Nancy Pelosi, Feminist Nightmare

Amy, did you support Obama?

you admit there are women elected to office that are bad for women’s rights, yet you continue to promote women voting for women candidates who are against choice on abortion just to get women elected.
hypocrisy much?

no, she backed first Clinton and then Palin

This is easy. She is jealous of any woman who would steal the attention away from her.

This is that girl in highschool who didn’t have any female friends because she wanted all the men to gloat over her.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Your reproductive rights are in tact. Just don’t ask the taxpayers to pay for the exercise of your rights, which 40% of the population considers murder.

It is one thing for the government to stay out of your bedroom and your doctor’s office. It is quite another for it to serve as a facilitator.

Interesting view. That makes her not a public servant but a self servant.

Where are the jobs promised by the stimulus?
Where is the decision on Afghanistan?

Do you think that “winning” being given the Nobel Peace Prize has affected Obama’s decision-making on more troops, or at the very least the timeline?

So long as they have any law whatsoever…for or against…they are in your bedroom.

funny, that’s how I feel about the wars.

Yes. It is all about him, him and him.

Amy-you nailed it. We must stand together!

And TNA refused to print my comments to an article in support of Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate, whose candidacy I vehemently oppose. Of course, I speak from the experience of dealing with her office when she was the DA. I emailed Ms. Siskind; this refusal to post my comments has occurred before. Not surprisingly, she failed to respond. (The last time I posted a similar comment here at NQ, complaining that the TNA blog seems to value only the opinions of women who agree with them, evidently, a ‘survey’ of sorts was conducted among the writers here to determine whether TNA’s failure to post my comments resulted from inappropriate content. ‘No; we have no problems with the content of jbjd’s comments here…’)_

Why does Pelosi even bother to raise the lid on her coffin every morning??

That should be “every evening”.

WooHOO right ON AMY GIRL!! :-] ^5 Sista!

pahahahaha! Vat do u Vant? my blooooood?

Possibly. Yes, he was declared the “winner”, but it hasn’t yet been awarded. He still has to fly over there for the awarding ceremony. Maybe then he will think about making a decision. Maybe not lol

I read an article which said that, by law, the award must be rescinded if the recipient later does something that isn’t “peaceful” (like starting or continuing a war). Wonder if they’ll pull a Rules and Bylaws Committee move and “oops, we don’t have to follow our own laws and rules”….

is that all women are defined by? our reproductive rights? People have choices. some choose to be pro-choice and others to be pro life. There are also women who are pro choice who can be damaging to womens causes its not all about abortion, well at least not for me.

I’m very morally opposed to government interventions which limit women’s choices in many areas. Furthermore, the government facilitates taking my tax money for faith-based incentives, which I don’t agree with.

How do you (generic you) feel about the govt. paying for “Prayer Treatment?” That’s in the bill, too.

When the ferrel government dictates that because they are nationalizing the funding of PRIVATE insurance and then require these entities to NOT perform a service which IS legal under current law, then they betray us all. I do not care if 40 percent agree or disagree, I am told I will get to “keep” what I have, but if I look to my right or left, the women of this country do not. There is nothing honorable in a senator, a woman, selling out for the tune of 300 million, the rest of the country including the majority of women, or a quisling like Nancy Pelosi, who is only interested in what the Penny P’s of the world want.
That is wrong and I reject it.

It is not surprising the Amy Suskinds efforts are running into some headwinds. When women in this country permit others to label them inferior and still allow these people to hold government positions, the results are predictable. I am not saying that organizations that are gender issue driven are not worthy, they are. It’s just that in the current landscape they will be co-opted or ignored.
I am deeply grateful for what you strive for Amy. Thank you.

Just a pint. Donate Blood today!

I learned to be more respectful to women by being on this blog over the past year.

So I hope you’ll excuse me when I say

I hate that bitch (Pelosi)

Now I understand the wry smile Cheney had as he handed Pelosi the gavel.

I would say Pelosi is a nightmare for the survival of the Constitution as well.

Only if Pastor Manning is perform the treatment and not doing so from jail. LOL.

Donjo, I was unaware of this “prayer treatment” issue. I’ve seen alternative medicine options that include the spiritual. The mind is a very powerful thing. If one feels they can be healed or helped in this way I support it as an option. Should insurance pay for it if contributes to wellness? Interesting question, for certain.

I use alternative medicine and have an MD who has prescribed me natural-based supplements as opposed to pharmaceuticals. My insurance does not cover these but really should in my view. I am being helped without having to deal with nasty side-effects.

Pelosi is a familiar phenomenon. It is called the “queen bee” syndrome. She doesn’t want anyone (woman) getting ahead of her. Women’s reproductive health was less important than getting the bill passed. The Democratic Party has been taking women’s votes fro granted for 30 years. It is time for a third party!

Axis Sally Pelosi will be remembered for

pushing through a so called health bill that declared war on women.

spending money like a drunken sailor and dividing the country into two classes the very rich and more and more poor.

dividing the democratic party so that it may never be repaired.

her jealousy of qualified women in the political field.

being the first female speaker of the house and blowing it so badly that it might take a hundred years to ever have another woman speaker.

History will not be kind to Axis Sally Pelosi.

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

“is that all women are defined by? our reproductive rights?”

of course not, it just so happens that reproductive rights are the ones I’m most often called upon to sacrifice.

I don’t vote for people who think I should negotiate on any of those rights I do have, nor yet for those who do not support expansion of my rights (wage parity) or for those who are damaging to any other area of my concern (mtr).
jmo, once they have my reproductive rights back under their control, they’ll move on to another of my rights.

Amy, thank you for always fighting the right fight. Our mothers, sisters and daughters are being thrown under the proverbial bus by a full democrat-controlled government, and the fact that Pelosi is right there at the top helping to lead the charge…it’s disgusting.

Nancy isn’t vile just for women. She’s vile for the whole country.

I try to view people based on actions and intent — not on gender, “race,” sexual orientation, whatever. Pelosi is not a very nice human being in my view PERIOD. A soul has no gender or color or whatever.

All 17 Republican women in the House of Representatives voted for the Stupak Amendment, Amy. Each and every one of them.

The idea that women’s issues will be generally advanced by electing women, even if they are Republicans, is sometimes true and sometimes not. In the case of the right to choose, it’s decidedly not true. Christianism tends to carry the day for the women of the Right on that particular issue — so says the evidence in front of us.

Absolutely agree, Galt. Nancy has been a huge disappoint for women who needed to have a woman in a high office as some sort of affirmation of wholeness.

Me? I could care less on that point but I did hope at one time that Pelosi had good intent.

She doesn’t and neither do her cronies, including Obama. It’s all about the money, the political game, and the corruption.

Amy, do you intend to speak out about Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh calling Mary Landrieu a “prostitute” today on their radio programs? Or how about Vince P above referring to Nancy Pelosi as a “bitch”?

I figure you would since your blog is devoted to speaking out against this treatment of women. Or is that only reserved for Palin and Bachmann?

Just asking.

Nancy Pelosi is given a lifetime ZERO rating by the National Right to Life Committee, owing her unfailing support of a woman’s right to choose.

NARL Pro-Choice America, on the other hand, gives her voting record on the choice issue a score of 100%.

There’s a petition currently circulating asking that her church deny her communion, owing to her pro-choice views and votes.

Apparently there’s serious skepticism in some circles about the sudden reversal of the conservative spin machine and their astonishing new message that Pelosi is actually anti-feminist.

I hope no one got whiplash from the sudden switch. If not, hang on, because the spin is bound to reverse again. This new view of reality is only temporarily useful.

Coakley is leading in the polls by some 20 points or so. This quite simlar to the lead Hillary Clinton had (in MA) in the weeks before our primary in last March. This prompted our 3 super d’s to pull the rug out from under her feet and started actively campaigning/fund raising for O.. All before our primary, with polls showing she had nearly thirty point lead. It appear the same sort of treatment is in the works for Coakley.

They made my choice of who i’ll vote for easy. If they screw her, I’ll vote for the republican.

The party should keep their henchwomen’s nose out of the states political process.

Great post.  Obama administration and Pelosi are a trainwreck. Women’s rights have been eroding, but this is a direct attack. Stupak will cost millions of women their rights, their health, their rights for choice, and even their lives.

Pelosi has betrayed women along with Obama for whatever cynical political cover it offers them.

You are speaking about a legal procedure, the legality of which was already settled by the Supreme Court years ago. The fact that you don’t like it is not relevant in this case. All the screaming and yelling and jumping up and down does not override the Law. Constitutional law is not decided based on who screams the loudest, nor is it based on anyone’s particular religious views.We are not a theocracy. In fact, isn’t that what we are fighting against in the middle east?

You might want to ask yourself how many non religious Americans do not want to fund faith-based initiatives. They don’t like those either but they are forced to pay for them. The knife cuts both ways. My or your personal feelings about abortion do not change the fact that it is a legal procedure, as legal as a vasectomy, as a matter of fact.I kind of have in my head that vasectomies kill off potential babies. But isn’t that too bad, because it is a perfectly legal medical procedure.

One of the major reasons we are stuck with Barack Obama is the incessant harping of religious zealots who want to tell everyone else how to live, what they can and can’t do with their lives, who to love and how to have sex. People just plain got sick of it. Sick enough of it to elect Barack Obama.

Tex-Mex, you are correct in that the pro-choice issue has been very damaging to women’s rights. Right off the bat, 50% support abortion rights / 50% are pro-life.

I agree with Amy that feminism needs to be reengineered or perhaps return to its roots. There is nothing that Susan B. Anthony said that is any different today except we can vote. But in terms of basic human rights, not much has changed.

As long as abortion rights and other politically divisive issues define women’s rights, we are doomed in terms of becoming a force to be reckoned with because we lose 50% of women when abortion is brought into the mix as a prerequisite.

We have to have an agenda that all women can get behind like the women of Africa who put divisive political issues aside to elect the first president of an African country – Liberia. They realized politics divided them, but they could come together on the violence, murder, rape, abuse, and sex enslavement against women and female children.

I have been convinced of this for some time but realize it will be a tough sell. I have always been a left-of-center liberal, feminist, democrat who was so horrified in 2008 that I am open to leaving the divisive, explosive issues to the groups that specialize in those, but divide women in half, in order to have mutual goals like equal pay for equal work, equality with men in the executive suites of corporate America, recruiting and electing women to political office where there are at least 50% of women elected to congress and especially to be POTUS. Laws must be inacted to prevent human indignities toward women like the indignities leveled at both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. The rights we decide to spotlight must be bi-partisan whereby all women, regardless of political persuation can rally around. We will get nowhere until we demand basic human rights. We could then be a force that would be feared.

What this is all headed for is the return to power of the right. People don’t seem to get that. All of the spin, all of the across-the-board attacks on democrats and progressives of every stripe, all of divergent themes orbiting around the idea of “taking back the country”, are being used as a means to that one single goal. We might see some “independent party” or “conservative party” relabelling, but relabelling is all it will really will be. I’ve come to this conclusion by listening carefully to the rhetoric. When you listen carefully, you realize it might all be coming from someone like Rush Limbaugh. Rush is no centrist.

and if the president of Liberia turned out to be like Pelosi? How is this in any way an improvement?
and if your representative cannot be counted upon to support the rights you already have, upon what do you base the likelihood that they will support your other rights?

this is a backdoor attempt by anti-choice women to coopt pro-choice women into voting for their candidates, period; something that they will not do for pro-choice candidates. supposedly there are a myriad of these “divisive” issues, but only one is actually ever given: abortion.

furthermore, show me the society that forbids abortion but has given–given, as though you’d won a freaking prize– any of those other rights you name. You cannot. The countries that are closest to granting women equality to men are all liberal societies.

you cannot have such a fundamental right, such as the right to control your own body put into the hands of another (and btw this is a basic human right, it is the basic human right), and then say that other deems you an equal.

Why is every problem or negative issue to face the democrats nowadays somehow tied to Rush or some other republican. The democrats are in an amazing position of strength right now — and Rush and company were around and talking when they got there — so how can their inablility to deliver be tied to a talk-show host? Moreover, what does that say about the effectiveness of their leadership? Yes, the democrats are paving the way for the return of the right — but that is because their leadership and policies stink and at the end of the day individual voters will give their opinions at the ballot box. If democrats want to remain in power, then maybe they should consider doing the bidding of the VOTERS rather than blaming Rush, Beck, Hannity etc. for their obvious failures.

Nom-I think you are right.

Also, what I think you are saying Nom is that cons. women are not comprimising any of their beliefs, but pro-choice women are.

I referenced my observation to Limbaugh only because the ideas he expresses are being so broadly echoed across the reactionary spectrum. That strikes me as being significant.

What reactionary spectrum? You mean people waking up and realising that they have placed an incompetent in the White House? Is it now reactionary to admit that this president is turning out to be an abject failure? Rush was talking way before Obama and even Clinton were elected, but he was unable to stop their rise to power. That tells me that he is not the cause of their sucesses or failures. I refuse to accept that any dissent against Obama is somehow an echo of Rush’s ideas — most of the people who oppose Obama do not even listen to Rush. I believe that the American citizens are intelligent enough to listen, observe and make up their own minds. and right now they are saying that this particular president is out to lunch.

Pelosi hates other women. She wants to be the only b*tch in the kennel.

I’m sure “reactionary” seems disdainfully dismissive to those who have arrived at a position of disagreement with the administration in a thoughtful manner. I’ll stick with the word, however, because I think with many people the anger is grounded in the irrational. Obama has become a hook for many people to hang everything they perceive as wrong on, at a moment when an accumulation of the negative results of decades of irresponsible and ill-considered behavior are finally catching up with us. Some have essentially taken the position that anything he has done, is doing, or will do is automatically wrong. He’s clearly indecisive about Afghanistan, for example, as evidenced by the fact that he’s taking so long to think about it, and this is undoubtedly the prelude to a wrong decision–whatever that decision turns out to be.

In my view, the republicans are dodging their responsibility by being only critics. They’re cynically using anger to their own political advantage, while offering nothing themselves that might be objectively evaluated, and perhaps criticized. On healthcare reform, for example, they vote as a block, asserting that the entire effort is nothing but a boondoggle. Yet they also try their best to dodge debate that would turn to the specifics, and refuse to engage in the give and take discussion that is part of the normal legislative process. Meanwhile, they righteously state that they’ve had the answers all along, and that we could get down to them if only it weren’t for this sweeping healthcare reform nonsense. “Want to see our solutions? First we’ve got to get rid of these democrats, and dump anything they’re working on, then we’ll show them to you. We can’t now, because they won’t let us.” This applies not only to healthcare, but to a multitude of critical issues.

Of such pitches, I am highly sceptical.

most of the people who oppose Obama do not even listen to Rush.

Excellent point. I don’t listen to his program nor agree/disagree necessarily with his assertions.

Rush has several widely-listened-to transponders, Mr. Beck and Mr. Hannity being the most obvious. If you listen much to them and you’re getting the same core transmissions.

Beck is the most inclined toward the relabelling/mislabelling strategy. He works up anger in his audience while showing them where it should be properly directed.

If you listen much to them, and you’re getting the same core transmissions.

Inddumb:

Take your own advise and stop listening to Keith Olbuttman and Bill Maher.

Stop the hatefest!

No, No, No!! That is NOT what I am suggesting. The pro-choice groups would continue what they do. The gay/lesbian groups would continue what they do. I support BOTH!! But, wake up and smell the coffee – NEITHER the abortion law we now have that I helped fight to make part of our constitution or a much needed law that recognizes gay/lesbian marriage and spousal benefits DOES NOT put a nickel into your pocket, much less the difference between what women make in the work force and that of men.

I would never support a liberal or conservative woman who would not fight for basic human rights for women, aka, Pelosi. Just because a woman is pro-life does not make her against equal pay for equal work. Except for the two issues I site, most women agree on what women need. There are very few flat-earth types that would fight for “a woman’s place is in the home.” I would assume we all think a woman’s place is in the house, senate or at least 50% of governor’s mansions (as the governor)!

Regardless of your attitude we cannot be all things to all people. I am talking about the utter abuse and verbal violence that both Hillary and Sarah Palin experienced. If you prefer to continue these divisive battles instead of making more money, getting promoted with the big boys, be my guest. If it’s ok with you to see a female candidate savaged which is a reflection on ALL women, I don’t know what to say to you. I do not. The only woman I would not support is another Nancy Pelosi who apparently has it in for women. I would support a conservative MAN over her. I’ve been there and seen enough.

Yes, Hillary was and continues to be MY first choice candidate, but if she is out of the running, YES I would vote for a Sarah Palin. I DID and I will. When these kinds of tactics are used against you (women), we have to fight fire with fire.

Thank god I don’t listen to any of the left or right gasbags.

I’m skeptical that you’re really exposing yourself to anything but talking points. I’m no republican (no longer a dem, either), but even I know that the republicans HAVE offered up ideas for healthcare reform (such as being allowed to buy across state lines, tort reform), but have been literally locked out of health care negotiations by the dems. And yet the dems keep repeating the right has offered no ideas and is standing in the way.

I remember when the right did that to the dems under Bush, including the literal locking out. It’s no better when the left does it than when the right does it. And repeating the talking point doesn’t make it true.

I’m am so tired of talking points, and I’m tired of the political games, and now that I think for myself, instead of listening to what the party tells me, I see oh-so-clearly now. And IMO, I see that you’re still caught up in the ideology, and missing what is right in front of you.

And if you’re from the Gary area – well, that would speak volumes. We haven’t forgotten what Gary did.

Amen SuperGalt! Both extremes are dangerous.

Keep up the thinking on your ownfest!

“What this is all headed for is the return to power of the right. People don’t seem to get that.”

I have bad news for you. A lot of people DO get that, it’s part of a strategy, and they aren’t right wingers. Do you have ANY idea how many former dems you Obamacrats have made leave the party?

When the party that was supposed to be for everyone, actually doesn’t represent them, and people start waking up, they realize that NEITHER party represents them. What are they to do? One option is to get the dem party back in control of dems, and get the Obamacrats OUT of power – by voting republicans in. It’s a way to get the party to listen to its REAL base.

Continuing to vote for a party which says it’s for you, but actually isn’t, doesn’t make sense. They don’t pay attention to the people, they just give lip service. Real dems are looking for leverage. Voting for a 3rd party might not cut it – so another option is to support the other major team. It’s trading some possible short-term suffering for longer-term re-alignment of the party.

I’m not going to let the dems NOT represent me, but scare me that the other side is NOT going to represent me. Neither one does. Why should I give continuing blind allegiance to one? At this point, it would feel like an abused woman syndrome.

I’m over it. I’m voting for whomever I feel like voting for. The dems no longer own me. I’m working for long-term benefits, not short-term lies that benefit no one but party insiders.

So much for freedom and privacy.
Washington and New York – “There is no such thing as a little freedom,” said Walter Cronkite. “Either you are all free, or you are not free.”

Whether you’re for or against federal efforts to help people buy health insurance, you should know that the reform bill before the Senate would mandate a healthcare system that is definitely “not free.”

What most of us know about the Democratic bill is that it requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance. What most of us don’t know is that it requires us to buy a minimum level of insurance approved by the federal government, and forces health plans and providers to share our personal health information with the federal government and other entities.

If this bill becomes law, we could each be assigned a national beneficiary ID number or card (possibly an electronic device). And our personal health information will flow electronically to the US secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) – and many others – without our consent.

Sound farfetched? Buried in the Senate bill’s 2,074 pages are provisions that actually permit and foster such things. Freedom and privacy are often lost in the fine print – which is why we’ve been studying the Senate bill since it was released Nov. 19 to help uncover the facts. Here are five highly invasive provisions Americans should know:

1. Mandatory insurance

Bill text: “Sec. 1501. Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage…. An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.”

Translation: Uncle Sam will now serve as your national insurance agent and force you to buy “minimum essential coverage” – or else you’ll have to pay an annual fine.

However, what Congress considers “minimum essential coverage” and “essential health benefits requirements” includes comprehensive coverage that many neither need nor want. Plus, those who prefer to carry catastrophic-only coverage won’t have a free range of options for such coverage.

Bottom line: In a free society, the government should not force citizens to buy any product nor should the government mandate citizens’ level of health-insurance coverage.

Rather than imposing penalties to coerce people into government-sanctioned health insurance, Congress should offer incentives to help those who wish to buy insurance but find it unaffordable.

Congress could allow everyone to deduct the full cost of health insurance (and provide tax credits for those with no tax liability), while offering assistance to those who can’t afford insurance and subsidize high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions.

Helping those in need is a much better way to reform our nation’s healthcare system than overhauling the entire system and putting Big Brother in charge of deciding what is acceptable coverage for nearly every American.

2. Electronic data exchanges

Bill text: “Sec. 1104. Administrative Simplification…. (h) Compliance. – (1) Health Plan Certification. – (A) Eligibility for a Health Plan, Health Claim Status, Electronic Funds Transfers, Health Care Payment and Remittance Advice. – Not later than December 31, 2013, a health plan shall file a statement with the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, certifying that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards (as described under paragraph (7) of section 1171) and associated operating rules (as described under paragraph (9) of such section) for electronic funds transfers, eligibility for a health plan, health claim status, and health care payment and remittance advice, respectively.”

Translation: Requiring everyone to buy federally sanctioned health insurance, and then forcing qualified plans to comply with Administrative Simplification requirements, provides the government and health industry with power they would not be able to exercise in a free market.

Administrative Simplification rules are a product of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. They lay the foundation for a nationally linked database of personal health information. A federal “Nationwide Health Information Network” (NHIN) is well under way in the United States, without assurances that individuals will control their personal health data.

Bottom line: Americans should be able to contract privately with the insurance companies of their choice. Patients should be able to decide whether to have electronic or paper medical records, and not have the government require electronic records, which are then included in a nationally linked database.

3. Real-time health and financial data

Bill text: “Sec. 1104. Administrative Simplification…. (4) Requirements for Financial and Administrative Transactions. – (A) In General. – The standards and associated operating rules adopted by the Secretary shall – (i) to the extent feasible and appropriate, enable determination of an individual’s eligibility and financial responsibility for specific services prior to or at the point of care…. (i) Eligibility for a Health Plan and Health Claims Status. – The set of operating rules for eligibility for a health plan and health claim status transactions shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2011, in a manner ensuring that such operating rules are effective not later than January 1, 2013, and may allow for the use of a machine readable identification card.”

Translation: Administrative Simplification rules are being expanded to gather real-time financial and health data on individuals through a tracking ID, possibly a “machine readable” ID card (electronic device).

Bottom line: Moving forward with real-time data collection without an ethical patient consent provision means everyone loses their health-privacy rights. Congress needs to enact strong patient consent provisions for all health data, especially data collected “real-time.”

4. Health data network

Bill text: “Sec. 6301. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.… (f) Building Data for Research. – The Secretary shall provide for the coordination of relevant Federal health programs to build data capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness research, including the development and use of clinical registries and health outcomes research data networks, in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive, interoperable data network to collect, link, and analyze data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources, including electronic health records.”

Translation: Your personal health information may soon be studied by government scientists. Washington is creating a new research center that plans to use patients’ electronic health records for conducting research and creating disease registries. The data network is comprehensive and includes use of electronic health records.

Bottom line: Federal funds should not be used to collect data electronically and conduct research on patients’ personal health information without their consent.

5. Personal health information

Bill text: “Sec. 6301. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research…. (B) Use of Data. – The [Patient-Centered Outcomes Research] Institute shall only use data provided to the Institute under subparagraph (A) in accordance with laws and regulations governing the release and use of such data, including applicable confidentiality and privacy standards.”

Translation: Think your health privacy is protected? It’s not. This language refers to “applicable confidentiality and privacy standards,” but HIPAA’s so-called privacy law permits individuals’ personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients’ consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) “Permitted uses and disclosures”).

Bottom line: Trust is a must for ensuring quality healthcare. Thus, as stated above, Congress needs to pass a strong, ethical patient consent law that ensures patients have control over the flow of their personal health information.

What about the consent of the governed?

All told, the national mandatory health-insurance bill puts the federal government in charge of individuals’ insurance choices and data privacy. This philosophy of governing is the opposite of America’s founding principle: consent of the governed.

Without health freedom and privacy rights, Congress is opening the door for many wrongs to be committed – all in the name of covering the uninsured.

I don’t support misogynistic attacks on any woman candidate, including Pelosi.

But I will not back any candidate who is against either abortion (which right women do have, albeit somewhat tenuously) or gay rights (which rights gays do not have, but ought to) in precisely the same way I will not support a candidate who thinks women shouldn’t have the right to vote (there are some), or that women and minorities should not have wage parity.
I contest your assertion that women will achieve wage parity, job access parity, social parity, and freedom from gendered violence in a society that does not endorse abortion or gay rights.
Wake up and smell the hummus, there are no societies like you are describing.
If I am not for the rights of all people to be equal, how could I then expect them to support mine?

[...] Here is the original post: Nancy Pelosi, Feminist Nightmare [...]