We’re down to the second to last Asshole Fuckface Roundup of all time. I’ve been called up to the big leagues. Asshole Fuckfaces will no longer be my business. This makes today the 7th worst day in world history. Tomorrow will be the 6th and you can probably see a pattern developing. So, hold on to your assholes, because this is going to be ugly.

First up, some Ohio Asshole Fuckfacing.

Meet Ohio State Representative John Adams. He believes women’s bodies belong to men, like property. Women should obviously have no say in what they want in their pathetic lives.

Can’t see any problem with that. It’s just a well thought out policy.

That’s because it’s not growing in his torso and coming out of his vagina.

A worthy use of government. Also, if the father is located, the woman will be branded with his name on her forehead. Oh, and I loved the book, The Handmaid's Tale. Thanks for the reminder.

Or to move out of Ohio. Dear John Adams, you are sub-human.

Next up, more racist Republican Asshole Fuckfacery.

As I wrote the day Obama was elected, racist Republican nonsense will continue to spew forth every day Obama is in office. Republicans, or, as they are often called, “rich, white people,” believe their racist jokes are something everyone does. They believe it’s just our common language and they will continue sending offensive jokes and twitters until he leaves office. It’s who they are. They don't know any better.

First, we’ll start with Atwater, California City Council member Gary Frago. Gary’s big on sending out hilarious emails about President Obama and his wife.

She’s black, by the way. I mean, if you missed the hilarity, National Geographic is known for publishing photos of bare-chested African women, or, at least they did in the ‘50s.

Obviously, Gary has a big future in politics, but he’s not the worst racist emailer of the week. No, that honor goes to Dr. David McKalip. Dr. David is the founder of the right-wing, anti-health reform group Doctors For Patient Freedom. He’s one of the doctors the GOP is taking out for talks to explain to Americans why health care reform is bad.

Good stuff. He also sent out this image of Obama as a witch doctor this week.

Hell yeah. It’s impossible to make that point without putting a bone in the president’s nose. Impossible.

Next up, more Republican Asshole Fuckfacery.

The Republicans have whipped up their talking points to stop health care reform. Here's the highlight:

So, health insurance that will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see? Um, that’s exactly what we have now. So, good point? Oh, and there's more.

It’s a good thing we haven’t had, like, 60 years to think about it. In actuality, it needs to be a rush job. Why? Because 5 million Americans have lost their insurance since September. Because 16% of Americans over the age of 18 have no health insurance. That’s actually something you should deal with fast, not slow. Oh, and 70% of Americans want a public plan.

The only reason Republicans want to “slow it down” is because they want more time to come up with lies to spread across the airwaves to defeat health care reform. And they have no plan. No plan.

Finally, some pot Asshole Fuckfacery.

With all that is going on in our country, it amazing we continue our war on drugs, specifically marijuana. Currently, law enforcement officials are conducting “Operation SOS — or, “Save Our Sierra.” They are saving it from pot.

Sweet. Obama’s drug policy is the same old, stupid, moronic drug policy we have been living under for years, with the same old idiots in charge. Take Obama’s new idiot drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who had some awesome things to say about pot.

No, can’t think of a thing.

Keep on keepin’ on. It’s a tremendous success and a great use of our money. By the way, government, if pot was legal pot farmers wouldn't be screwing up the environment up in the mountains. Just a tip.

FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday and Friday for more from FearTheReaper You may also enjoy his blog, Stop All Monsters.

Yes we can…but will we? Obama challenges the cynics, but are we really wrong?

On Tuesday, Chicago's Grant Park flooded with a myriad of Obama enthusiasts to hear his acceptance speech and echo his refrain of hope and change: "Yes we can." The speech was not merely a gracious acceptance of Obama's decisive presidential win, but also a nod to the historic milestone of his successful campaign and admonishment to those who doubted American's capacity for evolution. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer." The crowd reveled in this joyous, momentous occasion, and blogs and newspapers alike attributed that message –– "Yes we can" –– as a sign of more change to come.

I was born about a mile from Chicago's Grant Park during a serious economic recession much like the one we are mired in today. My father, a college graduate who was unable to get a job amidst the turmoil, turned to selling drugs in the very neighborhood that Obama calls his home. My mother stayed home with me and battled severe and worsening mental illness, which even if we had possessed health insurance, would not have been covered. Despite these setbacks however, my parents both struggled to find and keep work, and with the help of Pell Grants and scholarships, I was able to go to a university of my choice in California.

President-elect Barack Obama has made progressive issues like health care and education, issues that so acutely affected my family, the cornerstone of his campaign, but at the same time he recognizes that above all pulling this country out of economic crisis will color the first years of his presidency. "There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair." His plans for economic revival through investment in clean energy and infrastructure repair are innovative and show foresight that goes far beyond his four or eight year administration.

But while Obama's policies might be the change we need, choked-up excitement at an acceptance speech or even Obama's election as a whole does not automatically foretell success for his progressive legislation. Obama told us on Tuesday to "summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other." And as onlookers teared up and waved their flags, California began tallying the votes that would decisively smash two green initiatives –– Props 7 and 10 –– and uphold a constitutional amendment that would disallow same sex marriage. Californians also said no to Prop 5, which would have expanded drug rehabilitation facilities for juvenile offenders and decrease sentences and parole for nonviolent drug offenders (like my father).

Yes on 8 activists (the proposition that bans same sex marriage) consistently used footage of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom prophetically saying, "As goes California, so goes the nation," and the prophecy is frightening. If California, bluest of blue states, can’t pass green initiatives or drug crime reform, will Barack Obama be able to inspire a wary, financially distraught nation to invest in clean energy? Health care? Higher education? Barack Obama says, "Yes, we can," and though his election shows that Americans can vote for change, it also shows we must ask another question –– Will we?

And though I was able to go to college and start my career, my family continues to struggle. My father has changed careers twice as a result of his tech job being shipped overseas and struggles with debt accumulated from the subsequent unemployment. Will we help him? My mother, despite the fact that Congress recently passed a measure forcing insurance companies to cover mental illness the same as physical illness, will still be more likely to get the costly treatment for her liver cirrhosis than the condition that drove her to drink. Will we treat her?

I will never underestimate Barack Obama's ability to surprise us. Just a year ago he was a long shot candidate for the Democratic Party with too many factors working against him –– his blackness, his inexperience, and his so-called "liberal" agenda. Only a candidate like Obama could bring a nation together under the progressive reforms we will need to see us out of our economic, environmental, and international crises, but his ability to accomplish this affords little guarantee this will occur.

Will we?

While the amazing, four-day Democratic commercial goes on, I thought this would be a good time to revisit a topic that has dropped off the grid since the spring. Remember health care? Seemed to be a big topic a few months ago, but not so much now. Now we’re clearly more concerned with who’s a bigger celebrity and how many houses Old School owns.

But 45 million Americans do not have health care and 25 million more are underinsured. McCain and Obama have very different ideas on reforming health care. I’m going to break their shit down and you’re going to read it. That’s how we do.

McCain’s plan is a piece of shit created in jackass land. It does NOTHING to address the problem of uninsured Americans. NOTHING. Did I make that point strong enough? I used capital letters. That is some serious shit.

Johnny’s plan is more of the same crap that already got us into this mess. It’s all about “market forces and individually purchased insurance.” Sweet. Up until now we haven't tried "market forces and individually purchased insurance." It's so fresh!

Old School’s plan mainly focuses on….taxes. What a big surprise.

Oooooo. That sounds fucking awesome. Unless, of course, you are like the millions of Americans who can’t get insurance due to your medical history, or one of the millions of Americans who have claims denied and are dropped because they had the gall to have surgery. But don’t worry about that, because McCain will solve the problems of spiraling costs with “deregulation.”

Oh, fuck yes. Please, more deregulation. It has worked out so very well in every other market over the past ten years, especially energy and housing. Old School’s plan would allow insurers to sell across state lines and people would be able to buy policies from companies in any state. Wow, that should not make even the slightest difference.

McCain also believes by making insurance more “visible,” people will seek out lower cost insurance plans. Johnny thinks if workers can see how much their employers are paying, they would go for the cheaper insurance.

Yeah, good luck with that. In the end, McCain’s plan doesn’t do shit for people who can’t afford insurance. Most uninsured people would remain uninsured and the fixed tax credit would lead to a gap in affordability as health care spending increases. And the number of Americans paying higher taxes for employer insurance would go up, too. McCain’s plan would force many people to purchase higher deductible, less comprehensive insurance. Oh, and if we got rid of the tax benefits of employer sponsored insurance, some businesses would stop insuring workers. How great does that sound?

But don’t fret, because McCain has proposed a “guaranteed access plan.”

Oh, good. The castaways. Only, McCain’s plan has no way to pay for this part. It’s quite simply, bullshit. His interstate insurance market plan would actually weaken some states regulated protections. Oh, and those “34 states” plans already have high costs and limited benefits.

McCain basically is offering very little. It’s more of the same, which is unacceptable considering the situation we currently find ourselves in. If McCain is elected, expect our health care situation to get a lot worse.

Now, Obama at least seems to be trying, though he is also a bit deluded. Barack wants to spend money. Lots and lots of money. His plan includes an employer mandate, insurance regulation and a combination of public and private insurance.

Under Obama, employers will have to offer employees insurance or pay a tax. Smaller business would not have to pay a tax.

Best of all, insurers would not be able to deny coverage or charge more for preexisting conditions. His new "insurance exchange" would provide a pooling system, which would increase the purchasing power of individuals. Obama believes by pooling people together, it will cut administrative expenses and increase competition. Good luck with that.

And the attempts to cut costs don’t end there. While McCain has proposed little to nothing to drop health care costs, Obama’s plan is much more thoughtful and nuanced.

A big criticism of Obama’s plan is that it does not mandate insurance for adults, just children. That means it would not cover all uninsured people, but Obama has stated he may move forward with mandates if his plan does not result in universal health care.

The big problem is the money. The cost control plans are not certain to work and he needs to come up with $50 to $65 billion. He says he will pay for it by ending tax cuts to families making over $250,000 a year, but that will not cover the whole enchilada. He expects to save a lot of money with his cost cutting measures explained above. If they don’t work, it’s going to cost more. And you can pretty much guarantee there will be problems. But we’re spending $15 billion a month in Iraq, so if you are okay with paying for the war but don’t want to pay for universal health insurance, then you are a major douchebag.

Obama’s plan is way better than McCain’s, but it’s got a lot of problems. The only guy who had a decent health care plan was Kucinich. Until you take the profit out of health care, nothing’s going to work. Ever. So, don't get too excited either way, because we are a long way off from something decent.

UPDATE: One of the architects of McCain's healthcare plan uttered this gem today...

FearTheReaper also is a blogging idiot. Read more of his tripe on his blog, Stop All Monsters.

Ah, the dirty illegal immigrant. They are responsible for all of the horrible problems facing our nation today and will soon become the Republicans talking point for the ’08 elections. Never mind that the issue usually polls fifth or lower on American’s most important issues, they are brown and most importantly, they can’t defend themselves. The perfect target. What illegal immigrant will be appearing on "Larry King Live" or "20/20" to make their case? Turns out, none. Unfortunately, these pesky things called facts keep getting in the way of the immigrant hating kids arguments. The biggest fallacy is that illegal immigrants are the biggest problem facing our health care system.

Well, that is a load of bullshit. Just take a look at this UCLA study released last month.

But…but…they are brown and bad. Turns out illegal immigrants don’t like to go to hospitals or doctors because…they are illegal immigrants. Seems they don’t being asked for ID cards, Social Security numbers and their employment history. How any retard could not have figured that out is beyond me. They live in fear, the last place they want to go is to a hospital and answer questions.

Last year RAND also published a study that indicated illegal immigrants are not as costly as everyone seems to think they are.

That’s about 11 bucks per household. Now, how much money do you think you save from their cheap labor?

Another 2005 study came to the same conclusion.

Another reason we don’t spend very much on illegal immigrants is because we only give them bare minimum care. Due to 1986 Medicaid reforms, illegal immigrants can only receive emergency care that is” necessary to stabilize a patient.” After that, they have to pay. So, basically, we pick up the tab for care that keeps them alive and nothing else.

Oh, and illegal immigrants also pay taxes. What? Yeah, you heard me, you unread donkey. They pay taxes. According to a new Congressional Budget Office report on health care and immigration, illegal immigrants also get hit by the tax man.

They also kick some serious pesos into Social Security and Medicare – and they won’t see a fucking dime of that money.

16.3 percent of Americans are taking a pass on paying taxes. I wonder how many of them complain about illegal immigrants?

You’re going to hear a lot from the Republicans about how horrible illegal immigrants are over the next few months. They are the new gay marriage. They are going to be portrayed as evil, little, welfare queens who are overwhelming our system. But as far as medical care goes, know they are pretty full of shit.

Take a look at who is really skyrocketing the cost of our health care:

Yeah, 47 million Americans is a tad bit more than 10 million illegal immigrants, especially when you factor in the above study claiming illegal immigrants are 50% less likely to seek out care. So, shut your fucking clown holes and fix the real problem first. Then you get to go after the smaller problems.

Insurance for poor kids: thirteen votes short.

Let's have a look at Representative Walden's voting record, shall we?

• Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.
• Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
• Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.
• Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq.

He also

• Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks
• Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime
• Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism
• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies
• Voted YES on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids
• Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years (i.e., reducing government revenue)
• Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding
• Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored (so much for contracts)
• Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations
• Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill
• Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border
• Voted YES on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends
• Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit
• Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty
• Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent
• Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts
• Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years
• Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax
• Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty"
• Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business
• (voted to) phaseout the death tax
• Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

So you know, no contracts we can't afford to pay for.

Fucking asshole.

Bitch_PhD hopes people remember this shit come election time.

Politics in this country is a sick, sick beast. Every day we fall lower into a cesspool, every day we close our ears in disbelief to the utter utter mess that Washington thrusts about us like titties at a strip club. Politics have been stuck and bled like a Memphis hooker, stripped of dignity, whored to the highest bidder, and made a public mockery of consistently for almost three decades now. Yes, everything is Reagan's fault, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong.

Today's example comes in the form of SCHIP, or S-chip, because we here in American politics like to spruce everything up by giving it hip nicknames. And you can call it "schip" if you want, and be a fucking Kraut, or you can be with it and call it S-chip, the P-Diddy of the children's health insurance world. Nigga.

For those of you who missed Stephen Colbert's acute summary of the issue, it is as follows, convoluted as it may be:

Essentially, the new improved S-Chippy is a Medicaid-based program to provide free health insurance for "lower middle class" (a bullshit phrase if there ever was one) children who just barely don't qualify for Medicaid. Yes, they are poor, no matter what pundits say. Aside from being a spectacular idea, if passed, the S-chip initiative would also be a way to ease into some of the more radical (and I use that term loosely) universal health care programs that are being expounded by the Democratic Presidential candidates. (For the record, vote Edwards.)

Much of the opposition to free health insurance is based on the Reaganomical assumption that people - namely poor people, homeless people, black people, and the uninsured - are responsible for their own states of being, and that the modern United States government should take a policy of outdated Social Darwinism towards them, despite the fact that Social Darwinism hasn't been legitimate since the late 1800s. These people are fucking idiots. The issue is more complex than that. And the sheer volume of uninsured Americans suggests that a hands-off approach by the government has never worked, especially since the government has given no incentive for these people to pull themselves out of their terminal state in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that these are children. Not working adults. Who should be responsible for insuring them? If you said "their parents" then you deserve a quick chop to the throat because you weren't paying attention. If a parent can't even insure him or herself, how in god's name can they insure their children, who by basic nature accumulate far higher medical bills than adults do?

Now that we've shown that free health care for kids is an exceptional idea, we can move on, because the rest of the article depends on us finding that notion inscrutably important. And if you don't think it's important? Well, that makes you a child killer and probably a rapist. I have Chris Hansen on speed dial, so shut your fucking mouths, K?

Congressional Democrats, in one of their few successes since taking control of the Hill, have decided to address the issue, and that's where Puff Chippy comes in. Conceived by the Congress of the 1990s (having been enacted in 1997), which, it should be noted, was controlled by the Republicans, it is a measure to provide free health care to all children who live within a certain income bracket. Under the old plan, that income bracket was essentially Medicaid. Under the new proposal, the ceiling has been extended - adding about four million eligible children to the old total of 6.6 million. (Unfortunately, the funding for this expansion comes from an increase in the cigarette tax, which is overwhelmingly paid by the lower-to-middle classes over the wealthy, and is strike one against the Democrats, though certainly not their low point - we'll get to that later.)

Taxation aside, raising the ceiling is a fantastic idea, because Medicaid has a very low ceiling, and more families than those who make $20,000 per year (the poverty ceiling for a family of four) have difficulty affording their lives. Unfortunately for the Republicans, Bush doesn't think so.

"Policies of the government ought to be to help poor children, and to focus on poor children," he insightfully philosophizes, a rather intelligent thing to come out of the mind of this stagnant retard. But then he continues: "And the policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage."

Unfortunately for that fucking moron, his government has done absolutely nothing to enable the poor to find their own private insurance. The income gap between the rich and the poor has reached historic levels during his presidency.

Tell me, George, how will low-income people ever have enough to insure themselves when their share of the gross income of the United States is at its lowest point of the modern age? And then there are his infamous tax cuts, well documented on this site among other places, which grant tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while leaving the burden on the poor at the same level. Talk about "helping people find private insurance." Because if there's one way to get poor people insured, it's to not do anything to help them.

That is strike one against the Republicans. The utter failing for the poor of this country, whom they claim to represent, and who vote for them in drones. It's certainly not their low point - that's coming up - and it's definitely nothing new.

They, as expected, relied on Bush to veto the proposal, and he certainly did.

Though he may be vehement now in his own defense (as evidenced in the video linked above), if there's one thing history has shown us, it is that actions speak louder than words. He did it "quietly." No TV cameras. No press conference. It's almost as though he didn't want anyone to know what he was doing. It's almost as though he felt ashamed.

Unfortunately for the House Democrats, the margin with which the bill was passed, 265-159, is not a large enough majority to override a Presidential veto, and so the possibility of the program taking effect is fading rapidly.

And so the Democrats have pulled out all the stops, and have, in their attempt to sway the necessary number of Red Staters, brought the issue of poor kids full in the face of the Republican Party, thereby administered the largest guilt trip since George Washington cut down the cherry tree. And the twisted tale that follows can only be described as a national political low.

The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, wrangled themselves a sick kid, a twelve-year-old boy named G----- F---- (I refuse to print his name here, because I am not a heartless bastard, though if you want it, it's all over the links), and exploited his existence on a scale perhaps larger than Dannielynn Smith - nah, nothing is. They had this young, naive 12-year-old give a response to Bush - on the radio - nationally. They didn't have this boy, say, have face-to-face talks with Republican leaders behind closed doors. They paraded him around the entire country, like a midget in a freak show, to achieve their own political ends. That, my friends, is a low point.

But it's not the low point - oh no. Not by a long shot.

That honor goes to the Republicans, who snapped at the bait like hungry walleyes and instantly mounted a mudslinging campaign - not against the Democrats, but against the 12-year-old boy.

It's bad enough to throw dirt at political candidates. They are adults. They can take care of themselves. But this is a child. A fucking prepubescent boy. And they're attacking him. The boy! It's the equivalent of a fully-grown man walking onto an elementary school playground and taunting a kid with braces, then subsequently taking his lunch money. "Not needy enough"? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

(For the record, if you still do not think that the "conservative bloggers" do not represent the opinions of the Republican Party, then you are ignorant and should not comment on this piece at all.)

And in its weird, sick, and twisted way, it has become emblematic of their policy toward the Notorious C.H.I.P expansion in the first place. What they're doing to poor G----- is no different than what they're doing to the four million other children whom the expansion would aid. Telling them they're not deserving enough. Taking away their means. In a way, dooming them to additional pain and suffering because Republicans are the ultimate moral authority in this country, wink wink, and they determine, I guess, who deserves to live and who deserves to die. And poor G-----, like four million other kids, just isn't poor enough to deserve their aid, and not rich enough to deserve their respect.

Take them both behind the shed and shoot them. Never before has there been a situation more emblematic of the utter dogshit that has become the once-venerable insitution of American democracy. Leave it to ChipPac to remind us all of the change that is needed so desperately.

Formus thinks every child in America should be insured, god damn it, and every adult too. Also, for any NSA spies that may be reading this, he was being facecious when he suggested we shoot the Congress. He only meant with a high-grade horse tranquilizer, that's all.

Yesterday Bush, as promised, vetoed the State Child Health Insurance Program bill.

Ugly, ugly, ugly. Denying health insurance to children because providing it is "the wrong direction" is the "political spin" here. SCHIP wouldn't "displace private insurance" for fucking anyone; it would *provide* insurance for kids who don't have it.

Here's what will happen in California, Gallegly's state:

More facts:

In 2005, there were 8.3 *million* uninsured children in the U.S. In 2006, there were 8.7 million.

These are children with asthma, with disabilities, with chronic ear infections, with toothaches, with eczema, with allergies; kids in foster care, kids with depression or ADHD. The idea that most people are basically healthy and that if you get sick without health insurance you can always go to the ER applies to "most people" because "most people" have had decent health care as children and haven't developed long-term or chronic problems because they lacked it. Untreated colds, head lice when you can't afford the medicine that kills them, eczema that drives you crazy--that kind of minor ongoing problem undermines kids' ability to attend school, undermines their ability to focus when they are in school, undermines their long-term health and the health of their entire families. ER visits for head lice or asthma are a fuck of a lot more expensive to the almighty taxpayer than providing kids with inhalers and topical medications.

And it's fucking pathetic that we have to resort to that kind of "it costs more not to treat them" argument for convincing the wealthiest country in the world to make sure kids can see a doctor once or twice a year.

The good news is that the Senate has enough votes for SCHIP to override Bush's asshole veto.

The bad news is that the House doesn't. We need 25 more Representatives to act like decent human beings and switch their votes.

So. Do the decent thing. Go here and find out who your representative is.

Then scroll down the list below to see if his or her name is on it. These are the folks who voted against SCHIP.

Write them (you can do so via the first link, or you can google their name and find a real honest-to-god mailing address) and tell them to change their vote. That's all you have to do.

If you want to do more, google the name of your state + "uninsured children numbers" and find out what percentage of kids in your state are uninsured. Mention that in your letter. If your representative was one of the good guys, write to the people on the list below who are from your state, admit that you're not in their district, but tell them you write as a resident of your state, and point out that their vote affects everyone.

If you want to do even more, talk to your friends and make sure they know about this. Tell them who their representative is. Urge them to write or call. Give them your representative's contact information. (A list of people who are *most* likely to change their votes is here, but even the dyed-in-the-wool assholes should hear how unpopular their stubbornness on this issue is with their constituents.)

If you want to do even more than that, print out a few flyers that say "Your Representative in Congress voted AGAINST providing health insurance to uninsured children," put your Representative's name, face, and contact information on it, and post them around town.

If you want to do even more than all of that, think of what else you can do and post it in the comments below.

Alabama

AL-1 Bonner, Jo (R)
AL-2 Everett, Terry (R)
AL-3 Rogers, Michael (R)
AL-4 Aderholt, Robert (R)
AL-6 Bachus, Spencer (R)

Arizona

AZ-2 Franks, Trent (R)
AZ-3 Shadegg, John (R)
AZ-6 Flake, Jeff (R)

Arkansas

AR-3 Boozman, John (R)

California

CA-2 Herger, Walter (R) -- did not vote
CA-3 Lungren, Daniel (R)
CA-4 Doolittle, John (R)
CA-19 Radanovich, George (R)
CA-21 Nunes, Devin (R)
CA-22 McCarthy, Kevin (R)
CA-24 Gallegly, Elton (R)
CA-25 McKeon, Howard (R)
CA-26 Dreier, David (R)
CA-33 Watson, Diane (D) -- voted "present" but did not vote aye or nay on the bill
CA-40 Royce, Edward (R)
CA-41 Lewis, Jerry (R)
CA-42 Miller, Gary (R)
CA-44 Calvert, Ken (R)
CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana (R)
CA-48 Campbell, John (R)
CA-49 Issa, Darrell (R)
CA-50 Bilbray, Brian (R)
CA-52 Hunter, Duncan (R)

Colorado

CO-4 Musgrave, Marilyn (R)
CO-5 Lamborn, Doug (R)
CO-6 Tancredo, Thomas (R)

Florida

FL-1 Miller, Jeff (R)
FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander (R)
FL-5 Brown-Waite, Virginia (R)
FL-6 Stearns, Clifford (R)
FL-7 Mica, John (R)
FL-8 Keller, Ric (R)
FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus (R)
FL-11 Castor, Kathy (D)
FL-12 Putnam, Adam (R)
FL-14 Mack, Connie (R)
FL-15 Weldon, David (R)
FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R)
FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R)
FL-24 Feeney, Tom (R)
FL-25 Diaz-Balart, Mario (R)

Georgia

GA-1 Kingston, Jack (R)
GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn (R)
GA-6 Price, Tom (R)
GA-7 Linder, John (R)
GA-8 Marshall, James (D)
GA-9 Deal, Nathan (R)
GA-10 Broun, Paul (R)
GA-11 Gingrey, John (R)

Idaho

ID-1 Sali, Bill (R)

Illinois

IL-6 Roskam, Peter (R)
IL-11 Weller, Gerald (R)
IL-13 Biggert, Judy (R)
IL-14 Hastert, J. (R)
IL-15 Johnson, Timothy (R)
IL-16 Manzullo, Donald (R)
IL-19 Shimkus, John (R)

Indiana

IN-3 Souder, Mark (R)
IN-4 Buyer, Stephen (R)
IN-5 Burton, Dan (R)
IN-6 Pence, Mike (R)
IN-7 Carson, Julia (D) -- did not vote
IN-9 Hill, Baron (D)

Iowa

IA-5 King, Steve (R)

Kansas

KS-4 Tiahrt, Todd (R)

Kentucky

KY-1 Whitfield, Edward (R)
KY-2 Lewis, Ron (R)
KY-4 Davis, Geoff (R)
KY-5 Rogers, Harold (R)

Louisiana

LA-1 Jindal, Bobby (R) -- did not vote
LA-4 McCrery, James (R)
LA-5 Alexander, Rodney (R)
LA-6 Baker, Richard (R)
LA-7 Boustany, Charles (R)

Maryland

MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe (R)

Massachusetts

MA-10 Delahunt, William (D) -- did not vote

Michigan

MI-2 Hoekstra, Peter (R)
MI-4 Camp, David (R)
MI-7 Walberg, Timothy (R)
MI-8 Rogers, Michael (R)
MI-9 Knollenberg, Joseph (R)
MI-11 McCotter, Thaddeus (R)

Minnesota

MN-2 Kline, John (R)
MN-6 Bachmann, Michele (R)

Mississippi

MS-1 Wicker, Roger (R)
MS-3 Pickering, Charles (R)
MS-4 Taylor, Gene (D)

Missouri

MO-2 Akin, W. (R)
MO-6 Graves, Samuel (R)
MO-7 Blunt, Roy (R)
MO-9 Hulshof, Kenny (R)

Nebraska

NE-1 Fortenberry, Jeffrey (R)
NE-2 Terry, Lee (R)
NE-3 Smith, Adrian (R)

Nevada

NV-2 Heller, Dean (R)

New Jersey

NJ-3 Saxton, H. (R)
NJ-5 Garrett, E. (R)
NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R)

New Mexico

NM-2 Pearce, Steven (R)

New York

NY-26 Reynolds, Thomas (R)
NY-29 Kuhl, John (R)

North Carolina

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob (D)
NC-3 Jones, Walter (R)
NC-5 Foxx, Virginia (R)
NC-6 Coble, Howard (R)
NC-7 McIntyre, Mike (D)
NC-8 Hayes, Robin (R)
NC-9 Myrick, Sue (R)
NC-10 Mchenry, Patrick (R)

Ohio

OH-1 Chabot, Steven (R)
OH-2 Schmidt, Jean (R)
OH-4 Jordan, Jim (R)
OH-8 Boehner, John (R)
OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis (D) -- WTF?

Oklahoma

OK-1 Sullivan, John (R)
OK-2 Boren, Dan (D)
OK-3 Lucas, Frank (R)
OK-4 Cole, Tom (R)
OK-5 Fallin, Mary (R)

Oregon

OR-2 Walden, Greg (R)

Pennsylvania

PA-5 Peterson, John (R)
PA-9 Shuster, William (R)
PA-16 Pitts, Joseph (R)

South Carolina

SC-1 Brown, Henry (R)
SC-2 Wilson, Addison (R)
SC-3 Barrett, James (R)
SC-4 Inglis, Bob (R)

Tennessee

TN-1 Davis, David (R)
TN-2 Duncan, John (R)
TN-3 Wamp, Zach (R)
TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha (R)

Texas

TX-1 Gohmert, Louis (R)
TX-2 Poe, Ted (R) -- did not vote
TX-3 Johnson, Samuel (R)
TX-4 Hall, Ralph (R)
TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb (R)
TX-6 Barton, Joe (R)
TX-7 Culberson, John (R)
TX-8 Brady, Kevin (R)
TX-10 McCaul, Michael (R)
TX-11 Conaway, K. (R)
TX-12 Granger, Kay (R)
TX-13 Thornberry, William (R)
TX-14 Paul, Ronald (R)
TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy (R)
TX-21 Smith, Lamar (R)
TX-24 Marchant, Kenny (R)
TX-26 Burgess, Michael (R)
TX-30 Johnson, Eddie (D) -- did not vote
TX-31 Carter, John (R)
TX-32 Sessions, Peter (R)

Utah

UT-1 Bishop, Rob (R)
UT-3 Cannon, Christopher (R)

Virginia

VA-1 Davis, Jo Ann (R)
VA-2 Drake, Thelma (R)
VA-4 Forbes, James (R)
VA-5 Goode, Virgil (R)
VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert (R)
VA-7 Cantor, Eric (R)

Washington

WA-4 Hastings, Doc (R)

Wisconsin

WI-1 Ryan, Paul (R)
WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. (R)

Wyoming

WY-0 Cubin, Barbara (R) -- did not vote

Ladies, we're offically second-class citizens. This according to the Supreme Court, which today found that it's constitutional for lawmakers (aka white men) to decide what kind of medical care we need. In short, the Court upheld the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban." Despite the fact that "partial birth abortion" is not a medically recognized term.

What is medically recognized:

• 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.


• Intact dilation and extraction (also known as IDX, or sometimes just D&X) is used in approximately .17% of all abortions.


• It is probable (though definitive data do not exist) that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because of fetal abnormalities.


• IDX, because it delivers a fetus whole, creates less risk of uterine perforation from bone fragments than other forms of late-term abortion.


• IDX has less risk of infection than other forms of late-term abortion, because it takes less time and requires the insertion of fewer instruments into the uterus.


• IDX (like other late-term abortion procedures) can prevent a woman who has found that her fetus is dead or not viable from having to undergo labor and delivery of a dead fetus.


• IDX can allow women whose fetuses are not viable to view and hold their dead babies after delivery.


• Most IDX procedures are performed between 20-24 weeks gestation--that is, within the second trimester, and before fetal viability.
  In cases where a fetus has severe hydrocephalus (water on the brain, which can cause a fetuses head to be grotesquely enlarged), the options to a woman may be IDX or a Cesarean section--that is, a three-day outpatient procedure or major surgery, with attendant potential complications.


• The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explicitly opposed the ban.

The law allows for IDX to be performed to save a woman's life--but not to save, say, her uterus. Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances.

What the court's decided, in essence, is that a woman's right to make her own medical decisions is less important than preventing legislators from getting an ooky feeling by thinking about fetal heads being punctured. Our safety is less important than their feelings.

Sources consulted for this article:

• Salon: "A Doctor's Right to Choose."


• Library of Congress Congressional Research Services report 95-1101 SPR: "Abortion Procedures"


• Suzanne Batchelor, "Abortion Procedures Ban Limits Endings for Doomed Pregnancies"


• Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "PPA Opposes Abortion Ban Legislation"


• Religious Tolerance.org: "D&X / PBA Procedures"


• Wikipedia entry on Intact Dilation and Extraction


• Wikipedia entry on hydrocephalus

Bitch_PhD, who doesn't really have it in her to make snarky jokes about this decision, has cross-posted this at her own blog.

The Bush administration has figured out a way to bring down the out of control government budget: Cut veteran health care funding. I mean, who cares, right? After they return from a horrible war, with injuries and serious mental health issues, spending money on them is just like throwing it down a hole, right?

The Bush plan cuts funding for veterans' health care two years from now in an attempt to balance the budget by 2012. It’s probably a coincidence that in two years Bush won’t be in office. Because we are in a war and our health care system is a disaster, the cost of medical care for veterans has been increasing steadily, by more than 10 percent in many years. The VA budget has risen every year for twenty years, 83 percent since Bush took office.

The White House would like to have cutbacks on spending in 2009 and 2010 and then a freeze on spending after that. A freeze. Let’s just make sure we all understand that idea. We are in a war and the president is increasing the number of troops – and decreasing spending on the health benefits when they return wounded. He wants to freeze spending on something that quite simply, cannot be frozen.

Representative Chet Edwards, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, believes VA benefits will be $16 billion higher than the administration’s estimate.