« On special interests and special interests... | Main | Life in the 17th? »

August 09, 2006

The abortion question

Comments on this post have drifted, hence this post.

So how did we get from payday loan bills to Sen. Clinton's views on choice? I got no clue what the references to her as pro-life are based on.

Here's a May 15, 2006 statement from her senatorial website in which she says, "I believe it's more important than ever that we fight to protect a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health." Sounds pretty pro-choice to me.

It is an issue on which political candidates need to clearly declare themselves.

Sen. Jacobs, so far as I've ever heard, read or seen, is pro-choice. I don't know that he's ever declared himself on some of the peripheral questions, parental notification and what-not. I suspect, though, that one of the commenters may have caught the senator's views when he/she said that the pro-choice question is like being pregnant -- you either are or you aren't.

Mr. Beals has said several times that he is pro-life, a position that often has an "except" after it, with the first one involving rape and incest.

So far, Mr. Beals has not answered the question of whether there are any "excepts" in his position. It has to be answered between now and Election Day.

Be on notice that any comments of the "baby-killer" sort aren't going to show up here.

Posted by jcb at August 9, 2006 07:46 PM


John, I agree that comments of the 'baby-killer' sort are insensative and inappropriate. However, is it not fair to identify what the 'choice' is?

The 'choice' to give birth to a baby -or- the 'choice' to terminate the life of that baby.

Given the fact that a baby's heart starts beating at 19-days and brainwaves start at 21-days, I do hope that it is indeed fair to call this 'life' and a 'baby.'

I do hope that this is an appropriate comment - as it does nothing other than state biological facts - and does nothing other than define 'what the CHOICE happens to be.'

I do appreciate the reality of the situation far too many people find themselves in and have found themselves in. However, as the facts are known, the only 'choice' that a civilized country should be dealing with is the 'choice' to deal with reproduction in a responsible and life-affirming manner.

I appreciate the opportunity to share a perspective and facts.

Posted by: Jim Mowen at August 9, 2006 09:41 PM

I think when James Beals decided to lay out the way off topic statement that he was ant-pro choice. I am still wanting to see if he feels that little girls that are raped and/or the victims of incest should have to go through the pain of nine months of pregnancy and then decide whether to keep the baby or give iot up.

Mr. Belas seems very quiet on this site since the question was posed.

Well which is it, is he anti-pro choice or has he seen the light and come over to the pro-choice side.

Waiting for a response.

Posted by: Hear me Roar at August 9, 2006 10:35 PM

THis comment transferred here from On special interests and special interests...


Hillary for President, is this the anti-pro choice Clinton that you were talking about. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million ... Hillary Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record ...

Posted by: Hear me roar at August 9, 2006 11:04 PM

Hillary is Pro- choice. It’s her biggest weakness as far as I am concerned. I like many of the other things she supports except the abortion movement. She is more hawkish than Bill ever was, which is what I like most about her. She looks like the best possibility so far from the Democrats. Too bad they wouldn’t run Lieberman, I think he is actually the best they have to offer other than Hillary. Most of the other Dem’s I have heard mentioned are too weak on national defense. If the Republicans do run Rudy G., he is another high on my list of choices. He is also Pro-choice, too bad about that, but he has already faced the problems associated with terrorist attacks head on. That is a big plus. Personally I think who ever wins is up for some rude encounters. I think that the terrorist’s attacks are far from over and will begin again after they have decided our internal flanks are better exposed. A weak President would allow that exposure. I just heard where Britain just stopped some terror plots aimed at their airline industry. I am not sure whether it is just luck or all the patriot act intrusions but we are probably on borrowed time. My biggest worry is that there was a lot of chatter earlier in the year on the conspiracy sites about suitcase nukes possibly being smuggled into this country with Chicago listed as the probable target. The politicians in all the parties better get their acts together and start working on ways to secure our borders and our ports. If they don’t, pro-choice or pro-life becomes moot when the terrorists start serving up more explosions and terror plots.

Posted by: NMP at August 10, 2006 03:45 AM

Just to head off the 'a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body' arguments...

Of course this is a rediculous argument.

A woman, or a man, does not have the legal right to do drugs (as this action may impacts others). An individual does not have the legal right to inject steroids (and these even have little, if any consequence on others). No person has the legal right to drive off of a bridge with a passenger in the car.

Abortion is nothing more than a lie that has been fed our country and has been made into a women's rights issue.

We need to look at it for what it is - a 'human rights' issue. It is amazing that the same liberals who cry out for Human Rights around the world and care so much about the 'ethical treatment of animals' seem to disregard (biological fact) Human Rights at home (provided it fits THEIR agenda).

I do thank you for this post as this indeed is a difficult topic, but one that needs to be reasonably discussed.

Posted by: Jim Mowen at August 10, 2006 07:11 AM

Jim I have a couple questions for you. Please don't view this as an attack of your position, just an attempt to better understand it.

You first mention the rights we don't have that can effect others. How then do you justify smoking? Because every smoker is not only effecting their own health, but mine as well. Or for a completely different slant, how would you justify all the large companies that pour out tons of toxins into our air, ground, and water? These also have an immense effect on our health in the direct and indirect (global warming type issues) way.

You also mention it is a human rights issue and that while we cry about starving children in Africa, we still allow abortion. My question is this: isn't abortion alleviating the issues such as overcrowding and starvation worldwide? Granted this is a much more complex issue than I am making it out to be in this argument, I feel that most abortions are in situations where raising the child would be difficult. So instead of spending our time and money fighting for a 'baby' or fetus or whatever you want to call it, we are fighting for a starcing child in Africa. From my perspective I find it terribly hypocritical that we fight so strongly against abortion and then let millions of people die in other areas/countries.

Posted by: Robbie at August 10, 2006 09:46 AM

jcb - I guess you thought the conversation was not lively enough. This issue will certainly pick the conversation up and foster debate. I have made my opinions known on this issue during the nomination process. I am pro-life with exception for the life of the mother. I will not speak about the physiological or the moral implications of abortion, much of that has already been mentioned. I would like to discuss the decision process. Even though the procedure is legal the decision to have an abortion in many cases is not a prudent one. Many times the choice is made in haste - without consultation with parents, friends, or other important figures. I know that time is of the essence in this situation, but many times the decision is made in one night or over the weekend. Most major decisions that one makes in one’s life are made only after all alternatives and choices are thoroughly contemplated. The nature of the decision making process proliferates the procedure. Most pro-choice advocates contend that abortions should be rare – since it is legal I am all for making them as rare as possible.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at August 10, 2006 10:23 AM


I appreciate your comments and i take no offense to them at all. I do appreciate the ability to have a discussion on a very difficult topic with reason and respect.

As for your questions...

1. Second-hand smoke. I would say that (and I am not a smoker at all - and despise smoking) - (1) there is little but questionable studies promoted by the anti-smoking lobby/ activists to support the notion that there is dire risk from second-hand smoke. In addition, we have a wimpy label on the side of a package of cigarettes that only suggests that 'first-hand' smoke causes cancer - yet we are all up in arms over second hand smoke.

However, even with limited ties of secondhand smoke, we are indeed as a country limiting the rights of smokers (just at the 'suggestion' that there may be harmful long-term effects to non-smokers). Abortion on the other hand has immediate 'short-term' effects on the baby - it kills the baby, yet we are hesitant to limit the rights of the person affecting the baby.

2. The toxins and 'global warming' (again, at best a theory) indeed have limitations on the primary party - and the results are questionable at best.

3. I have been to Zambia and Sieere Leone, Africa. I have seen starving people (in a imited manner) and I do not see where another 1,400,000 babies being born in the United States means that 1,400,000 additional Africans, or even 10 or 1 African will starve.

The US has an abundance of food - and periodically, because of drought, Africa does not. These are not connected realities.

Great discussing this with you - Jim

Posted by: Jim Mowen at August 10, 2006 02:01 PM


If a young girl is beaten and raped by her crack-head Dad, you don't think the mother should terminate the pregnancy? Ohhhhh, that's right, you and Beals think you are somehow better situated to make this personal decision than the woman? Who cares what her doctor and clergy have to say about this matter? YOU should make this determination?

If YOU FORCE this young girl to have this crack-baby, and the child has problems, I assume you and Beals will provide finacial and emotional assitance (welfare) to this woman. As well all the financial assitance she needs to properly raise the child. Right? Sure boys!

Posted by: InspectorGeneral at August 10, 2006 03:19 PM

Jim, so you mean to tell me that you feel that smoking is not hazardous to your health? Please visit the wikipedia on this issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health_effects which is by no means a anti-smoking lobby. The statistics there are amazing. There are links between smokers living almost a decade less, a direct corrolation between increase in smoking and increase in lung cancer. I don't see how any adult can argue that smoking is healthy, unless of course you are a lobbyist for marlboro.

Now I agree that 2nd hand smoking stats are less conclusive. But I once again don't see how any logical human cant make a link between smoking dangers and 2nd hand smoke.

You also want to argue the impact of toxins on the environment??? Once again, have you ever had a science class? Have you ever looked at studies about tainted water sources etc??? I am actually pretty suprised you didnt try to argue global warming was a hoax by liberals... Give me a break...

Your facts are once again skewed about food supply. If you would go to this website http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm you would see that there has been a 17% increase in the amount of calories produced recently and there is enough food to feed the whole world. The problem is we do not share our food with everyone. I also read an article recently, though I cannot cite it that said because of bio-diesal and e-85 fuels, the U.S surplus is in a dire situation.

The U.S. could easily be spending resources on feeding more of the world, but yet we are too ethnocentric to think about people outside of the United States. I definitely argue that these are very connected realities. We need to remember that we are a global community, not an american community. I unfortunately have not been to Africa, I was scheduled to study abroad in college in Senegal, but had to cancel due to financial constraints.

Posted by: Robbie at August 10, 2006 04:23 PM

I guess I should also put in my opinion on abortion directly. I am 100% pro choice. I do not care if someone is against abortions personally, but I am wholeheartedly against them taking away that choice from anyone else. I do not personally feel that a baby is a baby until it is born. While someone above noted that a heart works after 19 days and brainwaves after 21, I think there needs to be a distinction between 'having life' and 'being alive.' In my mind I consider it similar to someone becoming braindead. They may have a working heart and kidneys but are far from being a functional human being. I take the reverse position as well. A person can live with an artificial heart or other organs and still be perfectly alive regardless of organ deficencies.

I realize that not everyone will agree with me. Thats fine, but it is often disheartening when being pro-choice is the side that allows freedom of thought and being pro-life means being closed minded to all other viewpoints.

Let me say this as well. I don't put a whole lot of merit into the rape incest point because according to the data provided in wikipedia only about 1.5% of abortions deal with those issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Definitions I feel that making that the focal point is getting away from the bigger issue. I also do not condone using abortion as a means of contreceptive either. I think that is very irresponsible and puts a lot of people in danger.

Posted by: Robbie at August 10, 2006 04:32 PM

Jim -- "a civilized country should be dealing with the 'choice' to deal with reproduction in a responsible and life-affirming manner."

I think that is exactly what our society is doing, even while recognizing it cannot dictate a decision that many of us believe strongly is the business of neither the government nor the preacher.

The important point to see re: a "life-affirming society" is the progress being made. Abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates and other indices are trending downward. (The Guttmacher Institute has a rich collection of statistics.)

The trend, I suspect, is the result of efforts from a great many people and organizations on both sides to "pro-life/pro-choice" divide.

Whether it's people of faith advocating abstinence, a sex-education class at school (with or without the condoms) or involved parents, there is a "life-affirming" impetus at work in our society.

The impetus is of the sort that takes decades to come to full fruition, but we are headed the right direction. We ought not rip ourselves in twain over what will be disappearing problem, assuming we keep pushing in our own little ways.

InspectorGeneral and whoever else: Disagree as you will with people but greetings of the "mellonhead" sort won't get posted anymore.

Posted by: jcb at August 10, 2006 05:52 PM

I think there are too many people that do not want to made adult decision for the actions they took.

I give a common example of young adults in their college days that freely have sex while drinking excessively or using drugs.

Many students become pregnant because they were not acting mature and many of them decide to have an abortion as form of birth control. I understand that sometimes women are pressured by their male partner also.

This is a very selfish act and reflective of the attitude in our society of being more selfish.

I am disappointed that Senator Jacobs believes that this immature behavior should be allowed by adults by allowing abortion to be legal.

Mr. Beals stated that we was pro-life as did Representative Verschoore. I think that by protecting life, we will foster a less selfish society.

I think there should be a public debate between candidates Beals/Jacobs to discuss this and other important issues. If a debate is not possible, perhaps local newspapers would be willing to allow the candidates to submit their position on given topics.

Posted by: College Days at August 10, 2006 06:25 PM

Rob Mellon, I hate to break it to you but you are PRO-CHOICE. No if's, and's, or but's about it. You may not want to believe it but when you say "with exception for the life of the mother" this makes you PRO-CHOICE. Do you not know this, and if you don't wait till you decide to run for office again and have the anti-pro choice people on your tail because you are pro choice. This is the kind if politition that gets this country into problems. Take a stand and be proud. Quit beating around the bush.

I have said it before and I will say it again. You can't be a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you are not.

Still waiting for James Beals to afirm that he is against a small girl that was raped by her father to have to have the baby,and then have to make the decision to keep the baby or not. Great Move.

You can't hide forever Mr. Beals.

Posted by: Hear me Roar at August 10, 2006 06:57 PM

jcb - the names do not bother me - let them fire away. I was in the Army for 10 years believe me when I say I have been called much worse. I have put myself in the public arena I should be willing to accept the slings and arrows. IG brings up a valid point - although in a very crass way. That situation would be tragic, and I have thought about that exact example. The point that I come back to is - it is not the child's fault, bottom line. Following that logic through we could just as readily accept the extermination of children that are born with deformities - would IG be in favor of that? To me a life is a life – if we accept children who ARE born into tough circumstances we should accept the children that WILL be born into tough circumstances. To me in both examples we are dealing with children – just in different stages of their development. I am for the protection of all children. I feel that my opinion on this matter is very consistent – my care and protection of children would extend from the mother’s womb throughout their lives. Democrats want to protect disadvantaged children after they are born, but are willing to accept termination of a pregnancy. Republicans fight for the rights of the unborn with tremendous zeal, but cut funding for education and protection of disadvantaged children. My position is much more consistent.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at August 10, 2006 07:27 PM

Mr. Beydler,

Thank you for posting this very important, yet controversial topic.

I believe that it is an unwritten obligation for all candidates running for public office to inform voters about their position on critical issues. This would allow voters to make an informed decision.

I have requested that both the Personal PAC and IFRL send me a General Election candidate's survey so my position will be on permanent record with both committees.

I like the debate idea. What do you think Mike?

This is one of many issues I would like to debate with my opponent.

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at August 10, 2006 09:57 PM


Do you beleive in contraceptive, or do you view that as an abortion? For the record Mellon, how many unwanted children have you and your wife adopted thus far? Or is that a chore better best left to pro-choice advocates? Why is it that narrow minded "do-gooders" think they are somehow morer qualified than the raped women carrying the child to make this personal decision? Mellon, what makes you better equiped to make this judgement than the woman with an unwanted child? What gives Mellon?

You should switch politcal parties and move to Alabama where peopl better agree with your undemocratic opinion. Say Alabama, or Texas!

Mellon always wants to take the easy way out, but politcs requires a person to make a decision. For instance, will Beals use the taxpayer money he won in a lawsuit against Rock Island COunty some years ago to try and convince the same people that he should be their leader?

Posted by: InspectorGeneral at August 10, 2006 10:41 PM

Rob -- wasn't worried that somebody was gonna make you cry or anything. But it just ain't necessary.

Posted by: jcb at August 10, 2006 10:53 PM

Mr. Beals, you still haven't answered the question if a little girl of eleven gets raped by her father should she have to go though with having the baby.

Your cute little response was very lacking in content. I feel if you want us to know where you stand then he should answer the question.


Posted by: Hear me Roar at August 10, 2006 11:38 PM

I do not think I can make my position any clearer. I don’t know how official Hear Me’s rankings and proclamations are? Has he been certified by the United States Abortion Ranking System or USARS? Although according to the official Hear Me rating system I am pro-choice I still contend that my views on the subject are crystal clear. I have also filled out surveys, which state this position - I am not trying to dodge this issue although it would be easy for me to do so. I could easily dance around the topic like several Democratic politicians, many with years of experience. In fact, I have a stronger pro-life stance than Andrea Zinga. I am without question a Democrat and still maintain that stance - I would hardly call that taking the easy way out. You can call me a fool for being pro-life – but criticizing me for taking the easy way out is ludicrous. I would wager that 99.9% of all abortions from Roe v. Wade to this day had nothing to do with a child molesting father – even in that perverse circumstance we can not punish the father by killing off the child. That girl would have psychological issues to deal with irrespective if she gave birth to the child or not. You make it seem as if an abortion would make it all better – nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at August 11, 2006 01:50 AM


All I said specific to smoking is that we cannot even get a harsh warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes. If someone wants to kill themselves smoking, whatever. There are bigger issues out there for me to concern myself with.

I do not believe that i want to argue about toxins on the environment, or gave any indication of doing so. Of course they are an issue - and an issue that is being watched.

Please do not start putting words into my mouth (or posts).

As far as the food supply...if anything we have proven that population growth is not the cause for starvation in parts of the world - as you have indicated. Should there be no abortions, the additional 1,400,000 additional lives (annually) in the US certainly are not going to starve people throughout the world.

Posted by: Jim Mowen at August 11, 2006 07:54 AM

Jim, I agree that you never said, 'lets argue about smoking and toxins,' but I contend that by making remarks such as there is little but questionable studies and (again, at best a theory) paints the picture well enough that you didn't feel the argument was valid. So I just wanted to go ahead and clarify my position with some factual data. I beleive along those same lines that I wasn't putting wirds into your mouth, simply rebutting the sly attempt to work in cut downs instead of actually saying something.

As far as the food supply, maybe I am being a bit unclear on my position. I am contending that if there were those 1.4 million additional lives, that there is much less resources to help the poor. And lets take Africa out of the equation. 12% of Americans live below the poverty level. Couldn't the resources that would support 1.4million babies with healthcare, housing, etc. be used to help fight poverty for people already living?

Please don't get caught in the details of my example. Certainly you are probably right that there isn't extra food going to the sudan because of lowered population due to abortion. But what I am arguing is that a baby that perhaps would be aborted now instead will get put into governmental care. I would assume the % would have to be rather high sinc emost abortions are because the parent can't/won't take care of the baby. So we are left with even more of a burden on the government and social services. So in that light I believe we are trading the welfare of one human being for another.

Posted by: Robbie at August 11, 2006 10:49 AM

As a typical politcan, Mellon keeps dodging the questions. Simply: 1) Do you belive in contraceptive or do you consider it a from of abortion? 2) Given your feverent support for abortion on demand when the mothers life is in danger, do you place greater value on the life of the mother than the child? 3) Do you beliiev in the right to privacy? 4) If you do, why do you want to make this private, personal decision yours?

Posted by: InspectorGeneral at August 11, 2006 11:59 AM

I can already hear the printing presses warming up and the Jacobs camp / Personal PAC. I bet they are just waiting for Mr. Beals to post his response.

All they are waiting to do is cut and paste, but they can't because since Mr. Beals has not responded.

I would like to see a debate.

What is Mike Jacobs public opinion on abortion? Well Mike? Tell us?

Do you believe abortion should legal except in the cases of a woman's health, rape, or incest.If you respond this way Mike, then Personal PAC will target you based on their track record.

Mr. Beals has already stated that he is pro-life and I am sure that he will let the public know if he has any exceptions and what they are.

I would not be surprised to see Personal PAC back in the Quad Cities. Instead of spending 30K to suppport Mike Jacobs and abortion, I bet the dollar figure will be between 50K and 100K.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2006 12:22 PM

Mr. Mellon, I asssume that you can read since you are teaching the youth of our country. Maybe you think your name is James Beals. I am confused by your rambelings. I wan't you to go back and read the question pertaining to Rob Mellon. It is your name and you should be able to figure the difference between James Beals and Rob Mellon. I have faith that you can tell me where you stand on the question that was issued to Rob Mellon.

Since you are answering the question for Beals you might as well answer this to. The eleven year old victim of incest and rape from her father has gone through enough. You think that having the inbread baby and either keeping the baby or adopting it out would be better than her not having the baby at all for the young girl?That the abortion could not take place without her even knowing about it?

Answer both questions for me.

Answer one other question since you are at it.
How many adopted children do you have Rob?

Lead by example and earn some credability Rob.

Posted by: Hear me Roar at August 11, 2006 12:44 PM

Rob Mellon I hope you have the sence to turn your view on choice around. You will be a loser at every turn. You are so far out of touch with our Democratic values.
War mongering and choice.

Sounds like Jim Mowen and President Bush.

Posted by: Democratic stronghold at August 11, 2006 01:14 PM

It looks to me like Rob Mellon has explained his abortion beliefs very well. He has answered the question more straightforward than any other candidate in the contests. I do not see where it serves any purpose for him to play the kickball for elementary school taunts. He is pro-life, good! There are many Democrats that are pro-life. The Democratic Party needs more candidates like him. In fact in the Midwest there are many more voters in both parties opposed to abortion on demand and closer to Mellons opinions than the coastal liberalism platforms. If the district is changed I suspect that Mellon could wind up a serious contented in 2008. If there had been a real primary, although Mellon is too new a face to have won this year, he would probably still have finished ahead of Hare. That is a scary thought considering Hare is a familiar lifetime member of the DC bloodsucking Twin Party political faces. Are you someone from Hare's camp trying to beat him into submission before the next election? If I were you I would be more worried about the Mark Schweibert if the district stays the same. If the primary hadn't been stolen from the public Schweibert would have been the person on this falls ballot. If the district is changed all bets are off, just ask Tom Railsback and the Republicans.

Posted by: NMP at August 11, 2006 10:19 PM

Shwiebert couldn't get elected dog catcher. Congressman Hare will run over him as well as this Mellon kid!

This ain't bean bags. You have to be able to do more than be self-impressed and want to be apublic servant. You have to raise the money, inspire others to support you, organize the precincts, follow the polling. None of these traits have been demonstrated by either Schibert or Mellon. Hey, at least Schwibert is trying to act as a Democrat, while Mellon is anti-choice and pro-war. What a crock!

Phil will be congressman for the next 16 years> Go Phil, go.

Posted by: DemocratInsider at August 12, 2006 10:59 AM

What many commenters here don't realize is that the under 30 crowd is the most anti-abortion group in the country. Mellon is merely reflecting that fact.

The pendulum has finally swung to the other side.

When abortion activists and advocacy groups were able to get the courts to approve late term abortion, I knew there would be a backlash. There is no medical evidence that a late term abortion saves the life of the mother, and further, the activists can't prove it. They just went too far to be accepted by the mainstream of the country.

Which gives us the interesting fact that the majority of people in this country are either for banning abortion outright or allowing abortion with restrictions, and those who believe abortion should be delivered on demand without restrictions are the minority.

It would be interesting to find out why the under-30 crowd, who one would think is the most affected by abortion, is so anti-abortion.

Posted by: paladin at August 12, 2006 04:49 PM

Rob: You have made you views crystal clear, which is the important thing -- not what label this-or-that group or person hangs on you.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, in a new poll, found unsurprisingly that most people are looking for a middle position on abortion. I'm thinking people are getting pretty tired of the labeling exercises engaged in by politicians and interest groups.

The battle front on abortion these days is South Dakota, where the legislature earlier this year passed a law banning abortion. Rather than challenge it in court, pro-choice forces have forced a state-wide referendum on the issue.

This article from Dakota voice has links to the bill and interest group sites.

Posted by: jcb at August 12, 2006 11:31 PM

Paladin: What is your source for "the under 30 crowd is the most anti-abortion group"? That is news to me.

Posted by: Vita at August 14, 2006 04:13 PM

Vita, check out jcb's link above to The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. This is just one of many---I'm too lazy to look for the others.

Posted by: paladin at August 14, 2006 07:06 PM

I did look at the Pew research. Your statement that "the under 30 crowd is the most anti-abortion group" is a little misleading. The research shows the same percentages of people for very limited or no abortions for the 18-29 and 30-49 groups. In other words, 46% of BOTH age groups favor very restricted or no abortions at all.

The only difference is in the percentages of those two age groups concerning "generally available" abortion vs. "allowed but with more limits." The younger group is 6 points less likely to favor "generally available."

I know I'm being a little picky, but I do not interpret those numbers to mean "the under 30 crowd is the most anti-abortion group." I would say, "the under 30 crowd is the most likely to favor some restrictions on abortion."

Too bad they don't break down the numbers by both age and gender. I also wonder if a person's view on something like abortion is the same at 18 as it is at 40 or 70? Seems unlikely.

Posted by: Vita at August 15, 2006 12:28 PM

No Vita, you're not being picky, you are just reacting (rightly) to my less than specific comments.

Posted by: paladin at August 16, 2006 01:10 PM

DemocratInsider - I will accept your criticism of my position on abortion - but when did I become pro-war? I would like to know Hare's and Zinga's views on this issue. During the forums I was the only candidate to provide a new policy for Iraq - I was also the only candidate to offer a policy for energy. That really has no bearing on the current situation, but maybe in the future more people will be interested in a candidate that offers progressive alternatives and proposals.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at August 16, 2006 11:57 PM

Are you saying you are against the War? Do you support the troops or not? Show some courage. Which is ti going to be Mellon? Please advise.

Posted by: KateNelson at August 18, 2006 07:23 PM

Kate - if you did a little research your posts would carry a little more weight. My ideas on Iraq were outlined in more than one of the candidate forums as well as numerous times on this and other blogs, most recently on the “Left-Right-Wrong” blog. I was in the Army for 10 years - you question my loyalty to the troops? My ideas on Iraq are entirely predicated on protecting and enabling the fighting men and women of the US military. As for courage - go to those that did not propose a thing - go to those currently running for office. After finding their plans – compare them with the plans that I proposed during the nominating process. After you have done that if you still have criticism for me – be specific – and I will take your ideas and concerns into account. General statements questioning my courage and patriotism make it appear as if you only have an axe to grind. So, are you trying to be constructive or do you just have an axe to grind?

A few points on my ideas to get you started:

1) Increase the size of Army by 1 Division and USMC by 1 brigade – to ease burden on military families due to troop deployments.

2) Double the size of all special operations – focus on anti-terrorism forces

3) Increased responsibility for Iraqi forces – use of benchmarks, when the specific Iraqi unit is trained the US unit in the area can go home

4) Double the effort to get a multinational force with Arab presence (Jordan/Egypt)

5) $1 billion more for VA – focus on prosthetic advancements and head/brain trauma

6) Higher combat pay across the board – if cost is higher maybe it will not be so easy to commit to war.

7) Increased funding for military family support – financial planning, counseling and daycare during lengthy deployments

8) Increase educational opportunities for officers to help retention – go back to officer educational and development plans of the 80s

9) Implement the 9-11 commissions recommendations – most importantly the provision to secure the nuclear material in countries of the former Soviet Union.

10) Manhattan Project for energy – full focus of the federal government to end our dependence on foreign sources of energy (hydrogen, solar, electricity, wind, E85)

Posted by: Rob Mellon at August 19, 2006 12:42 AM

I am agains killing babys.

Posted by: SavannaSmiling at September 14, 2006 02:42 PM

I recently returned from my business trip.

I have been endorsed by the IFRL.

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at September 17, 2006 04:46 PM

What in the hell is the IFRL? Is this a pro-labor group? Are you realy promoting outsourcing of American jobs?

Posted by: John P at September 17, 2006 08:23 PM

IFRL stands for Illinois Federation for Right to Life. As stated, I am a pro-life candidate.

I am also a pro-labor candidate. I believe in creating jobs, good paying jobs, while economically developing our District?

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at September 18, 2006 06:16 AM