RSS feed for comments on this post.

89 Responses to “Study: Abortions at home are “safe””

Comments

1. scmommy says:

   February 17, 2006 at 1:11 am

   Sick, just totally sick.
2. sanity says:

   February 17, 2006 at 1:13 am

   Meanwhile Walmart is still under fire for having pharmacists that want the ability to not go against thier ideals, religous beliefs or morals.

   Now they want to force them to do things they do not feel right doing.

   I am sure Walmart is not the only pharmacy out there. This whole thing is to make those who do not agree with selling or dispensing something they consider either immoral or that goes against thier own beliefs; force them to do it anyways.

   Wal-Mart Lawsuit Staged – Women “Denied’ Abortion Drug Admit Scheming

   By Gudrun Schultz

   MASSACHUSETTS, United States, February 2, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Three women who are suing Wal-Mart after being denied the abortion-causing Plan B morning after pill have admitted to the Associated Press that the action was planned with abortion rights groups and lawyers.

   Moreover LifeSiteNews.com has learned that at least two of the women involved are themselves activists pushing the abortifacient drugs.

   Dr. Rebekah Gee and nurse and midwife Julia Battel, with Katrina McCarty, launched the suit in an attempt to force Wal-Mart to stock the drug on the grounds that it is a “commonly prescribed medicine,” the definition given to drugs that pharmacists are required to stock. A new state law allows pharmacists to dispense Plan B without a prescription, but they aren’t required to make it available.

   Link

   Pharmacists Debate Pro-Life Conscience Clause
   Spurred by recent changes in medicine and public policy, an increasing number of pharmacists are debating whether they should have the right to refuse to dispense medications they morally oppose.

   One of the major concerns is whether druggists should be allowed to reject prescriptions they believe will induce abortion — a situation that leaves their beliefs and their jobs on a collision course. The sometimes heated debate has preoccupied many pharmacists’ associations across the country.

   “They’re entitled to their own moral standards,” said Stephen Brandt, head of the Garden State Pharmacy Owners in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, whose organization has taken no official position. “They can’t just throw the prescription in the garbage, but they shouldn’t be forced to fill it either.”

   Although a handful of pharmacists raised these questions years ago, the discussion intensified last year after Somerville-based Gynetics Inc. announced it would market a packet of pills that could act in an abortifacient manner.

   Many pro-life supporters view the drug combination as an abortion-inducer, because it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Pro-life pharmacists said the availability of the drug effectively forces them to participate in what they view as an immoral act.

   The conflict is likely to escalate in the coming year if the FDA approves the dangerous French abortion pill RU-486 and if other states follow Oregon’s decision to legalize prescriptions for physician-assisted suicide.

   Some pharmacists in Florida, Indiana, Washington, and California have been reprimanded or fired for refusing to dispense drugs they feel can be abortifacient.

   Last July, at the behest of the American Pharmaceutical Association, the New Jersey Pharmacists Association passed a resolution urging the Board of Pharmacy to recognize “the individual pharmacist’s right to exercise conscientious refusal” while urging the establishment of a system that would ensure patients’ access to legally prescribed therapy. (In other words, it would have pharmacists refer the patient to someone who would provide the drug.

   So far, the board has taken no action on the measure.

   Read the rest here

   Are you aware that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription for you? I worked in pharmacies for 5 years and had no idea. I have had this happen to me and was quite shocked. I never knew a pharmacist could override a doctors order for you to take a prescribed drug…they indeed can. Like doctors, pharmacists can be sued for malpractice. If they feel they would be filling a prescription for a drug that may put them in danger of being sued, they can send you and your doctors note right out the door. So, pharmacists are federally not responsible to fill your prescription, it seems.

   Why should a pharmacy be federally responsible to carry it?

   I am sure we will get the usual if your for it I am against it crowds, but try having some information and proof (links) to go along with ‘rebuttals’, please.
3. sanity says:

   February 17, 2006 at 1:25 am

   Update:

   Massachusetts Pharmacy Board Says Wal-Mart Must Stock Emergency Contraception

   BOSTON Feb 14, 2006 (AP)— The state pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart on Tuesday to stock emergency contraception pills at its stores in Massachusetts.

   Massachusetts becomes second state to require the world’s largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill.

   A Wal-Mart spokesman said the company would comply with the directive by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy and is reviewing its nationwide policy on the drug.

   “Clearly women’s health is a high priority for Wal-Mart,” spokesman Dan Fogleman said. “We are actively thinking through the issue.”

   Wal-Mart now carries the pill only in Illinois, where it is required to do so under state law. The company has said it “chooses not to carry many products for business reasons,” but has refused to elaborate.

   The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam’s Club stores in Massachusetts.

   The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all “commonly prescribed medicines.”

   ……

   Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three women, praised the board’s decision and said he was prepared to sue in other states should Wal-Mart not overturn its policy. Abortion rights groups and women’s organizations have also urged Wal-Mart to change its policy.

   Link

   Wal-Mart – CORPORATE MORAL STANCE

   For those of you that have not heard, Planned Parenthood is planning a boycott of Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart refuses to sell the drug Preven.

   Preven is being called the “day after contraceptive”. It is not a contraceptive. This pill is taken after conception has already taken place.

   This is a chemical abortion device which acts by preventing the newly conceived baby from implantation in its mother’s womb.

   Because of this Wal-Mart refuses to sell it.

   Planned Parenthood is launching a campaign asking all women and the men to boycott Wal-Mart and to write them letting them know that it is because they refuse to sell this abortifacient device.

   Wal-Mart officials gave an e-mail address for us to write. Please let them know you appreciate this courageous stand. We must not let them down. We really need to support businesses that take the moral high road on the vital issue of the right to life.

   The address is: letters@wal-mart.com
   In the Subject line write: Preven.

   Link

   Origins: In May 1999, Wal-Mart announced its pharmacies would not be selling the emergency contraceptive Preven. At that time Planned Parenthood did indeed engage in a bit of sabre-rattling, threatening a boycott of the retailer if that decision wasn’t reversed. That boycott, however, does not appear to have materialized. The angry talk quickly dissipated, but not so quickly that someone on the other side of the fight didn’t decide to issue his own call to arms, hence the e-mail quoted above that asks folks to show support for Wal-Mart against a boycott that never was.

   Wal-Mart’s stance isn’t so much pro-life as it is pro-business, but we’ll get into that later. Let’s start with a discussion of what the drug in question is and why it’s the subject of so much controversy.

   Preven is a “morning-after” pill that can be used up to 72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse. The Preven kit is no more than four regular birth control pills packaged with a home pregnancy test and marketed under this new name. Instructions in the kit call for the pills to be taken two at a time, 12 hours apart, within 72 hours of unprotected sex. It is considered about 75% effective.

   Preven’s manufacturer, Gynetics Inc. of Somerville, N.J., is of the opinion the drug doesn’t cause abortions. It says Preven stops ovulation and prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. Those against the drug claim it’s an abortifacient in that though it doesn’t kill the fertilized egg, it does keep it from gaining needed succor, which brings about the egg’s demise. It’s a fine point of distinction, but upon these fine points are pro-choice and pro-life wars waged. Also playing a role in the controversy is the question of when new life begins — at the moment sperm and egg successfully come together, or at the moment the fertilized egg successfully implants. Whether one chooses to view Preven as a birth control drug or as an abortifacient likely hinges on when one believes conception takes place.

   Preven is not to be confused with RU-486 (also known as Mifepristone), a drug that was illegal in the U.S.A. prior to its winning FDA approval in September 2000. RU-486 is used in the first seven weeks of pregnancy to cause a medically-induced abortion. In 2004 the FDA announced stricter labelling requirements for the drug, citing the instance of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured, and death that have occurred among those who have taken it.

   Wal-Mart says its decision not to stock Preven was purely a business one. The company has stated that in the interest of meeting the needs of customers, its pharmacists will refer any request for the product to pharmacies that do carry it. It’s this dichotomy of stance (“We won’t sell it to you, but we’ll help you get it from another outlet”) which supports Wal-Mart’s claim that it took the decision it did for some reason other than pro-life ethics. To hold Wal-Mart up as champions of the pro-life cause is to miss the story — were the retailer truly pro-life, it wouldn’t be helping those who come seeking Preven. (Additionally, Wal-Mart drew the praise of Planned Parenthood when they announced they would offer alternative contraceptive products to women seeking Preven, something they wouldn’t do if the issue concerning Preven were a moral one rather than a business one.)

   Planned Parenthood believes Wal-Mart’s decision unfairly affects women in small towns where the only local pharmacy may be the one located at the nearby Wal-Mart. It’s difficult to know what to make of such an objection, because it’s hard to imagine a place so isolated so as not to be within driving distance of another pharmacy yet still large enough an urban center to attract a Wal-Mart. One might choose to view this position as a legitimate concern voiced by Planned Parenthood on behalf of those affected, or as a sympathy-gaining way for that group to frame its stance against a retailer who is doing something they don’t much like.

   Wal-Mart has been a favorite corporate whipping boy for years now. It’s big and successful and thus has provided our society two extremely popular putative reasons for resenting the hell out of it: It is said to have driven plucky little Mom ‘n’ Pop stores out of business with its unbeatably low prices, and it is decried for allegedly having changed the face of neighborhoods.

   In addition to the success-related reasons offered for disliking this particular retailer are the numerous marketing decisions it has made over the years. Time and again, Wal-Mart has managed to piss off folks by what it has chosen to stock or keep out of its stores. Not vending Preven is but one bone of contention: Wal-Mart also riled countless others with its decision to vend guns and ammunition, and another segment of society was angered by the retailer’s decision not to sell certain popular CDs it deemed offensive. All in all, Wal-Mart has proved to possess an undeniable talent for ruffling feathers.

   Yet as much as Wal-Mart is decried for its various decisions on what it will and will not sell, the unarguable bottom line is that it has the right to vend what it pleases — that is, after all, what free enterprise is about. If it chooses not to stock an FDA-approved drug, the consumer can vote with his feet. Likewise, if it chooses to sell guns but not certain popular CDs, the options are the same.

   Snopes on Walmart and Preven
4. camojack says:

   February 17, 2006 at 5:07 am

   What about side effects on the women who take them? None?!
   (Other than potential emotional harm)
5. Pam says:

   February 17, 2006 at 7:33 am

   Seems like a lot of work. You know what might work better…use birth control before you have sex!
6. Jim M says:

   February 17, 2006 at 8:54 am

   Using birth control? That might be asking too much from some people you’re asking them to think!
7. mahowel says:

   February 17, 2006 at 10:00 am

   So it’s ok to kill as many babies as possible, but we dare not put a murdering gang member who can write a childrens book to death
8. steve says:

   February 17, 2006 at 10:03 am

   So, conception begins at withdrawl? Peace
9. Jim M says:

   February 17, 2006 at 11:02 am

   Also remember it is cruel and unusual punishment to hang or electrocute (Old sparky) a murdering piece of dog squeeze that didn’t give there victim a choice! But we can suck the brains out of an innocent human being that won’t get a chance at life.
10. Jim M says:

    February 17, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Is there a way to test if the unborn fetus is liberal? That was really insensitive. Lord, I Apologize!
11. sanity says:

    February 17, 2006 at 11:44 am

    There are only a few reasons I would ever accept abortion and that it was life and death of the mother (and that is few and far between).

    or in cases of rape or incest.

    All other cases, like:

    1) I am not ready yet….
    If you are ready for sex, you are ready to be a parent. Having a child is a direct cause of having unprotected sex. If you feel you are not ready, then perhaps you shouldn’t be doing it.

    2) It will interrupt me going to school…
    See Number 1 or number 3, your choice.

    3) It’s an inconvienence….
    Should have thought about that before having unprotected sex! Why should an unborn baby die because you were stupid?

    What is the bottom line? An excuse will be found to justify the death of any baby or any mother when the cause of death is abortion. Individual women and children are always expendable to protect the “right-to-choose”. Who really has concern for any woman and her baby? You can only find true concern for them among defenders of life from conception to natural death. These “anti-abortion zealots” (as portrayed by the media) can be found in various Pro-Life, Right-to-Life, and Respect-for-Life organizations. Which choice appeals to you – the defenders of death or the defenders of life?

    The thing that really hurts my heart is the smug superiority and callousness of many pro-choice advocates. They make many violations of reason and decency, but what really bothers me is their disdain for the little dead babies. They weren’t really babies. They were just “choices” for the women to make, and anybody who has any misgivings about our very open abortion laws is HITLER!
12. mahowel says:

    February 17, 2006 at 11:51 am

    Is there a way to test if the unborn fetus is liberal? That was really insensitive. Lord, I Apologize!

    Comment by Jim M @ 2/17/2006 – 11:23 am

    LOL Good point, but you forgot about the starving Pygmys in New Guienna.
13. sanity says:

    February 17, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Here is a very good article and break down of excuses, read it:

    Abortion: Civil Rights or Birth Control?

    Pro-choice a civil rights issue, get real. This is a birth control issue; ask Ms. Roe. She started this issue of legalized abortions. Well, if she didn’t, someone else would have come along. She is the one who lied about being raped. So, why did she want an abortion? Because she was careless, got pregnant, and didn’t want the reminder of her mistake. Abortion was a convenient way out. Hence, Roe vs. Wade came about and abortion was made a legal form of birth control.

    Is this not true for most women? Or do women get abortions because of rape or incest? Or do women just say it is rape or incest to justify an abortion? Rape and incest are the examples used by pro-abortion activists. They feel abortion should be legal for these two cases and all other cases. What other cases? There is rape, incest, health problems, birth defects, and birth control. Am I missing anything?

    What are the most used defenses for having an abortion? Are the reasons of rape and incest used more often? These justifications should be the least often used excuses for having an abortion. But in reality, the statistics are probably higher. Any woman can walk into a clinic and say, “I was raped, I need an abortion,” or “I was raped by my uncle, I need an abortion” without proof or evidence. Today, there are more reported rapes and cases of incest.

    But let us be realistic for a moment. What is the probability of a woman getting raped where there is penetration and semen left behind, while she is ovulating? The egg, once released, only lives for about 24 hours. Now what’s the probability? Consider the life span of the male’s reproductive cells, low sperm count or whether or not the sperm could successfully penetrate the egg. Granted this is possible, but the probability is very low. The same argument could be used for incest. Unless every Uncle Tom, Dick, or Harry keeps track of his niece’s menstrual cycle. Then why do pro-abortionists use these low probability examples to justify all abortions in any case for any reason? Next case.

    The health of a mother or the embryo could be justification for having an abortion, couldn’t it? If the mother is having health problems, then she should be treated first medically before having to abort the fetus. The fetus could be affected, but it may not be affected. Treatment to the mother should be a priority, but the fetus should be left alone. If the fetus is affected it might abort itself, which is an act of nature. There may be a time when the embryo is in danger, when the zygote lodges in the fallopian tubes or cervical opening. This can cause medical trauma to the mother in the way of hemorrhaging, rupture of an organ, or collapse of the mother. Therefore the pregnancy needs to be terminated. If there is a defect in the pregnancy or fetus, most of the time there is a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Again, an act of nature, not an act of human intervention. So, why is there a need for abortion?

    Maybe the fetus has a birth defect. This can be a good justification for having an abortion. But what is the definition of defect? A definition could be very broad and take in a lot of representations. Who has the right to say what a defect is or why it is a reason to abort a fetus? Do doctors, lawyers, mail carriers, teachers, factory workers, the government, you, or I have the right to say what is the definition of a defect? The definition states that a defect is a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble but we all have defects. They maybe small or large, few or many, but every human has at least one defect. Whether it is a mental, physical, or emotional, no one is excluded from the defective group we call the human race.

    Getting back to abortion, pregnant women can have tests done to see if the fetus has a defect. If the tests are positive, the doctors are still not 100% sure the fetus will have the defect at birth or throughout life. Those doctors can be sued if they guarantee anything. A fetus might be tested positive for a birth defect, might being the key word here, but this might be a virtue. The fetus should be given the chance to grow and develop. If the fetus is aborted due to a defect, it is not given the chance to grow out of the defect, or overcome the defect.

    Here is an example; a woman had many health problems and her husband was a drunk. She had four children, each with the same type of disease or birth defect. She found out that she was pregnant again. With all of those odds (defects) going against her, should she abort this fifth child? If “yes” was the clear answer, then Beethoven would have just been aborted. If “no” was the answer, it becomes obvious that defects can be overcome and there is no room to justify an abortion because of birth defects.

    Notice, there was no mention of a “baby” or “child.” There were only medical terms used in the previous paragraphs. Pro-abortionists feel if they could call it a fetus, embryo, or zygote, then murder is not being committed and abortion can be justified. They say that it is not a “baby” inside of the mother’s womb, it is just a collection of cells. But most doctors call the embryo a “baby” when speaking with parents, not a fetus. I don’t think, “Oh, the fetus is doing well,” is said very often.

    When does life begin? Doesn’t an amoebae’s life begin when it divides? This is a single cell organism. Does it not live? This is how a zygote starts off… as a single cell that divides. Is this cell not a living thing? By the first week, the zygote is an embryo. The embryo has an umbilical cord and a blood supply. Do we not have a blood supply? It only takes two months to form the major organ systems, sex, and limbs? Do we, as humans, possess these traits? By the end of two months, this thing that looks human and functions like a human, is still not called a human. It is called a fetus. Sounds like a human to me. The heart is already pumping and the brain is developing in the second month. The last seven months are for maturing and nurturing. No matter which way the argument is looked at, especially by pro-choice activists, this thing inside of a woman is living upon conception. Even by the time a woman finds out that she is pregnant and makes a decision about abortion, the cells have divided, the blood is flowing, and the embryo is growing. If that is not life, what is? Try to justify abortion all you want, it is still terminating life.

    Back to the issue of birth control. Most women have abortions for the purposes of birth control. Here are some excuses people use to justify having an abortion: the husband does not want the baby, the boyfriend took off, contraception was not used, or too young to have a baby. Give the husband a chance, he might learn to love the idea of another heir to the family fortune. If the boyfriend is a jerk, the mother can always give the baby up for adoption. There are a lot of good families out there that are not able to have their own children and would love to adopt. Some women don’t want to use or pay for contraceptives. But, when they get pregnant, they can go to a free clinic and get an abortion. We taxpayers pay for those clinics; what a deal! We pay for other people’s birth control. If you are too young to have a child, then you are too supposedly better without contraception. Why should the little living thing, that can’t speak for itself, be terminated because the mother was easy?

    I am not totally against abortion, even though it may appear that way from this article. I don’t think abortion should be outlawed all together. I feel abortion should be legal for cases of rape and incest (with physical proof and legal evidence) and when the health of mother or child is in jeopardy (with documentation that every treatment was used first). Abortion can be an option only as a last alternative. With these conditions, abortions should only be granted for girls under 18 years of age with the consent of a parent. Abortion should not be used because Jane Doe had a fun night and forgot to use birth control. Abortion should not be used because a teenager wanted to have sex but did not think about the consequences. There are alternatives to abortion, think about it.

    Link

    I think she makes some excellent points.
14. sanity says:

    February 17, 2006 at 11:57 am

    And how about the Men?

    The whole abortion issue revolves around women and thier rights, but don’t men have any?

    30 Years After Roe v. Wade
    How About Choice for Men?

    On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court eliminated a checkerboard of state laws on reproductive freedom and guaranteed American women choice throughout the country. Thirty years later, American men are still waiting for the same right.

    ——————————————————————————–

    “To date, courts have refused to respect men’s reproductive rights even in the most extreme cases, including: …when women have taken the semen from a used condom and inserted it in themselves…”

    ——————————————————————————–

    When a woman gets pregnant she has the right to decide whether or not to carry the baby to term, and whether to raise the child herself or to give it up for adoption. In many states she can even terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few weeks of birth. Yet if she decides she wants the child, she can demand 18 years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter. When it comes to reproduction, in America today women have rights and men merely have responsibilities.

    Certainly nobody should be able to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, thus the feminist slogan “My Body, My Choice.” Yet our current laws allow a woman to dictate to a man what to do with his body. The average American father works a 51-hour work week, one of the longest in the industrialized world. It is men, overwhelmingly, who do our society’s hazardous and most strenuous jobs, and nearly 50 American workers–mostly men–are injured every minute of the 40-hour work week. Can anybody deny that the sacrifices required to pay 18 years of child support take a heavy toll on a man’s body, too? Where’s his choice?

    Read the rest of the Article Here
15. Jim M says:

    February 17, 2006 at 11:59 am

    mahowel,

    I did forget about the starving Pygmys in New Guienna. I bow my head in shame!
16. mahowel says:

    February 17, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    They weren’t really babies. They were just “choices” for the women to make, and anybody who has any misgivings about our very open abortion laws is HITLER

    Comment by sanity @ 2/17/2006 – 11:44 am

    The really strange part about the “choice” is that liberals can never answer what the other “choice” is. Abortion or?????
17. Jim M says:

    February 17, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    Mahowel, I work just north of you (OSTP) testing antennas in an anechoic chamber. Commute from Loganville to work each day and we have tried to talk our oldest in to going into the military to give him a few more years to figure out what he wants to do. Just switched the radio from listening to Herman Cain (750WSB) to Rush I do enjoy the Church of The Painful Truth.
18. sanity says:

    February 17, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Remarkable Obituary

    Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr. Common Sense. Mr. Sense had been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

    He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn’t always fair. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).

    His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. – Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

    Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

    Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

    Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge financial settlement.

    Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner.

    Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
19. Lorica says:

    February 17, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    There are side effects to this drug and bad ones. I saw a news article about a girl out west that took this drug the morning after she had sex. The next day she started to bleed out, and before her parents could get her to the emergency room she died. She was only 20 years old, and was very athletic and in good health. They have no idea why or what happened to her. The drug company, at that time, had no idea why. Before this drug should be used the drug company should know everything there is to know about it. Isn’t that why we have the FDA??? – Lorica
20. Robert says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    I really have to wonder about the researchers who come up with this stuff … do they sit around and decide one day … “Hey, let’s make abortions work at the drive-thru.”

    I’ve never wanted to be the one to say “No … you can never have a legal abortion.” But I sure as hell wouldn’t consider it a choice in my world. I spent my twenties and half of my thirties convinced that I didn’t want to be a parent … and I made sure it didn’t happen.

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility? My dad always told me “If you’re gonna dance, you’re gonna have to pay the fiddler.” But, now it’s getting even easier to walk out of the dance without picking up the tab.

    This is just damn disturbing ….
21. silensedogwood says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    Abortion issues aside, and correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t Walmart the antichrist anyway? (according to an ever growing sect) It seems to me that this is just one more nail in the coffin of illegal alien employment practices, wage issues, and sexual harassment woes. Further, wouldn’t it be ironic if the groups denouncing Walmart and calling for boycotts for these labor issues are the same ones suing them for not stocking the products they want? It makes a simple girl like me go “hmmm.”
22. Baklava says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Silense,

    As it’s fun to expose the mindset of the left…

    Can you give details to your “laundry list” (as liberals tend to do, due to their deep condescension and hate).
    Such as:
    1) “illegal alien employment practices – The way I understand it is a contracting company that Walmart used was the employer of the illegal aliens. Walmart did not have access to the empoyees records and due to the incident has taken it on theirselves to fire the company, pay a fine, and not use contractors but employees where they would have positive control of who was hired. You silense, can either understand the new info or go on making inaccurate accusations…
    2) “wage issues” – What does Walmart do wage wise? They do the same thing UPS, Target, large retailers all over do. They give health and dental and other benefits to salaried full time workers and not to part time employees. Most employees become full time salaried and have that opportunity just like every other large retailer. I am not sure why Walmart is singled out other than it’s an example of what liberals hate is that “the people” are not receiving benefits from the employer. But AT LEAST BE HONEST. Admit that you are singling out one employer. THe funny thing for liberals is that nearly ALL of the FOrtune 500 companies offer health and dental benefits but less than half of small business offer health and dental benefits. It’d be nice to have utopia but this is a double/triple standard being held against Walmart and it simply is market forces (the consumer) making decisions which is what capitalism is. Capitalism = the people choosing who gets what resources and socialism = the government choosing who gets what resources. We understand that liberals prefer socialism but we conservatives want an honest debate without attacks. Why? Because both camps of people “care”. We conservatives just believe that prosperity is greater in a capitalist system. It is what enables this country to give more aid than all other countries combined.
    3) “sexual harassment woes“ ooh. Liberals care about sexual harrasment again? Read sexual harassment rules and tell me if Monica and Bill is considered ok. It isn’t. Bill was in a position of power. Monica was a suboordinate. This isn’t the issue and I don’t eveen need a response from you on it. The point is that Walmart just like every other employer has provided sexual harassment training and is doing what it can to make sure sexual harassment doesn’t exist. In typical liberal fashion you aren’t holding the person responsible who is committing the act. Personal responsibility is important to conservatives.

    Please don’t be offended concerning my comments about liberals. No need to be defensive if you are one. You may be a fine individual who “cares” just like conservatives do. I more or less wanted to help you with a little information about these so-called “Walmart issues.
23. sanity says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    and yet Walmart is still the most profitable while places like Target and Kmart barely hang on.

    For such the anti-christ as you so put it, they do quite well.

    Lets by all means boycott them for being captilalist, something which is the backbone of the US, Capitalism.
24. silensedogwood says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Thanks for filling in the blanks Baklava. You used a hundred dollars worth of words to restate the point I was trying to make with a nickle.
    

    They need to make up their minds!
25. Baklava says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Got it.
26. silensedogwood says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Perhaps, you shouldn’t be so quick to attack a friend.
27. Baklava says:

    February 17, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    I was attacking liberals and their talking points…. But point understood…

    I apologize.
28. steve says:

    February 17, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    If you don’t believe that conception begins as your zipping up, then by putting the morning after pill on the market you will be preventing abortions, right? Further, if birth control is provided free of charge to anyone over 16, you would prevent even more abortions. But, the Right wants this argument to continue because it’s worth votes to the Republicans. So the Republicans could care less about abortion, they want an issue. Peace
29. sanity says:

    February 17, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    But is it about abortion or the right of a company to sell what it wants to sell?

    Should companies be forced to sell something? Sued into submission?
30. Baklava says:

    February 17, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    Steve, it is poor debate tactic to talk about what other people “want” or “care” about on your part. Do you think you can read minds?
31. PCD says:

    February 17, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Should Wal-mart be forced to carry Sarin gas if pressured to do so by Al Queda cells?
32. Baklava says:

    February 17, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    PCD, I think Walmarts should be forced to carry Pen*house and medical marijuana. Let’s start a campaign!! We’ll call it the Tommy loves Walmart campaign !
33. mahowel says:

    February 17, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Mahowel, I work just north of you (OSTP) testing antennas in an anechoic chamber. Commute from Loganville to work each day and we have tried to talk our oldest in to going into the military to give him a few more years to figure out what he wants to do. Just switched the radio from listening to Herman Cain (750WSB) to Rush I do enjoy the Church of The Painful Truth.
    Comment by Jim M @ 2/17/2006 – 12:47 pm

    Where the hell is Loganville?? J/K I hated that Maxie Price ad

    I listen to 750 some but mostly 640, I am a Kimmer addict. I like the Regular Guys, most of the time anyway so my mornings are spent on 96 Rock. Herman Cain is the man, I love his books and his radio shows. I like Rush too, we are getting more and more good radio. Liberals just can’t figure out why conservative radio works while liberal radio dies. (well except that damn Georgia Public Radio)
    
34. mahowel says:

    February 17, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    Should Wal-mart be forced to carry Sarin gas if pressured to do so by Al Queda cells?

    Comment by PCD @ 2/17/2006 – 3:45 pm

    Yes but only in the Sam’s Choice brand…
35. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    February 17, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Two questions:

    (1) There have been a number of birth control devices and methods that were introduced to the public as being “completely safe”. Only later did we learn the deadly side effects on women. This new “miracle pill” seems to have a similar odor. Will we find out years later that profit and politics have trumped medical science once again?

    (2) A number of individuals (such as George Weigel and Mark Steyn) have commented upon the dwindling population of Europe. British historian Niall Ferguson called this the greatest “sustained decrease in European population since the Black Death of the 14th century”. Given the fact that abortion in Europe is safe, legal, and very common, and also given the fact that a nanny welfare state cannot possibly be sustained by a population that is primarily elderly and retired, does it even make political sense for the Left to defend abortion anymore?

    Both of these questions leave aside the issue of abortion’s ghoulish nature, of course.
36. Big Bang Hunter says:

    February 17, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    Two thoughts -

    - I liked Ann Coulters take on “choice”

    “…Freedom of choice really means the freedom to have unprotected sex with any man they think so little of they wouldn’t dream of having his baby….”

    - At times I wonder if the left ever laments all those babies they’ve aborted that could have grown up to be good Komrads….

    - Bang
37. Big Bang Hunter says:

    February 17, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    - I also wonder why any rational person would want to be a member of a group that would gladly have aborted him or her on a whim, given half a chance. But then I guess like all ironies of the lefts positions, that would never occur to them…..

    - Bang
38. Dave in CO says:

    February 17, 2006 at 7:08 pm

    baklava wrote: “Steve, it is poor debate tactic to talk about what other people “want” or “care” about on your part. Do you think you can read minds?”

    Do you honestly think steve gives a flip about debating tactics or anyone’s opinions? Based on his posts here and on numerous other blogs, I’d say no. From reading his posts, it seems clear to me that steve doesn’t think about anything. It is just silly drive by moonbattery.

    People that post as steve does display what economist James D. Miller calls “moral free-riding”. It refers to people who take moral stands on issues for which there will be consequence to them. It is easy to spout crapola when there are others out there willing to fight to defend their freedoms to do so. There will not be any consequences to them, so why not? ST is a good egg to provide him space in the comments section but be honest, is your life enhanced in any way by reading what he has to say? Peas and carrots
39. stackja says:

    February 17, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    Abortion will kill the need for abortion as the human race ends with nothing.
40. steve says:

    February 17, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    So we are all clear: Thou shall not kill. That means abortion, capital punishment and war. The Left also believes in Free Will(choice) and the Right of Privacy. Freedom requires Peace and prosperity. Community requires a communal existence. Moral relativism is a creation of Rightwing capitalists not the Left. Peace
41. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    February 17, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    Thou shall not kill. That means abortion, capital punishment and war.

    Unless thy name be Saddam Hussein or Ted Kennedy. In that case, thou hast permission to let ‘er rip.
42. benning says:

    February 17, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    steve, are you on medication? Moral Relativism is a product of Communism. But then, you don’t really care, do you? Reality
43. Pam says:

    February 17, 2006 at 8:26 pm

    steve- why does the birth control need to be free? Why don’t they get jobs to pay for the birth control? If you can’t afford $10.00/ rubbers, you sure as hades can’t afford the morning after pill. And if you can’t pay you can’t play.
44. andrew says:

    February 17, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Safe abortions really piss off the wingnuts. How dare women not face harm?
45. Baklava says:

    February 17, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Dave in CO,

    I use his comments as a jumping ground to:
    1) Get on my soap box
    2) Convey concepts to newbies in the political field who just happen on this site.
    3) Help others liberals to convert (Steve won’t convert).

    I recognize that there could be 100 different ways to convert liberals to common sense, fact based conservativism as it happened to me in 1991. One way might be appealing to liberals with “feelings”. What liberals do NOT understand is that conservatives “care” also. We recognize that it is better to teach an able-bodied person how to fish rather than give them fish. And liberals CANNOT talk about what conservatives think or feel or care about.

    BTW, On the issue ST posted about, it comes down to personal responibillity. Liberals fight against having to have personal responsibility on every subject.
46. Big Bang Hunter says:

    February 17, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    - Of course….Like Steve says…taking responsibility for your actions really sux. Unless you’re a real dummy theres almost always someone or something else you can blame it all on….

    - Bang
47. Big Bang Hunter says:

    February 17, 2006 at 9:52 pm

    No andrew… what pisses me off is no-class idiots like you that troll and spam Conservative blogs because you just can’t seperate your personal issues from your politics and you post things like you just did. Sis has a lot more patience for that kind of crap than I would. Only a moron would say such a thing. You and Steve make good moonbat bookends…

    - Bang
48. Bachbone says:

    February 18, 2006 at 2:05 am

    Jim M — I’m surprised no one has yet answered your question about how you tell if it’s a liberal fetus. During the ultrasound, you look at the monitor to see if it already has its head up its butt.
49. Big Bang Hunter says:

    February 18, 2006 at 2:09 am

    - The good news is if we just leave it alone the al Qaeda-bats will eventually dissapear.

    - Bang
50. Baklava says:

    February 18, 2006 at 2:25 am

    Jim M:

    Is there a way to test if the unborn fetus is liberal? That was really insensitive. Lord, I Apologize!

    Comment by Jim M @ 2/17/2006 – 11:23 am

    Larry the cable guy humor there. Here’s my answer – If the mom smokes weed… the baby just might grow up to be a liberal (a few brain cells short of a conservative)

© 2003 - 2012 Sister Toldjah • All Rights Reserved

Powered by: WordPress • Design by: E.Webscapes • Hosted by: Hosting Matters