can we outlaw twittering in the capitol? I like to at least imagine that our elected officials are thoughtful.

We’re approaching 40 years since Roe V. Wade.
Can we move onto something else now?
Like jobs, education, housing, healthcare, energy, etc.

Is it really appropriate for an allegedly unbiased journalist to link to her twitter page - and have the foremost comment on that page be from Bound for Life?

That just seems wrong to me.

Just to clarify for those not on Twitter, another person cannot comment on your page. My latest tweet was a reply to Bound for Life, which asked how the bill was going. My tweet literally said: “@Bound4LIFE Passed 115-43″

On a related note, I welcome Twitter questions from everyone, so if you want to know what’s going on, feel free to tweet me.

So now we have the precursor legislation to compulsory pregnancy. It is obvious that women are incapable of making informed decisions and must be “protected” from those who may confuse them with such information. These poor suffering women must be “protected” by their moral and religious “superiors”.

And we are worried about Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda style terrorism.

Can you say overturned in the State Supreme court?

One other thought: Can we have the addresses of all 115 who voted for this? We can then publish them in every clinic as an “alternative care giver”.

I can not believe that this is how the Republican leadership chooses to spend its time. I can think of a hundred issues that are more important. I wish this legislature only met every five years!

CYNTHIA DAVIS is a courageous woman who is looking out for women and their babies. Roe V. Wade was a poor decision that has cost the lives of countless babies. Just because it has been in place for nearly 40 years doesn’t make it right.

Point to consider: If a pregnant mother is gunned down, the gunman in charged with two counts of murder. But if a doctor aborts a baby of the same gestational age from a mother’s womb, that is somehow legal?

We can dress up abortion in all kinds of civil liberties and right to privacy arguments, but in the end, it is the senseless death of a baby.

Mo Healthcare Advocate,

Do you advocate allowing the State to provide healthcare for mothers and children who earn less than $9,000. per year? If not, why not?

D. Walker: That’s a red herring, and you know it. The only reason you bring up that tired line of “reasoning” is because you know it makes absolutely no sense to charge a gunman with two counts of murder, when the mother can execute the same death sentence on the life in the womb and not only get away with it legally, but have people advocate that the government pay for it. You didn’t even answer the question.

RHarnack: Try making an argument based in logic rather than emotion. Why are pro-abortion folks so upset that women might actually have a chance to get some information? The woman can turn down the offer of information if she wants. All that part of the bill does is mandates that the abortionist gives her the chance to view the information if she wants to. Wow. Sounds like that’s equivalent to terrorism.