The End of Privacy?

Imagine that every single time that you go to the OB/GYN doctor that a Republican politician is in the examining room with you. That is disgusting to even imagine it! Gov. John Kasich and the Ohio Republicans have inserted themselves into that exam room. Your privacy is gone! Your right to a decision is gone! Your health needs don't matter because Kasich and his buddies are deciding what happens inside your uterus.

WKRC-TV is reporting that Kasich will sign the bill that bans abortion if the reason is a Down Syndrome diagnosis for the fetus.

Here is more about the abortion legislation- Cleveland.com:

...This bill would ban doctors from assisting women in exercising fundamental rights over their bodies, all without any assurance women and families will receive needed support once the baby is born.

Republican lawmakers refused changes helping families transition to the lifestyle of raising a child with Down syndrome. One amendment called for 12 weeks of parental leave after the birth of a child. Not only would this allow for parents of babies with Down syndrome time to adjust, but it would allow all new parents to bond with their babies in those precious first moments.   

Republican lawmakers also rejected amendments for education funding and Medicaid eligibility for women and babies confronting Down syndrome. If HB 135's intent is to help and strengthen families, why reject these common-sense amendments?....

These Republicans and Kasich just want to punish women and deny them any rights.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" that he would sign a bill currently being debated in his state banning abortion if the reason for the procedure is because the child would have Down syndrome. "I would sign it, yes," Kasich said. "Look, I'm a governor. I'm a CEO. I have to have a hand steady on the wheel. But in this case, I'm more than glad to say that of course I would sign that." Kasich, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother, previously had not commented on the bill, saying he didn't want to express his opinion while it was being debated in Ohio's statehouse.

Read More at: http://local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/-Kasich-says-he-would-sign-bill-banning-abortion-in-cases-of-Down-syndrome-207930.shtml

Ohio Gov. John Kasich told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" that he would sign a bill currently being debated in his state banning abortion if the reason for the procedure is because the child would have Down syndrome. "I would sign it, yes," Kasich said. "Look, I'm a governor. I'm a CEO. I have to have a hand steady on the wheel. But in this case, I'm more than glad to say that of course I would sign that." Kasich, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother, previously had not commented on the bill, saying he didn't want to express his opinion while it was being debated in Ohio's statehouse.

Read More at: http://local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/-Kasich-says-he-would-sign-bill-banning-abortion-in-cases-of-Down-syndrome-207930.shtml

Ohio Gov. John Kasich told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" that he would sign a bill currently being debated in his state banning abortion if the reason for the procedure is because the child would have Down syndrome. "I would sign it, yes," Kasich said. "Look, I'm a governor. I'm a CEO. I have to have a hand steady on the wheel. But in this case, I'm more than glad to say that of course I would sign that." Kasich, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother, previously had not commented on the bill, saying he didn't want to express his opinion while it was being debated in Ohio's statehouse.

Read More at: http://local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/-Kasich-says-he-would-sign-bill-banning-abortion-in-cases-of-Down-syndrome-207930.shtml

GM Gives Obama Good Grades

* Which individual saved GM? Dean Reynolds of CBS News went to CEO/Chairman of GM, Dan Akerson, to find the answer. (h/t to DailyKos)

CBS News:

"Did President Obama save General Motors?" Reynolds asked.

"Without the money, without the funding, it would have been very problematic," said Akerson. "At the risk of alienating a whole lot of potential customers, I would say the Obama administration did a good job."

...On Thursday, GM announced 47,500 blue collar workers in the U.S. will each get a profit-sharing checks next month -- checks of approximately $7,000 a piece....


Public Policy has great news about Ohio for President Obama, and Sen. Sherrod Brown. See the latest PPP poll: PPP Link

-------

>>>  Americablog has Romney's views on FEMA:

During the GOP primary debates, Romney was asked about FEMA and whether it should only be funded on a case by case basis, or whether states should take on a greater role for disaster relief rather than the federal government.

Romney’s reply? “Absolutely.”

He then went off on a rant about sending things back to the states, and “even better” to the private sector – suggesting that FEMA’s responsibilities be sent back to the states, or “even better” the private sector.....

How else would Romney pay for those tax cuts for millionaires?

One Small Step in the Right Direction

Those members of Congress who are against the non-binding resolution currently being debated, do not understand the magnitude of this vote. Every event in history, whether good or bad, starts with one small step. Here are two of my examples:

1. The American Revolution did not explode immediately into a full war against the King of England. Colonists showed their dissatisfaction with protests and small altercations.

2. The Civil Rights movement was not an overnight, massive movement. Rosa Parks and her refusal to sit in the back of the bus, was a simple act that began a bus boycott. The bus boycott also brought a young minister, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., into a leadership position and later to national prominence.

The non-binding resolution that states opposition to Bush's troop surge/escalation in Iraq, is a statement. However, it is a statement that registers an opinion that opposes Bush's war plans. The resolution is a small step in the right direction that could bring our troops home sooner.

Those members of Congress who vote against the resolution will be remembered. By voting against the resolution, Deborah Pryce and others, are stating that they (1.) like war, (2.) don't mind the casualties, (3.) support spending and losing billions of dollars in Iraq,
(4.) support the war based on lies, and (5.) support the failed policies of this administration.

The Miami Herald has an article about what is ahead for those in opposition to the resolution:

....The nonbinding resolution could influence lawmakers' reelection prospects, their willingness to back stronger antiwar policies later and how other nations view the United States.

No one feels more pressure over the vote than the lawmakers -- mostly Republicans -- who won election in November by narrow margins....

....Republicans in swing districts who don't back the resolution can expect to be attacked in next year's elections. They include Reps. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, Thelma Drake of Virginia and Robin Hayes of North Carolina. Each barely won reelection in November. This vote could end their careers.

''There are a lot of seats in play,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. ``I think this is going to be a big issue for voters in 2008.''

...President Bush says the resolution will not change his plans no matter how many Republicans support it. Once the vote clears, House Democrats intend to shift to binding legislation to limit troop deployments and funding.....

Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce, who voted time and time again against veterans benefits, is opposing the resolution. Those of us who live and vote in Ohio's 15th congressional district will remember Pryce's lack of support for the troops and her opposition to this resolution.