for.

As for me, I would rather, as a taxpayer, fund a relatively few dollars for a depo-provera shot or a prescription for birth control pills than tens of thousands more for eighteen years of medicaid and possible foster-care. Everyone is so high up on their high moral horse and afraid that a poor young woman might *gasp* have sex, that they're losing sight of common sense.

Your futile attempts at insult only point out your ignorance and lack of proper up-bringing. I have read the president's health bill - every page of it. As a retiree, I have lots of time for reading. Yes, it cuts some benefits. But I would rather forfeit some benefits for myself if it means health coverage is available for everyone. There are no excuses for anyone having to go without health care because they don't have enough money, just like there is not excuse for anyone going hungry in a country that throws away thousands of tons of food a year. You are what is wrong with this country, and it is from your clenched hate-filled fists that we are taking our country back, whether you like it or not. So save your failed attempts at insult and go read a book. You might want to start with the Bible. You might be surprised at what it says about loving everyone, not just those who make as much money as you do.

@Linda-You sit here and make reference to the Bible saying we should maybe read it. Yet you have no problem bashing people, using words like slithering, calling me a racist, a hater just to name a few.
As a women of god and someone who claims to follow the bible you are truely a hypocrite. Take a long long look in the mirror. The bible also makes reference to " A eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth

Cancer screenings are fine. But why should you, I, or anyone else have to pay for somebody else's sexual activities and/or poor life choices/decisions pertaining to said sexual activities? What’s so wrong with ‘if you can’t afford to pay, then you don’t get to play?’ And if you do, don’t come crying to the taxpayers to pay for it! By funding it without repercussion or consequence, the moral hazard resultant is indifference or acceptance of such activity, which has proven to become exponentially perpetuating, correct? How does supporting this kind of mentality/mindset via policy initiative help society in the long run exactly?

Plus, there’s another thing I just don’t understand that maybe you can help clear up. If the left is fine with handing out taxpayer dollars to fund a person's poor sexual/financial choices/decisions, then why all the hubbub with the whole 'Occupying Wall Street' protests? After all, it was just another handing out of taxpayer dollars to fund a person's poor financial choices/decisions?

Honestly, is this just more HYPOCRISY from the left? Or is the left more tolerant of poor financial choices/decisions when they come coupled with poor sexual choices/decision? I’m very confused here, could you please explain.

If you so choose to be part of a socialist society then your free to move. But I am not. And it appears that with all the imigrants that have traveled here legally have also choosen not to be part of a socialist style society either.
It is not my responsibility to support those who make bad decisions time and time again for gain. Look those living on the system or I should say most living on the system do so because they can. Where do they fit in the 47% that pay ZERO Federal Taxes? Yet again these people are driving new cars, have all the latest electronics and more.

Unless you think we should be living in a Charles Dickens world (can't wait for the answer) preventing these kids seems to be a modest investment versus the social costs. I know this will make you scream, so I'll say it, but in Freakonomics they posit the idea that abortions have actually led to the drop in crime we have now.

Dave, in country like this where there is hardly any social safety net, would you kindly put up or shut up when calling this country socialist. That is so far from the truth it is insane.

Say what ever you like around here. But please avoid the inane.

@Dave --really? Driving new cars? There is no more AFDC, Dave, just Workfare, and those jobs don't pay for new cars.

There was a time when people living in a capitalist society with no safety net had the freedom to go someplace where there was more opportunity. That's why most Americans are here, because you could always go farther west until you found a place where the land wasn't owned (except by the Indians you could steal it from) where you could build your own cabin and hunt your own food. And then it was your own problem if you starved, which many did. But where on this planet can you do that today?

What do I do? I put up with numbskulls like you.

That portion of the population that abuses the system is down on Wall Street. But of course in your mind those operations are run by white people so they have a perfect right to do what they do.

Vehement, victimized denial in three..two...one.

Well, it wouldn't be 'free' any more than police and fire protection are 'free', because we all pay for those vital services collectively. But let's ask ourselves why we are okay with a system where some people can pay for unnecessary procedures while other people do without even the basics. Why should a doctor become incredibly wealthy while cops and firefighters are barely in the middle class?

No one is saying that, but insurance companies running the heath system is the real objection. Works well in all the other industrialized nations. At half the cost per citizen no less, go figure.

Like the holes in your head where all your compassion and common sense have leaked out?

Those are all national numbers, aren't they? What are the numbers for Wisconsin? While you are at it, what is the annual budget of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin? What percentage of the total PP of Wisconsin budget is being removed?

First of all I do not believe I said ALL WOMEN.

Second I said take care of all the fraud and those that do abuse the system!! I also never said taking care of 6 kids was easy. As I have 5, but my kids are not running the streets, guns in their pockets and committing hate crimes because life is not fair. There are poor people in this world, then there are people who live off the system because of the social programs in place that allow them to continue to abuse the system.
Sex is a natural need? Your mistaking Sex is for procreation. Yes we all enjoy sex but you said it, Its a want not a need!!! I have never heard of someone dying due to a lack of sex. How about responsible SEX!!!! Again more excuses

Dave, when you put words in other peoples' mouths you only advertise your own irresponsibility. No one here is making excuses for anyone. You are just so consumed with hatred for those less fortunate that you cannot even read accurately. No one has said there are not abuses of the system because there are. But should all the needy, including the old, the disabled and children be condemned to die because in your sanctimonious world they are not worthy? You are so hung up on the few who do abuse the system that you are utterly unable to see that the system saves lives. That you think those lives are not worth saving says more about you than I care to think about.

A fair percentage of the poor are minorities. The hate doesn't surprise me. Not all haters are racist, but all racists are haters. And sometimes it is kinda hard to tell the difference. You think when the guy above mentions kids running in the streets with guns committing hate crimes...you think he is picturing white kids? I think not. Our society has not progressed much at all. People are just less honest about their reasons for the hate.

Linda-Just sit back on your porch smoke a joint and everything will be okay. I honestly do not think that is Gov Walkers Agenda. If I am not mistaking Obamas health care bill has panels setup to evaluate what health care you need or do not need. Pelosi the big driving forces behind that Bill. Hmmm a reject from the 60's Its that mentality that has brought us to today

Hmmmm if Im not mistaking the hate crimes committed over the summer were not a bunch of white kids running the streets. I am not racist at all, but it is what it is!!!!!

Dave, comments like yours only prove the point that the right consists only of haters. That you are proud of your hatred shows just how low in the sewer of humankind you exist. I feel sorry for you. I also feel sorry for your children who are also likely being raised as haters as well. That you cannot respond to the content of posts but resort to lame attempts at insult only reinforces the clear image of your own ignorance.

Linda-I was just responding to what I was being accused of. I have not in any of my posts referred to race!! But again this is how the left twists things around and puts words into peoples mouth. I was called a hater!! I hate no one and raise my kids the same. But I also raise my kids to think for themselves, to work hard and be greatful, to not stand with their hands out expecting someone else to support them

@James- Exactly!! Thats all I am saying. Teach responsible behavior rather than continue to sweep irresponsible behavior under the rug at the burden of the tax payer

Karen, what's so comical about these guys is not one of them will come out and say that men have responsibility for babies born "out of wedlock" as well as the women. Not one, except to qualify their accusations of women having babies to get more money from the welfare system. They are so out of touch they don't even know that the system doesn't work that way anymore, and hasn't for many years. But don't try telling them that. They're too worried that someone may get a benefit they're not getting. They're too busy hating others, then showing up in church on Sunday clapping their hands and shouting "Jesus is my Lord and Saviour". Hypocrites and haters, every last one of them. Too bad their parents and church never taught them that being a Christian means loving everyone, not just the people who make as much money as they do.

Of course MEN have a responsibility for babies born "out of wedlock." When did I ever say otherwise? You know what they say about assumptions, don't you Linda? Might want to remember that before your next post.

Hypocrite and hater, I most certainly am not. And money has nothing to do with it!!!! It's about choice - pure and simple.

Hmmm let's see. I live with my parents, don't have a job, and currently rely on food stamps just to survive. I could work at McDonald's for minimum wage, but that's beneath me. I know that if I have unprotected sex with a woman, that she could get pregnant with my baby, even though I'm in no financial position to be taking care of a child - hell, I can't even support myself. Likewise, my girl is also aware that having unprotected sex with a man could result in her getting pregnant with our baby and she’s also in no financial position to support a child. But, we have unprotected sex anyway, cause quite frankly we just don’t care about the consequences. Hell, if we have a kid, the government will give us even more money then they’re already giving us. My girlfriend just gave birth to our child – better go and apply for those government benefits.

And you guys say “[h]uman sexuality is normal healthy function,” it’s really not their fault for giving in to their animal desires. Give em the money.

I say, they actively CHOOSE to engage in risky behavior, despite knowing fully well the consequences that could result from such behavior prior to making that choice. It proved to be a poor decision. And yet, instead of them suffering the consequences and having to pay for their poor choices, we the hardworking taxpayers get stuck with picking up the tab. That’s BS!!! Most of us that are working hard to support our own family’s are presently having a hard enough time making ends meet just to accomplish that without also having to shoulder the responsibility for our poor choice couples out there.

Just like it was BS when Wall Street got bailed out by the fed with our tax dollars when they were exercising the exact same mindset as the poor choice couple. To say yeah, we’ll bail out the poor choice couple, but not Wall Street makes you guys HYPOCRITES!!! Even worse is the fact that our poor choice couple didn’t even contribute to our economic productivity either before or after having the illegitimate child – they were always leaches on the rest of us. At least Wall Street helps to create millions of jobs and adds productivity to our economy which provides for many other people other than themselves. What’s really sad is that you don’t even seem to realize this, or just don’t care.

Tell you what, if you guys support this kind of behavior, and there appears to be many of you who do, then why not finance these great programs of yours via a ‘voluntary’ tax that you can pay as much as you want to support such programs, without the rest of us who don’t support financing this kind of poor choice mindset any further. After all, we’re trying to take care of our own families by working for our money and paying taxes on that income. That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

And to say I have no compassion just isn't fair at all. I do have compassion for those who TRULY deserve it. The fact is that two people that actively and knowingly decide to make a bad choice don't TRULY deserve our compassion. I don't hate the poor - I HATE STUPIDITY!!! I make plenty of my own mistakes that end up costing me plenty. I don't expect the taxpayers to come to my rescue when I make a bad choice - especially when the consequences are fully known BEFORE I engage in the risky/questionable behavior. Why should I have to pay for other's mistakes that are 110% preventable by merely exercising a little COMMON SENSE??? And aren’t these people being SELFISH when they knowingly make bad choices wherein they also fully know that the consequences of such will end up costing society as a whole? I do believe so. What I can’t figure out is why you’re so content with having to pay for it unless of course you’re not on the paying end at all, but rather on the receiving end.

"what's so comical about these guys is not one of them will come out and say that men have responsibility for babies born "out of wedlock" as well as the women. Not one, except to qualify their accusations of women having babies to get more money from the welfare system. "

Linda:
Not one of them? Really? Perhaps you need to reread some of the comments that you seem to have missed...

"3:05pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Last I checked, it required two people to impregnate someone. Can't the call for more personal responsibility include both men and women?"

"12:21pm on Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Linda-Ya thats it!! How about some self responsibility!! There is no doubt that planned parent hood does some very good stuff. But agoain for those irresponsible young men and women we will just continue to make excuses and tell them its ok every time they make bad decisions!!!!"

@CowDung -

Don't forget this one from me, in addition to my most recent post in this thread:

2:05am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011
@Linda Motley -

Nobody is "blaming just the women." ...
If you can't afford to pay, then you don't get to play - whether you're a man or a woman!

I guess Linda either can't read, can't comprehend what she reads, or just likes to unfairly stereotype everyone that doesn't fully agree with her views and call them names like "hypocrites and haters, every last on of them." Funny thing is, the only real ‘hypocrite and hater’ here appears to be Linda. I think this speaks volumes as to the kind of person that Linda truly is.

@Linda

Try again Linda. And this time, you may want to try using fact and analysis to back up your position like the rest of us do, instead of using stereotypes, propaganda, and rhetoric. All of that stuff is really getting old and doesn’t add anything new to the discussion.