I think the mistake here is that "religious" is mistakenly equated with "evengelical".

After David Kuo's inside-the-White-House expose "Tempting Faith", you'd think even evengelicals would wise up to the fact that conservatives have used them like two-dollar whores while laughing at them behind their backs.

"David Kuo came to Washington wanting to use his Christian faith to end abortion, strengthen marriage, and help the poor. He reached the heights of political power, ultimately serving in the White House under George W. Bush...

Yet his experience was deeply troubling... his Christian values, and those of millions of Americans, were being corrupted by politics. Instead of following the teachings of Jesus to serve the needy, Kuo found himself helping to manipulate religious faith for political gain. Public funds were used in battleground states, for Republican campaign events. The legislative process was used as a football, not to pass laws but to deepen purely symbolic fault lines. Grants were incestuously recycled to political cronies...

Key Bush aides and Republican operatives spoke of them with contempt and treated them as useful idiots."

http://tinyurl.com/64a9l4

I didn't believe in Karma. See what faith does?!!!
Anyway I guess I can still enjoy the visual that your post has provided....ahhhhhh!
Thanx Pook!

religious right wasn't trying so hard to make it a back alley procedure conducted by guys with coathangers. Maybe there wouldn't be so many botched abortions if clinics weren't being firebombed and doctors assassinated.

How about some proof that mothers run in to have an abortion so they can provide stem cells to medical researchers. I'll be waiting....and I'm sure I'll be collecting social security and watching astronauts walk on Mars before you can do that.

You eat that propoganda bullshit hook, line and sinker. You should just have "SUCKER" tattooed to your forehead, or whatever you fucking frogs have.

"The justification for Hudson's misleading "infanticide" charge stems from a proposed state version of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, debated in Illinois when Obama was a state senator in 2001. The most well-publicized portion of that bill would have required that any "viable" fetus surviving a late-term abortion receive sustaining medical care (something which opponents of that bill said was already required by a 1975 bill in the state). But because Obama voted "no" in committee and "present" on the Senate floor, Hudson reasons, Obama must have been in favor of killing viable, born babies -- especially since the U.S. Congress also passed a "born alive" measure in 2002 in near unanimous fashion.

One significant problem with Hudson's logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Illinois State Representative Rosemary Mulligan sighed when the Huffington Post told her about the "infanticide" claim currently being leveled at Obama. As a pro-choice Republican who is supporting John McCain for president but also worked with Obama back in 2001, she described the first Illinois version of the Born Alive legislation as "a very onerous bill," adding that "I think that the hardcore, hard right conservative Catholics overreach on this one."

Something else Deal Hudson fails to note in his critique of Obama is the fact that the 2005 version of the state bill, which passed, was a compromise bill free of any other measures Obama had previously opposed. Had he been there to vote for it, he may well have done so. Specifically addressing his onetime concern over the impact of a re-definition of what "born alive" could be interpreted to mean, the 2005 measure that passed after Obama left Springfield included three new clauses that read:

(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

In sum, comparing the federal bill passed by Congress in 2002 with the various Illinois measures proposed during Obama's tenure in the state legislature is a bogus enterprise meant to confuse people who lack the time and resources required to tease out the differences between them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116...

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin