This Bird Is Tweeting
Posted by Michelle Moquin on 10th November 2009
Good morning!
I am sure that all of you by now have noticed that this bird, moi, has joined twitter and is now tweeting! Join twitter and come follow my tweets. It’s easy to join and much more simpler than FaceBook. Although I am not knocking FB. I faced off awhile ago but I am back at it again and have figured out how not to be on it for hours on end. Now I am enjoying connecting with so many of you on all 3 venues. I have even recently joined some of my fave websites where my comments are now connected to my twitter. Pretty cool. So if you are having a hard time commenting here, or just want to connect in another way, join twitter and come tweet me baby!
Okay enough of blog biz.
Hi Mike: Thanks for the compliment and the offer. If I could be in SF at 4:00 on Thursday, I would be there to support but I work during the day so it is a no go for me. Are you going to be there? Let us know how it goes – thanks.
Eunice: My pleasure.
Libby: I removed that ad of Newt – As you can see it’s still up. – it takes a while to get it out of the system. But hey, maybe I should keep it for that one purpose. :) Since you joined – please keep us posted.
Anon, Anon 2: Well, well, well….are either of you close friends of mine? I can’t imagine that if either of you knew me well, you would know that my blog would never be a subject that you could not broach. Are you just too shy or is it something else? I spoke about my blog several times that evening, and happy to do so. So no, I do not mind being approached in public – why would I? I love chatting about my blog.
Let me guess….hmmm were either of you amongst the 4 in the bedroom who were totally silent when I was speaking to a woman who I just met, about my blog? I knew all of you quite well except for the one guy….And even though we haven’t seen each other in years, we had all grown up together, and yet not one of you said a word when this new acquaintance and I were chatting it up. Yeah I noticed the silence. :) Look, I won’t put you on the spot. I don’t expect you to answer. I just find it humorous that both of you had topics that you wanted to discuss yet you didn’t come up to me. You must know that I am so approachable. And if you didn’t, you do now! Talk to me.
Hey Zen Lill: As much as I agree that we need to pump up availability and research in prevention, I am not sure if you are saying that you personally would not like to pay for penile dysfunction products, viagra or abortions, meaning that people in general should get these for free through health insurance etc., or if you mean the government public option, should not subsidize these products and procedures.
A ‘personal decision‘ is a very shady area in my mind. Circumstances change. People change. Sometimes women get pregnant, and the man gets cold feet and leaves. Should a woman be forced to have the baby as a single parent? Women can be persuaded into pregnancy thinking that she does want a child, gets pregnant, and then wakes up one morning, reality hits and she realizes that maybe she really doesn’t want a baby. Maybe a young woman wants to have a child, gets pregnant, and a month later gets the raise and promotion that she has been working so hard for, but knows she won’t get the support from her boss – a man. She makes a tough decision and opts to have an abortion, knowing that she can live the dream job and have children later. My girlfriend just went through this only she chose to have a baby, and her boss, a man, laid her off – she is now in a law suit.
The point being, having a child is a huge life changer. I know you know this even better than me :)
I just feel that during the decision process, women can change their minds, and they have every right to. And women should be supported for changing their minds if they choose. There are all sorts of personal reasons and decisions why women chose to get pregnant and then choose to have an abortion. And because women are the only ones who truly experience this on a physical level not to mention an emotional level, women need to be supported by it. And worrying whether they will be covered by it, shouldn’t be an issue.
Here’s an article that I read this morning on the Huff Post. (I tweeted it too :)
Boxer: Senate Has Votes To Block Stupak Amendment
One of Congress’s foremost champions of abortion rights said on Monday that the Senate did not have the votes to add a more restrictive anti-abortion amendment to health care reform legislation.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that 60 votes would be needed to strip the current health care bill of its abortion-related language and replace it with a version resembling that passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday. And, in an interview with the Huffington Post, the California Democrat predicted that pro-choice forces in the Senate would keep that from happening.
“If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it,” Boxer said. “And I believe in our Senate we can hold it.”
“It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time,” she added. “And it is much more pro-choice than the House.”
Boxer’s reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a far less pro-choice lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
“It would have to be added,” sad the Montana Democrat of an amendment that mirrored that offered Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in the House. “I doubt it could pass.”
Speaking days after House Democrats helped pass the Stupak provision — which would greatly restrict private insurers from covering abortion — Boxer and Baucus’s proclamations are undoubtedly music to the ears of pro-choice activists. President Obama, likewise, stressed during an interview with ABC News Monday night that he would like to see the Stupak amendment changed before a final version of health care legislation is produced.
In making her argument, Boxer described the provision as inherently prejudiced, as well as bad policy and unfair politics. The Stupak amendment, she said, would deny women access to “a legal medical procedure” even if she agrees to pay for it with private funds (a supplemental policy would have to be purchased to cover abortion).
“It’s bad enough on the first count, but on the second count it seems to me very unfair and very discriminatory,” she said. “I don’t see them picking out anything that a man relies on, any kind of procedure that a man relies on. This is very discriminatory towards women.”
She noted that it was predominantly men who were making these policy decisions.
“In all my years in politics, this is what it’s been like,” Boxer said. “This is the way it is. It always amazes me. The leading voices always, since I’ve been in Congress, have always been males. And that is one of the reasons why I think it is so important to have more women. Not that every woman is pro-choice. It is not true. But most of the women are.”
“And so when I see man after man come down there I just feel, in my heart our of hearts: Why don’t you trust women to make this decision? We are deserving of your trust,” the senator added.
Currently, the Senate bill’s language would allow for insurers participating in a health care exchange to cover abortions so long as they ensured that federal funds are not used to pay for the procedure. An amendment similar to Stupaks’ effort — which was offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) — had already been voted down in the Senate Finance Committee.
To re-introduce such a provision, Boxer said, 60 senators would be required to cut off debate on the floor. And the votes for that, she said, likely won’t materialize.
“If they try to add the language we would try to stop them,” she said. “If somebody wants to take it out they are going to need 60 votes to take it out… And my view is that we do have the numbers.”
Boxer is slated to meet on Tuesday with Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) as well as other Democratic women in the Senate to discuss the topic of abortion vis-à-vis health care reform.
“When we sat down to do health care, I thought there was an understanding that we would be abortion-neutral,” she said. “In other words we wouldn’t change anything on abortion; that federal funds couldn’t be used but of course private funds could as long as this was legal. And Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.”
********
Hey BTK: Loved your comment – you are so right on. And here…on my blog….you can say anything you like, even twice :) – go for it.
Jeff: Awesome – thanks for making such a big commitment.
Readers: Comments? Thoughts? Complaints? Compliments :) – blog me or tweet me!
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: Your Bad Ass Bitch Editor
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the ‘Donate’ button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my ‘Donate’ page)
Posted in ChitChat, Good Reads and Good See'ds, Health & Well Being, Love, Sex & Relationships, Political Powwow | 15 Comments »



