Lost rights

June 23, 2011


To the editor:

First they came for the arts, and there was tremendous public and political outcry to keep them, but it didn’t matter.

They took them anyway.

Then they came for control of what happens beneath my skin as a woman, and there was public opposition but it didn’t matter.

They took control anyway.

Then they came to, once again, blame the victim and tell women that we need to prepare for rape, and while heads didn’t roll, tires certainly did, but it didn’t matter.

They punished women anyway.

Then they came to “protect us” from the plague of voter fraud, and while many questioned its necessity and more pondered the negative ramifications, it didn’t matter.

They knew what was best for us anyway.

Then they came to undercut services for people with disabilities in the name of fiscal responsibility, and while both fiscally and morally the opposite is true, it didn’t matter.

They cut them anyway.

Then they’ll come for your rights and no matter how loudly you protest, no matter how logical your position, no matter how much you do, it won’t matter.

They’ll take your rights away anyway.

Is this the Kansas we really want?


Liberty_One 5 years ago

We all know who you're talking about. . . . Brownback, right?

Scott Drummond 5 years ago

Actually, Brownback is but one of the army of right wingers currently dismantling our society.

Jimo 5 years ago

Yeah, hysterical Jesus. What are we going to do with that guy? (I bet the Romans have an idea.)

cato_the_elder 5 years ago

Is taxpayer-funded support of "the arts" a "right?" In reviewing both the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions, I find no such "right" in either of them.

Randall Uhrich 5 years ago

Taxpayer-funded support of "the arts" is popularly supported and was approved by the Legislature, which legally establishes it as a right, but it has been stopped solely by Brownback and his appointed bureaucrats. Remember when the funding cuts were restored in the budget, and the Guvner used a line-item veto to remove them? This is not supposed to be a plutocracy. I say it's time to get a recall started.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Huh? Do you understand how state government works? An action by the lergislature and signed by the governor in most cases bestows no "rights". It does authorize the sate to pay for something. Absent the governors signature it establishes nothing.

appleaday 5 years ago

Just because it isn't a right doesn't mean it can't be supported with public funds. Are highways a "right?" You can build your own roads.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

And not if the state authorities so decide.

Cai 5 years ago

no, taxpayer-funded support of most things isn't a 'right' - but having a say in our own legislation is - and it was never voted on. I'll admit media is very good at showing only one side (and also that it's not a story to say 1/2 of KS agrees with decision - the outcry IS the story). But that say has not been granted in many of these instances.

Arguing that we voted for brownback also doesn't work, because most of the people doing this aren't actually brownback Even if he could stop it) or even elected officials.

Brock Masters 5 years ago

No, another bipod does not have to authorize a right for a human to have it. We are created with certain rights.

Brock Masters 5 years ago

You don't need to be religous to have rights and you don't have to depend on the government or society for them either. Unfortunately, government and society sometimes surpresses and infringes upon our rights.

jafs 5 years ago

All rights are socially created.

In nature, there are no rights.

beatrice 5 years ago

Or are the limits on rights what is socially created? In nature, there are no limits on rights, only actions and consequences.

littlexav 5 years ago

from a purely intellectual perspective, maybe... but you honestly don't think there are any natural laws? what about self-determination?

Blessed4x 5 years ago

...and of course the most important of these are life, liberty and government funded art shows.

Blessed4x 5 years ago

...and of course the most important of these are life, liberty and government funded art shows.

monkeyhawk 5 years ago

Now Steph knows how it feels to live under the Obama regime.

tomatogrower 5 years ago

monkeyhawk is mad that he'll have to buy insurance, instead of using the ER for free. It took away his right to bum off the rest of us.

monkeyhawk 5 years ago

"...It took away his right to bum off the rest of us." What a joke - I am the one who provides jobs. I'm the one with a few vacation homes that I actually pay for and am hardly upside down. If you see someone driving a great car - it is probably me -(and not a gov mo car by any means).

You are an assuming dirt digger - I would never depend on charity OR the Obama plan for my health care. I donate to charities, not take from them and I pay over $1000 a month for my coverage. I would love to continue to pay my private insurer when I reach the age of eligibility instead of accepting Medicare welfare . If it is an option I will do it. You see, I saved for my retirement and have never depended on the government to take care of me. Too bad you are the one who will become the mooch, if you haven't already.

Besides, you are the angry one that I criticized your savior . Where is that free house he was going to give you?

llama726 5 years ago

Wow. Bitter rich guy syndrome, right here. You provide jobs? What kind of jobs, exactly? Well-paying, with good benefits, right?

You have "a few" vacation homes? How can you possibly relate to anyone who is actually struggling to make ends meet? You give money to charity - wow, good job! So does, I don't know, nearly everyone I've ever met in my entire life, and more than that, they give their time and energy to charitable causes (instead of vacationing in one of their few vacation homes or driving in their 'great' car).

You pay over $1000 a month for your coverage - what does it cover, or what are you sick with? Do you think one of the people you provide jobs to can pay $12,000 per year for insurance? How can you not see a need for reform?

"I would never depend on charity." You would if you lost everything, bud. You just don't have to be in that position. If you were born in downtown Detroit, or, hell, even in some areas of KCMO, you'd have to, in order to eat. What do you know about that?

Judgmental much? "I saved for my retirement." Yes. You had an opportunity to do so. There are people in this country who live their entire lives without access to even enough nutrition, medical care, or education to get an unskilled job, and to them, you say "I saved for mine!"

Good work bragging about your wealth, though. "A few vacation homes." Go to one of those, and don't associate with us lowly peasants. No one cares how rich you are. Just makes you look like a self-absorbed jerk. PS - call me poor or jealous! I'm just full of envy for your fantastic lifestyle, right? It's not irresponsibility of the rich that screws the economy, it's the fact that someone making $20,000 per year with $30,000 in expenses doesn't save in their 401k, right?

monkeyhawk 5 years ago

"Wow. Bitter rich guy syndrome, right here."

Hardly bitter - living well is the best revenge.

"You have "a few" vacation homes? How can you possibly relate to anyone who is actually struggling to make ends meet?"

I struggled in my life, just didn't make a habit of it.

"they give their time and energy to charitable causes (instead of vacationing in one of their few vacation homes or driving in their 'great' car)."

How do you know I don't? To the second part - life is good.

"You pay over $1000 a month for your coverage - what does it cover, or what are you sick with?"

I'm not mooching off the taxpayers so what do you care?

"If you were born in downtown Detroit, or, hell, even in some areas of KCMO, you'd have to, in order to eat. What do you know about that? "

You would be surprised.

"Judgmental much? "I saved for my retirement." Yes. You had an opportunity to do so."

As do most people.

"No one cares how rich you are. Just makes you look like a self-absorbed jerk. PS - call me poor or jealous! I'm just full of envy for your fantastic lifestyle, right?"

I'm sure I would not want yours.

It is so easy to yank chains around here. I love it.

BTW - quite a tantrum. In the words of a third grader - that tomato started it first. I was merely stating my opinion. That is what we do on this forum but some of you don't like a different point of view so all you know how to do is attack. Oh, and obviously you and that tomato are Obama voters and worshipers. How's that working out for you?

llama726 5 years ago

Yeah, I'm sure you pulled on those bootstraps real hard to buy your second vacation home. Sounds tough. Oh, don't worry about "yanking chains." This is idle entertainment for me, as well.

I wouldn't want your lifestyle, either. There's an emptiness about it, isn't there? No matter how much you buy, no matter how much you own, you're just a bitter rich guy who resents having to pay taxes that might go toward building a school or covering someone's health care when they get sick. You don't feel connected to anyone else in society and have to go out of your way to flaunt your wealth in order to prop up your self worth, as evidenced by your arrogant post above. You don't feel any obligation to anyone else in your society beyond whatever you choose to give.

A lot of people are having to drain their retirement, and there are still many (I don't have time to research it for you) who don't have a retirement account, in fact, it's around 40 or 45% if I recall.

Oh, and you wouldn't want my lifestyle. I actually have to work to get by. Hard. But I still feel compassion for other people. And honestly, I have a good life. A great family. Great friends. Wonderful people around me, and I appreciate them. I'd go on, but why? You're so sure of your life being so much better. Good job being rich!

Btw - My life has been pretty good since Obama came into office. My paychecks got bigger (payroll tax cut right after he got into office), my health insurance actually got cheaper, some of the people I know have been coming home from Iraq...

beatrice 5 years ago


Is Charlie Sheen among us?

Grundoon Luna 5 years ago

I think I'm in love!!! Get down with your bad self, llama!!!

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

David Koch? Is that you? Funny aside, I see you're in the top 2% in the country. (A "few" vacation homes?) Now that we've established that....

monkeyhawk 5 years ago

The roaches are coming out from the dark cracks. It is amusing to see you all foaming at the mouth. It is also amusing to watch the reaction to a little embellishment. Ha ha, my little puppets...

llama726 5 years ago

You know what else is amusing? How sad it must be to be you.

Scott Morgan 5 years ago

tremendous public and political outcry to keep them........

Actually I've heard other states are going to follow our lead. So often guaranteed federal grant money comes with conditions in any endeavor. Time to stop this extortion. We in Kansas stood up and told Washington we are broke, it makes no sense to spend money on art just to receive more money.

As the Kinks sang, We're on a low budget, cheap is cheap.

Yea Kansas.

tomatogrower 5 years ago

But there is plenty of money to hire out of state "consultants". And plenty of money for highways that aren't that necessary and could wait until better times.

Crazy_Larry 5 years ago

Don't forget the new state logo....plenty of money for an uneeded new state logo. Throw away all your unused envelopes and business cards...we have new ones with a snazzy 'republicrat' state logo on them now.

notanota 5 years ago

It was budgeted and had bipartisan support and would, in fact, generate jobs and income in this state. There was no reason to cut it other than Brownback's hissy fit that we didn't like his crony-run foundation.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

What a waste of time. Plenty of money for the arts. Nobody is taking anybody's human rights.

Jimo 5 years ago

You know, that's something I said just yesterday when someone was whining about facing up to the fact they were going to have to be paying more taxes: "Nobody is taking anybody's human right." You'd think the fellow was having one of his kidneys forceably removed rather than just being asking to live up to his responsibilities.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Hi Jimo. You have a problem with reading comprehension don't you. I advocate against ever increasing taxes not against the taxes we all should and must pay. I also advocate for tax equity in progressive and universial taxes.

Youu are another example of my blog on extreamism. Any resistance to tax increases is against basic services. Grow up!! I bet you pay little or nothing in taxes.

Jimo 5 years ago

I bet I pay more taxes than everyone else on this page combined but that isn't the point.

George, there's something quite rich about an extremist posting under the name "Moderate." Next you'll be telling us that you're fair & balanced! "I advocate against ever increasing taxes." Really, that's sounds like a model of moderation - moderate absurdism.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

We all know what you're referring to, the quote in reference to the Nazis taking away people and then systematically killing them. The Nazis murdered millions and millions. Do you really want to compare what is happening now to what happened then? Lost funding for the arts, more stringent health codes for abortion clinics, and off hand comment by a legislator. Comparing those things to the holocaust is a stretch. But we get what you mean. You don't like Brownback and the policies of his administration. You're angry. That's good. Work hard to get him out of office. Support his opponent, sign petitions, get signatures on petitions, knock on doors, go to meetings. Have your voice heard. All those things are good. But if you're like most people who only vote sometimes and rarely become involved more than writing a letter to the editor, then you'll get more of the same and everyone who does that will get the government they deserve.

weeslicket 5 years ago

not seeing any nazi quotes in the article or later comments.
but, thank you for the comparison anyway.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Anybody with a brain and a sense of history understands the comparison

weeslicket 5 years ago

nazi quotes: still none. comparisons of one group' behaviors towards another: it seems many of us (even those with only half a brain) understand the inference/implication.

godwin flag on jhawkinsf and followers. meh.

weeslicket 5 years ago

thanks. that's a great link.

here's an even better link: http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/

Plurilingual 5 years ago


She wasn't referring to the Holocaust at all. She was simply using the literary style popularized in a poem/saying about the Holocaust.

There is a difference.

Irenaku 5 years ago

It disgusts me when someone takes Niemoller's poem and distorts it to fit whatever the heck is happening to them. That is just offensive, and I am not even Jewish.

Jimo 5 years ago

Indeed. We're Americans and can do no moral wrong. Someone should point this out to the letter's author.

Plurilingual 5 years ago

I'm Jewish and don't find it offensive at all.

Literary styles (particularly those that are effective) are reused all the time.

llama726 5 years ago

Yep. Being upset about new laws targeting women and legislators saying they should prepare for rape the same way they prepare for a flat tire is exactly the same as being upset for being put in timeout.

You're so smart!

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Oh, for crying out loud. Who supported the stupid comment??

llama726 5 years ago

rockchalk1977 did, below. ksrush is just mocking her for being upset. I guess that's not support, as much as it's unwarranted jerkiness.

SnakeFist 5 years ago

Great letter.

The big lie of conservatism is that it values individual freedom more than liberalism. The conservative regimes have done nothing for Kansas but legislate false religious morality and make this state the punchline of the nation.

llama726 5 years ago

You are the most intelligent person I've ever seen on this board.

Yes, it was sarcasm.

llama726 5 years ago

Orangechubb, my best and only friend, how could you say such a thing to me? I'm grievously wounded!

Jimo 5 years ago

A. That's libertarianism, not an conservative approach to values. They aren't the same. Frankly, they don't even particularly overlap much.

B. Are Big Government Republicans conservative (or libertarian)?

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Really, thirty some states are moving the same direction we are

notanota 5 years ago

And if all the other states jumped off a cliff, Kansas should too?

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Come on nota you can do better than that

weeslicket 5 years ago

yes, moderate. it really is too bad. (wait for it)

notanota 5 years ago

You can do better than an argumentum ad populum, but you haven't.

Getaroom 5 years ago

Stephanie describes perfectly the Republican bent toward psychopathic tendencies. No remorse in taking more from those who can least afford and giving back to the already wealthy. And ultimately that does mean taking away the rights of citizens and Stephanie is right to mention the arts. That was only the low hanging fruit for Brownbackward and his fellow Christian crusaders. Follow the money as usual, that will tell you all you need to know. Cramming religion down our throats is only the beginning. Sam B is just jogging as a warm up for his big marathon run for the Presidency. Stay tuned for more "balancing the budget" on the backs of those already suffering. It is the way of manipulating psychopaths who are afraid of losing power or not getting the power for which they lust. Religious Conservatives are no different. It is all about having and keeping the power to control by the few and too bad for the many. Good letter Stephanie.

Jimo 5 years ago

I don't know. Is Stephanie Sanford a pseudonym for Michelle Bachmann?

llama726 5 years ago

This is actually "lacks ability to type within the rules of the English Language or spell the name of a politician I disagree with" Thursday. Admittedly, it's a long title, but then again, I'm not participating - you are.

llama726 5 years ago

Gonna go ahead and point out that you want the Kansas where women have to prepare for rape by carrying extra rape insurance, and the fact that I don't think your viewpoints are in line with those of reasonable people.

Good work. I don't even have to do anything, other than point out what you're agreeing with, to demonstrate how crazy you (and others like you) are.

llama726 5 years ago

Good work dodging the rape topic. Hey, if we outlaw guns, will people still have them? If we outlaw abortion, will people still have them? Maybe we should work on the systemic problems that lead to abortion instead...

Crazy_Larry 5 years ago

I'm wondering, if abortion is made illegal what do you want to do with all the wormen who break the law? Fill the prisons and further bankrupt the country? Public stoning? Please enlighten us, WWJD?

Crazy_Larry 5 years ago

Just as I expected...no answer from the peanut gallery. BTW, Atheists don't pray.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

It won't, rock. I'll be out of here so fast it won't have time. And I'm not the only one.

weeslicket 5 years ago

if i have read past posts mostly correctly: -- cait48 has a new job in a new state and a better chance at being happy. -- and rockchalk1977 is "wearing the golden hand-cuffs".

nicely done! (one of you)

weeslicket 5 years ago

true kansasdaughter. but i've also lived happily in my skin in a lot of places. but some places are nicer to live in than others.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

How will I ever be able to buy enough buffalo dung to finish my 20ft statue of Dear Leader if I can't get a government grant? The horror, the horror.

speedy47 5 years ago

Not to worry, there's plenty of free dung in Topeka. Don't think it's buffalo tho. ( ;

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

No, it's more of the male cow variety.

gkerr 5 years ago

Oh Stephanie, Where to begin? Your letter is the 900th published by the LJ World with the same theme over the past several weeks. If you go back 20 years there would be thousands more like it.

Me, Me, me, spend more on my pet projects if you don't your a Fascist, or a rich meany, or a sky god dupe, or an evil reich wing Christian, or selfish, or stupid, or illogical. Will your fellow progressives ever shut up and paddle? No, liberalism always requires an evil enemy on its right flank, always requires more money for pet projects, always requires a scape goat to explain away it's failures.

What miserable failures they are too. Debt, debt, debt, joblessness for as far as the eye can see, ever expanding bossy and intrusive government made up of idiot know it alls eager to point out others failings and always have the better idea- which usually fails when tried.

Will you people fund your own stupid programs? Leave us alone. You all have ruined this country, and want to recklessly spend more. We don't feel guilty for rejecting your pet projects. I was sure Brownback would be another bloviating Pol, all hat no cattle. He's surprised me by being stronger in his convictions than I thought he would be. Good for him. Next election I will work for him and support him with my filthy lucre. I bet many other burnt out citizens will do the same. Good for Sam Gkerr

SnakeFist 5 years ago

The Letter Writer is lamenting the fact that services for people with disabilities are being cut - what you refer to as a "pet project" - while you blather about how selfish that is?

Its the conservatives that are selfish, particularly with regard to the ridiculous notion that somehow any success they have achieved is their's alone with no help whatsoever from the society that made that success possible. I realize you'd rather spend your money on a bigger TV or another case of beer, but the rest of us - the liberals - recognize a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. Think about that while you sit in church fantasizing about the organ lady this Sunday.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

I accept that moral obligation but reject the notion that you get to define what it is. As I see it, I give to charity as does my church to in part meet that moral obligaTION. Abouut half of my federal taxes go to that moral obligation. About 80% of my Kansas taxes go to that obligation. About 25% of my local taxes go to that obligation.

So who is ducking what moral responsibility?

SnakeFist 5 years ago

Your moral obligation to your fellow man is objectively defined, its in the social contract, subsection 10.

You cannot, as an individual, meet your moral obligation effectively; however, the government provides an instrument by which you can do so. Giving to charity and helping old ladies across the street is nice, but it doesn't begin to solve the bigger problems that only a coordinated response can address.

Consider this: The churches in affluent areas are overflowing with cash but have no one in need to spend it on, while the churches is poor areas have little cash and many people in need. Obviously, what's needed is a centralized entity that can more efficiently redistribute (gasp!) the money - and that entity is the government.

George Lippencott 5 years ago


Was there not a comment on taxes at all level in my post. Did I not make the point about how much of my taxes go to various social efforts. Just waht is you concern with charity - that the glovernment does not control it???

gkerr 5 years ago


Gee, thanks for proving my Point. We who are fed up with taxes are unrighteous as opposed to your moral superiority, we are selfish just as I said you would claim, we are OH NO, church goers, lusty and lecherous church goers to boot, we are imagined to be materialistic beer swilling drunks- all that hatred and accusation in one little comment because we are sick of other folks feeling entitled to our hard earned resources to use for their pet projects that will never end their demands on other peoples money.

Taxes and registration fees cost a lot of money but keep increasing. Federal income tax 20%, windfall profits tax, State tax is 7 or 8 %, sales tax is 81/2% in my community, property tax Is very high and goes up each year despite falling valuations in house, personal property tax, Medicare tax, FICA Social Security Tax 15%, registration fees, user fees on cell phones and land line to fund pet projects of some enlightened sort or another, other excise taxes, death tax, and the cruelest tax of all inflation caused by government printing more dollars than wealth created in order to pay loans to bond holders. Government debases the currency by inflating it away at the tune of 10 % per year if computed as was computed in 1990. (but to hide this fact Feds changed definition of inflation, also this lowers Feds obligation to pay cost of living increases).

Figure it out for yourself. Low taxes are not the problem. Raising them just encourages the righteous Pols and their acolytes to want more and more and more. No more taxes.
your bleeding us all to death already. Gkerr

tbaker 5 years ago

I love it when liberals whine about fiscal responsibility. Don't believe it folks. What really gets their panties in a bunch is not the fact some pet spending project of theirs got the axe. What really grinds their gears is the fact the tax PAYERS are keeping more of what is theirs. This is about power. They can’t stand the idea that a person can spend their own money they worked for and earned better and more efficiently than politicians can. And by “better” I mean that you have the power of choice to spend your money wherever you see fit, without the point of a gun. It takes politicians out of the equation, (more to the point "liberal" politicians) thereby diminishing their power over you.

llama726 5 years ago

I love it when conservatives whine about fiscal irresponsibility. Don't believe it folks. What really gets their panties in a bunch is not the fact some defense / corporate welfare project of theirs got the axe. What really grinds their gears is the fact the RICH people aren't keeping more of what they earned by playing the stock market. This is about power. They can’t stand the idea that a person can pay taxes toward services that the "efficiency" of the private market can't address. And by services the private market can't address, I mean that they don't understand functionally that you have the "power" of choice to spend your money with whichever of the two major corporations for that particular service that you see fit, without any alternatives (because "business" friendly means "big business" friendly). It takes the wealthiest elite out of the equation, (more to the point "activist" wealthy elite) thereby diminishing their power over you.

Gosh, that was fun. Thanks!

George Lippencott 5 years ago

They probably did at KU where social responsibility is a big part of economics.

llama726 5 years ago

Apparently you haven't taken economics at KU. For clarity I was mocking his post to emphasize how basically only 10% of the ideologies of the left and right are functionally different and they both lead to an overt amount of power in a difficult to manipulate/change group of our society. Sorry for the confusion Moderate.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Actually I sat in on a Freshman economics course and social costs were clearly part of the presentation. Now I do not have a problem with that but what I did not see was a discussion of boundaries. A business makes economic decisions with a view to the stockholders. A city government makes them with a view to the future (hoipefully). Roles matter!

llama726 5 years ago

That's the problem. No, a city government, just like a state or federal government, governs for today, because elections motivate them to govern for today. Not the future.

imastinker 5 years ago

I was really looking forward to reading this until the inevitable letdown when I realized that there was no real substance to any of it.

Out of all the rights that ARE being taken away, these are the ones we want to talk about?

gkerr 5 years ago


Yes but include all tax exempts- that would include taxing all of your favorites and all of my favorites.

You seem to be advocating a flat tax with no deductions. Yes to that too. Gkerr

George Lippencott 5 years ago

They took my money for the arts They took my money for abortions They took my money for the whiners They took my money for JIMO They took my money for business They took my money for Brazil

I had no money left They called me a derelict and took away my home.

beatrice 5 years ago

What money was taken of yours for abortions?

Even if there was a few dimes taken, I'll bet it wasn't anywhere near as much money taken to feed, care for and educate children without parents who couldn't afford to raise their own. I'm sure it can't touch the medical expenses for those born with major defects who sadly die before reaching a few years old. Probably isn't even as much as the pysch bills to cover the women raped by their fathers and forced to bring the abomination into the world.

I mean, if you are only going to break it down to the money issue, in which case, don't forget the money for wars, and corporate subsidies. Corporations whine so much they pay others - lobbyists - to whine for them.

Amazing how easy it is to find things we don't like our taxes to be spent on.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Actually Bea it is not taxes I am talking about here. If the state mandates coverage of something by the insurance companies allowed to serve Kansas , all of the insured pay for it. Removing abortion from basic coverage means I do not have to pay for it in my insurance. Actually, since our insurance is from another state we still will, but Kansans will not.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Oh, by the way, Bea, be careful. If we consider insurance payments for medical coverage a tax - think what we will be saying about Obama Care.

beatrice 5 years ago

So your insurance payments went down because of less coverage being offered? How much? If your payments didn't go down, then you are still paying for it.

So how much did the price of your premium drop for this oh so important form of legislation?

The Affordable Care Act mandating health coverage is certainly a form of tax. You can't possibly think I'm going to say otherwise, do you? Be it a single-payer system or a mandatory coverage system, it means necessary payments from citizens. Necessary payments to the feds = taxes.

Unlike many, I see taxes as a necessary part of society, so I don't mind calling a tax a tax.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

  1. Our insurance is either federal (no coverage) or state (VA) still theer). This is not about us. I have no dog in this fight.

  2. Increases in insurance preminums as the result of Obama Care mandates as alledged by the right are claimed by the right to be a tax.

The fee levied on companies who do not provide employee coverage could be called a tax or a fee. Where do you think the right will put it.

I don't yet know how we will pay for the entitlement portion of Obama Care. The initial argument is reductions in Medicare and savings on medical care in general. At some point we will have to deal with it. Will it be a tax, a fee, a preminum?? Remains to be seen.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

The states action denies no one an abortion It does deny some people the ability to make me pay for their abortion

Big difference

llama726 5 years ago

What? Cite your source. This law requires special insurance packages be purchased. This is blatantly not in the scope of the government to require insurers to carry a different product for this, rather than comprehensive packages. How can you support this, given your previous stances?

George Lippencott 5 years ago

The law. It removed ABORTION FROM mandatory coverage. Whether you choose to buy additional insurance against the peril of rape becomes a personal matter. However, you will have to pay for it - not all of the people in Kansas who disagree with abortion. According to poll data I have seen that would be the majority.

Lama. I take no position. As clarified to Bea - we have no dog in this fight. I do think that coverage for rape, incest and the like should remain in basis coverage. I do believe that if the majority of the people of Kansas do not want to cover abortion in general, that is their right - quote JAFS - majority rule.

Katara 5 years ago

Abortion coverage was not mandatory.

The state took away the insurance companies' ability to offer abortion as a service under health insurance. Women now must purchase a separate policy if they wish to have abortion coverage.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

I stand corrected. It was not a mandate per se but was more or less in all health insurance coverage. In fact I could not find any credible insurance that did not have such coverage. Now it is not. The rest of the comment still applies. People who did not believe in it were being forced to pay for it.

The people of Kansas elected the governor who clearly spoke out about abortion. Now he is acting out his position. You have a right to abhor what he is doing but he is acting on what he said he would do.

Katara 5 years ago

There are many reputable insurance companies that offer policies that lack abortion coverage. It is usually covered under women's health services. You can purchase a policy that does not cover women's health services.

Women also pay more in insurance premiums because of the risk of pregnancy. So on top of having to pay out more for a policy that now covers less, we apparently are expected to pay extra for a separate policy to cover us when a pregnancy occurs that needs to be terminated.

This idea of people who do not believe in a service being forced to pay for it is silly.

You are not paying for abortion directly. At best, a very very teeny portion of your premium (think a few pennies, if that) goes into a pool for that service. Your premiums also pay for people who develop lung cancer from smoking. Your premiums also pay for heart attacks brought on by obesity. Your premiums pay for the broken leg from sky diving. Your premiums pay for steering wheel removal from your abdomen because you got into an accident while driving drunk. Your premiums pay for Viagra & Cialis for the old man who can't get/or sustain an erection due to blood pressure problems. The list goes on.

All of those things hit your insurance premiums way more than abortion ever will but I have yet to see the government get involved and require insurance companies to remove coverage for consequences of the above actions & require the participants pay for a separate policy.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Hey Katara I am glad you found such policies. I did not fine them but then I looked at employer provided coverage which represents the majority of coverage. While I know some employers offer service choices most do not.

By the by, obesity, smoking, and the like are under fire and there are those who want extra payments for those with such afflictions. Of course these issues relate to cost. Some peopel have a moral problem with paying even a little for abortions.

It is kind of funny to talk about the government getting involved. Since most of our coverage is provided by government (not sure it is really insurance) some things are already restricted baSED ON COSTS. Abortion services come and go with the whim of the national Congress.

That said, abortion is such a loaded topic it is not surprising as to what has happened. Even though the cost is as you point out is small those who oppose it on moral grounds have a right to do so.

Perhaps if we all stepped back and stopped making it a litimus test we might go back to sensible treatment.

Katara 5 years ago

There is no moral right to force businesses to refuse to cover a legal service. Morally offended people are within their right to refuse to do business with them but they are not within their right to force the business to comply to their personal terms.

It is upon the morally offended to seek a different insurance provider that offers abortion free coverage. It is upon the morally offended to refuse their employer's coverage and seek coverage elsewhere.

People yadda yadda about personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to women seeking an abortion but fail to see where many times they should exercise their own.

Abortion free coverage options: "For example, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program provides health insurance through a variety of companies to more than eight million Americans — but it does not allow abortion coverage in any of its policies." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09stupak.html

"Supporters of the restrictions on health insurance coverage for abortions noted that Missouri has long had such restrictions. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, which operates in 30 Missouri counties and Johnson and Wyandotte counties in Kansas, carries its Missouri practices into Kansas. The company has said consumers rarely ask for abortion-only policies." http://online.worldmag.com/2011/05/13/kansas-backs-bill-restricting-abortion-coverage/

Google is hard.

Of course, they don't list the reason why abortion-only policies are not requested. Maybe people prefer not to have it. Maybe it is too cost-prohibitive for people to have. Maybe people opt for denial and believe that something like that could never happen to them...

The most sensible solution to this was to continue the coverage as it has been as the default with the state requiring that the option to have a policy without abortion coverage be available for those who want that.

Instead, we have a governor and a legislature who opted to impose their religious beliefs upon all Kansans.

George Lippencott 5 years ago


  1. Not all employees have access to policies without abortion coverage
  2. Your answer is to make such policies available - works for me
  3. The governors answer is to do the reverse
  4. The governor is not alone (federal coverage) 5 The majority of Knasans elected him
  5. To retstae the above = elections have consequences
  6. To restate my notion - stop making this a political issue and sensible policies may evolve

begin60 5 years ago

Well-said! This letter deserves an award! I love the quotation from Martin Niemoller it's based on:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

March 20 was the first Anti-Street Harassment Day!

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

March 20 was the first annual Anti-Street Harassment day!

Please stop street harassment. People you don't know do not want or need your self-flattering " help". Many people have been abused by strangers and don't appreciate being violated by you rubes! Why would strangers welcome your grubby paws? You are braindead and freaking incompetent to think this way! Stop bedeviling thinking people! This is street harassment. No one likes to be patronized. You ignorant people who have been trained up to approach strangers need to get a clue--you are terrorizing people with your aggressive, discriminatory harassment.. Lawrence is hell thanks to you!


weeslicket 5 years ago

got tired of the converstion thread and skipped ahead a bit. i mean really, how much moderate talk from Moderate (George Lippencott) can one person stomach in an afternoon and evening (dateline June 23, 2011 at 2:27 p.m - June 23, 2011 at 8:25 p.m)? whatever happened to nancy kassebaum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Landon_Kassebaum

anywhoo. this is a most excellent link. refers to the topic at hand. and provides some excellent illustrative examples of propoganda. http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/

George Lippencott 5 years ago

I love you too, but this issue is too important to go hide, Abuse is necessary

rtwngr 5 years ago

"Elections have consequences" - Barack Hussein Obama

George Lippencott 5 years ago

I restate

The states action denies no one an abortion It does deny some people the ability to make others pay for their abortion

Can we agree on that??

Linda Endicott 5 years ago

If someone has health insurance through a job, and that health insurance used to cover abortions but now can't do that, it could possibly deny some the right to a legal procedure...

If you are barely able to afford the insurance you now have, and then would be forced to pay extra to cover abortion, but can't afford to pay the increase in premiums, then what do you do?

I'll tell you what a lot of unfortunate people will end up doing...they won't get the additional coverage, because they won't be able to afford it...and instead they'll end up getting an abortion through some quack in a back alley somewhere because that's all they can afford...

So I guess they will, in a twisted sort of way, still have the right to have that legal procedure done...and some of them will have the right to die from it, too...

weeslicket 5 years ago

"The states action denies no one an abortion"-- remains to be seen "It does deny some people the ability to make others pay for their abortion"-- public money does not pay for abortions. that's been the law for a very long time.

George Lippencott 5 years ago


No but money from everybody goes into the ionsurance pool. So money from those who do not support abortion is in the pool to cover expenses for those who seek abortions.

Small but meaningful to some people

weeslicket 5 years ago

false. and meaningul to everyone: please provide a link that states the law according to your beliefs.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Katara, Weeslicket, begin60, beatrice, llama726 et al

Once again we seem to be using an extreme position in our arguments - focusing on losing a right to an abortion. We have even had an impassioned plea for the preservation of abortion in general which I do not believe was an element of the state’s action.

My only point was the state’s action does not affect the right to an abortion (as so far known) only the process by which it is funded – insurance premiums.

If one reads carefully what I have written I took no position on what they state did and even sided with those who find denial of coverage for rape (and other issues) most inappropriate. I did cite the opposition argument but did not endorse it.

As for personal attacks implied – we have no dog in this fight. I do not come from a tax standpoint (not a tax matter) or even a financial standpoint as Katara is right that the sums involved are small when spread across the entire insurance pool

The only reason I engaged is because of what I consider extreme positions taken by some in casting the states actions as seemingly vindictive I will defend the right of the rest of the state to have a position different from positions held in this space. I abhor the mindless castigation of people with different opinions.

It is troubling to me that we seem to need to cast whatever we are opposed to as some form of attack on somebody by some demon with no reason for doing what was done. Demonization as a medium of dialogue closes all avenues of discussion.

Katara 5 years ago

Allowing a woman the right to choose what happens to her body is an extreme position now? Who knew?

I find the idea of forcing others to be denied coverage or forcing others to purchase additional coverage for a specific medical procedure because somebodies' 1/2 of a cent may somehow, somewhere, some day be used for a medical procedure that some do not approve of to be an extreme position.

It is troubling to me that you seem to need to cast whoever disagrees with you as making some form of attack on yourself. For someone who abhors the mindless castigation of people with different opinions, you sure do seem to engage the very behavior you find abhorrent quite often.

Anyhow, I am done engaging with you. I corrected your error in stating that abortion coverage is mandatory in health insurance plans (It is not and has never been). I explained why I thought this action by the state is wrong and rather than actually discuss the issues, you are more content to play the victim of what you believe to be personal attacks (I made none) and continue to make false accusations in regards to others' behaviors.

Good day, sir.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Actually, Katara I found your response pretty moderate except for the "Allowing a woman the right to choose what happens to her body is an extreme position now? Who knew?"

I don't think anybody did that.

weeslicket 5 years ago

my issue is with your argument, not you personally. my issue with your argument is your belief that pooled insurance monies get spent on abortions. as far as i am aware, that would be in violation of federal law, and all state laws.
perhaps you are arguing that the state of kansas is more lenient in this matter.

until you can provide a documented link that proves your argument, then you're just repeating a canard. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canard definition #1 (see how easy that is)

George Lippencott 5 years ago

Proving the negative is always a challenge - not sure I can prove it

Point: My wife's state purchased commercial insurance covers abortions (reproductive services).

Point: My commercailly provided health insurance provides for reproductive services.

Point My federal Medicare supplement does not provide for a full range of reproductive services

Perhaps we are the only people wuith commercial insurance that covers reproductive services but I doubt it.

Exactly what federal law is the non federal providers of our insurance violating? I can find no law limiting what commercial insurance can provide at the federal level.

Frankly, I question what our state is doing when it comes to commercial insurance. Just exactly what is our state doing in limiting private contracts? If Kansas can do that it would appear as a mirror image that the federal government could also involve itself in private contracts and require all to have some form of insurance (including commercial)

weeslicket 5 years ago

your commercial policies, whether purchased individually or as a member of a group, provide for: reproductive services.

that is NOT the same thing as abortions. abortions are NOT covered as a part of "reproductive services". sort yourself out already.

George Lippencott 5 years ago

I have lost the bubble - what is this thread (you and I) about?

Abortion? Insurance? Government regulation?

Something else?

George Lippencott 5 years ago

OK, you forced me to go data searching. Most recent articles address the possible impact of recent legislation but use words like many and most when they address provision of private coverage (employer provided) for abortions.

I found hard data from 2002 that suggested that over 85% of private plans included abortion coverage.

If you have newer data to the contrary please provide.

In the process I found articles suggesting that about 5 states (us included) are in the process of or have limited private insurance in covering abortions (with various caveats)

Data suggested that 17 states provide abortion coverage under Medicaid. Most federal coverage does not include abortion coverage.

So, now what!!

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

let me try and help out a bit. 1. mostly all medical plans will include coverage for "reproductive services". it makes NO sense NOT to.
if you're going to have a child, don't you think you'd like to visit your family physician just a little bit more often? 2. if one purchases health coverage from the private market, you can purchase abortion coverage as part of that contract.
you don't have to choose that coverage, but you have that choice. 3. you may remember, recently, one of our elected leaders stated that women (also girls) should purchase private "rape" insurance. maybe that fellow really believes this is a good idea, and maybe not. who knows. still, i would expect him to pass a law against said "private rape insurance" anyway. 3. for publicly purchased policies (using "pooled resources"), you may also be covered for "reproductive services". BUT. abortions are expressly FORBIDDEN. this cost, if you choose to do it, is completely out of pocket. 4. i understand your concern. but please, sort out your thinking with the real facts.

good luck to you.

George Lippencott 4 years, 12 months ago

My issue is not with what you seem to be focused on. My issue is that nobody has been denied the right to an abortion by this new law despite the argument by the author above.

Having to pay for something does not deny you that something. You may have to make some hard decisions to afford it. Of course it may be free at certain private clinics.

I might note that I have taken no prosition as to the law itself. What I think about it is not important.

Linda Endicott 5 years ago

It reminds me of this poem:

Job Responsibility by Charles Osgood

There was a most important job that needed to be done, And no reason not to do it, there was absolutely none. But in vital matters such as this, the thing you have to ask Is who exactly will it be who'll carry out the task?

Anybody could have told you that everybody knew That this was something somebody would surely have to do. Nobody was unwilling; anybody had the ability. But nobody believed that it was their responsibility.

It seemed to be a job that anybody could have done, If anybody thought he was supposed to be the one. But since everybody recognised that anybody could, Everybody took for granted that somebody would.

But nobody told anybody that we are aware of, That he would be in charge of seeing it was taken care of. And nobody took it on himself to follow through, And do what everybody thought that somebody would do.

When what everybody needed so did not get done at all, Everybody was complaining that somebody dropped the ball. Anybody then could see it was an awful crying shame, And everybody looked around for somebody to blame.

Somebody should have done the job And Everybody should have, But in the end Nobody did What Anybody could have.

Alceste 5 years ago


"Everybody has to pay taxes. Even businessmen that rob and steal and cheat from people everyday, even they have to pay taxes." —

George Lippencott 4 years, 12 months ago

All right weeslicket here is what now.

If 80+% of all commercial insurance provides for abortion then all of the people receiving services for which they pay under those programs are paying for abortion - even if only a little. If they object on moral or financial grounds then they have a right, if the are a majority in a given jurisdiction, to opt out.

Opting out does not deny a woman an abortion or take a way her human rights. It does say that if a women wants an abortion she will have to pay for it.

So the original author and many posters overstated the issue as I have been arguing right along

I might observe that such an overstatement is consistent with my blog on extremism. It is also consistent with my blog (Children of the Corn) noting that some in this space demand ever more "tax" money to benefit themselves. There is no moral obligation to provide for elective surgery.

It is certainly ironic that the federal legislation supporting the action taken by Kansas had essentially zero Republican votes (Obama Care)!

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Dear LTTE writer,

If you cared about everyone's rights as much as the select few you claim for vanity, I might care what you have to say.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.