> If you were a regular visitor here you'd know why. I'm no liberal myself, but I
> happen to agree completely with her; too bad the GOP can't be realistic and let
> women decide on those issues themselves.


Ok - I'll stick it out on this one, and venture a thought or two:

I do understand the notion of a "Decline to State" party registration. But it has a huge downside in most states; that one is then frozen out of the preliminaries and primary process. Since so many people find both major parties so distasteful, such powers should be taken away from all parties - no special recognition should be given to any party in the electoral process, AT ALL.

My Idea - open quarter final, open semi-final, then final elections; with no partisan mention on the ballot whatsoever. But then, a republican shouted at me that, that was a "Communist" idea! Just as a democrat called me a "Jon Bircher right wing extremist (whateverthehell that is)!

And No - I'm not much of a conservative and certainly no liberal either; but who says the republicans can't come to their senses?

It is possible for the Pubs to progress to a more sensible perspective. Unlike the Dems, who goose step to every whim of their party's leadership, The Pubs at least have a broad spectrum of ideas at the table to debate over - and they specifically do not agree with each other about Ms. Voss' concerns, nor on many others. That is why republicans never managed to do much of anything about it when they were in absolute control. But at least they each thought their own thoughts.

While it is annoying, that the Pubs can't seem to govern when they are in power; the wide disparity of opinion found in them, is probably the only hope we will ever have of finding a common ground on these divisive issues, rather that having something crammed down our throats (as is now in vogue). The synthesis of new ideas from combining old ideas, is essential to finding that common ground. That in turn requires a broad diversity of thought and honest respectful debate - not the dismissive ad hominem style that produces "goose stepping" adherence, in the other party.

One thing they did manage though, was on the question of who's going to pay for such "elective" medical procedures, when they are in fact elective; rather than medically necessary, which they only sometimes are. But that's more of a "stay out of my wallet" issue, than a "stay out of my uterus or bedroom" issue. In other words, do whatever you damn well please, while accepting sole responsibility for its consequences; but do so on your own dime - please!

Other Pubs disagree, but as to Mitt's position, the last I heard; it was that even though he believed abortion to be a horrific scourge on civilization; a leader of a democracy could and should do nothing about such controversial internal matters, unless and until, a significant and broad consensus should materialize (not likely very soon).

That satisfies me - as it IS a horrific scourge on civilization (bordering on "holocaust"); but not one I could ever trust any "Government" to ever solve - it is way too personal. That solution can only come via honest heart to heart communications and gentle persuasion - not by the heavy hand of government.