<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Presidents and Abortion Rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/presidents_and_abortion_rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/presidents_and_abortion_rights/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:17:47 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dan Hunt</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/presidents_and_abortion_rights/comment-page-1/#comment-209778</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Hunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/presidents_and_abortion_rights/#comment-209778</guid>
		<description>The rules of government certainly limit this as an issue in the upcoming presidential election.  The question that came up for me is the importance of abortion as an issue to voters.

So I checked on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues__1/trust_importance_on_issues&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rasmussen Reports&lt;/a&gt; to see where the issue was with voters.  It is &quot;very important&quot; at number 10 with &quot;38%&quot; of those polled.     My expectation is that those who considered abortion as a very important issue includes people on both sides of the issue.  Then when it comes time to cast their vote, some of them will let other issues over-ride this one in their choice of candidate.  That moves it even further down in influence, unless it affects swing states.

Dana Goldstein hit the mark when she said that George Will was &quot;explaining to pro-choice Californians why they should vote for Rudy Giuliani.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The rules of government certainly limit this as an issue in the upcoming presidential election.  The question that came up for me is the importance of abortion as an issue to voters.</p>
<p>So I checked on the <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues__1/trust_importance_on_issues" rel="nofollow">Rasmussen Reports</a> to see where the issue was with voters.  It is "very important" at number 10 with "38%" of those polled.     My expectation is that those who considered abortion as a very important issue includes people on both sides of the issue.  Then when it comes time to cast their vote, some of them will let other issues over-ride this one in their choice of candidate.  That moves it even further down in influence, unless it affects swing states.</p>
<p>Dana Goldstein hit the mark when she said that George Will was "explaining to pro-choice Californians why they should vote for Rudy Giuliani."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Isaacson</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/presidents_and_abortion_rights/comment-page-1/#comment-206879</link>
		<dc:creator>John Isaacson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/presidents_and_abortion_rights/#comment-206879</guid>
		<description>The point about the Presidential power of appointment in family planning areas, medical areas, and other matters impacting the rights of women in general, and in reproductive matter is, of course, correct, but probably much stronger than the article suggests.  

Bush has placed a woman named Orr at the head of Family Planning in the last few days - she is a dedicated anti-free choice person, with a long public record of dedication to the dogma of the &quot;social conservatives&quot; in her political and career associations.  

The White House has been consistent for almost seven years in placing people in appointments who can challenge women&#039;s rights, and they have done it here, and in a broader sense, in our international responsibilities about families and women.

John Isaacson
Director
www.Presidential-Appointments.org</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point about the Presidential power of appointment in family planning areas, medical areas, and other matters impacting the rights of women in general, and in reproductive matter is, of course, correct, but probably much stronger than the article suggests.  </p>
<p>Bush has placed a woman named Orr at the head of Family Planning in the last few days - she is a dedicated anti-free choice person, with a long public record of dedication to the dogma of the "social conservatives" in her political and career associations.  </p>
<p>The White House has been consistent for almost seven years in placing people in appointments who can challenge women's rights, and they have done it here, and in a broader sense, in our international responsibilities about families and women.</p>
<p>John Isaacson<br />
Director<br />
<a href="http://www.Presidential-Appointments.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.Presidential-Appointments.org</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: floyd</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/presidents_and_abortion_rights/comment-page-1/#comment-206623</link>
		<dc:creator>floyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/presidents_and_abortion_rights/#comment-206623</guid>
		<description>&quot;&quot;This is a classic case of the two sides talking past one another. Both are right, simply emphasizing a different set of priorities and unable to understand the other’s.&quot;&quot;
&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;&quot;

This statement is surely a half truth, George Will nearly always understands both sides before taking a position! His position in this case, as usual is correct.

Off subject note to Dana; Half the population sees abortion as murder. To them it is enough to tolerate it,and too much to be forced at gunpoint to pay for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>""This is a classic case of the two sides talking past one another. Both are right, simply emphasizing a different set of priorities and unable to understand the other&rsquo;s.""<br />
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""</p>
<p>This statement is surely a half truth, George Will nearly always understands both sides before taking a position! His position in this case, as usual is correct.</p>
<p>Off subject note to Dana; Half the population sees abortion as murder. To them it is enough to tolerate it,and too much to be forced at gunpoint to pay for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kent G. Budge</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/presidents_and_abortion_rights/comment-page-1/#comment-206603</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent G. Budge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/presidents_and_abortion_rights/#comment-206603</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think this is a case of talking past each other, though perhaps I&#039;m not understanding how the term is used. I think it&#039;s a case of increased polarization.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don't think this is a case of talking past each other, though perhaps I'm not understanding how the term is used. I think it's a case of increased polarization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
