Some Election Results You Wouldn’t Hear About

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch.

— by Doc Jess

You have all read about the election results of Virginia, New York and New Jersey, but here is something that will not make it to the national press.

In my own little corner of Chester County, Pennsylvania, the Democrats ran five candidates: two for supervisor at large, two for school board, and one for a regional supervisor. They won four of the five races.

More after the jump.

The two new supervisors, Murph Wysocki and Mark Freed, bring my township’s historic number of supervisors to a total of four.

That’s right: more than 350 years of being a township, and four Democratic supervisors. The other two served separately, so we have never before had two serving simultaneously.

In the school board? One candidate, Kevin Buraks, was re-elected, and the other, Scott Dorsey, is the first African-American to serve in any elected position in the history of our township.

The regional supervisor lost by 48 votes: If she runs again next time, she will likely win. Her small area is the part of the township where GOP registration the is highest in the county.

Did the Democratic candidates work hard? They sure did, but they always do in all elections. There were two things that really helped. First, the government shutdown.

Second, the township Democrats had signs all over that said things like “No Tea Party for our Schools: Vote Democratic.” The candidates ran as proud Democrats.

The School Board candidates had the added advantage of running against actual tea-baggers, as shown by their contribution histories to people like Cruz, Rubio and Bachmann, as well as photos with those folks.

Congratulations to Wysocki, Freed, Dorsey and Buraks.  

Congresspersons’ Syria Dilemma

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch.

There are a lot of “whip counts” on the House of Representatives, indicating a firm "nay" on intervening in Syria. From the Senate whip count, it appears that there are more undecideds than anything else. That this may well change after President Barack Obama's Tuesday night address, but from reports it seems that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to any action in Syria, except humanitarian aid and diplomacy, which will tend to make Reps. wary of voting "yea."

The Senate will vote first, which potentially precludes a House vote. The first thing to note is that the Senate, and some members of the House, know a lot more about what is going on in Syria then we do. That is why they call them "classified briefings," and they may be the reason that so many Senators are undecided. 

More after the jump.

Some believe it is imperative to bomb Syria, and their reasons are simple: Chemical weapons cannot be tolerated; reining president Bashar al-Assad will use them again if we do not stop him; and we are the United States, so it is our responsibility to lead the world. 

Others are so war weary, that they do not care about the chemical weapons. They just see the situation as a way to get embroiled in 10 years of yet another war in the Middle East, with the potential to spread outside of Syria, and possibly into a World War III. 

If I had to prognosticate, I would believe we will bomb, beginning on Sunday, Sept. 15. In addition to bombing, we will surgically remove Assad and his regime. 

But what I am interested in is the party politics going forward. We have been saying since 2009 that the Republican Party is imploding, and there is a huge schism caused by the rise of the Tea Party. And this is another rift for them: the GOP has always been the party of war, of neocons, and of the military-industrial complex. The "daddy" party, if you will. If they all vote “nay,” or enough of them do to preclude congressional concurrence, Obama can certainly still bomb, and if it is successful, that wing of the party is in trouble for 2016. In every debate they would get asked, "Why didn't you stand up for America?"

A different set of problems presents itself for the Democrats. All House Democrats, and a lot of Democratic Senators, will be running next year. Into their calculus is certainly whether they would want to be seen as standing with or against the President on the issue. If the bombing turns into a war, voting "yea" would hurt them. However, voting "nay" before a successful bombing would mean a lot of explaining to the rank and file during any primaries, and possibly problems raising money down the road.

The decision that each member of Congress makes will not be simple. While some people are incredibly hawkish, and would vote “yea” for any  military action; and while the Democratic leadership is obligated to vote with the President; this is a vote of conscience, not of party.  For the first time since he has been in office (since 2001), my Congressman sent me an email, asking my opinion as to go or no-go. I am pretty sure that this email went to every email address in the district that his office could get its hands on. I understand that a lot of Reps. have been reaching out, in addition to taking calls. 

The countrywide discussion is a good thing. I am sorry that not every country has this sort of verbal intercourse prior to every potential military action. There may be options which will solve the problem of chemical weapons without causing additional deaths. 

My personal preference is to seek a diplomatic solution, and failing that, to arm the moderate rebels, and not the jihadists. It is also important to lead a humanitarian relief effort for the Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey, Greece, and the other countries to which they have escaped. I do not see an upside to the bombing — only potential disasters. But that is just one girl's opinion. What is yours?

The Congressional SNAP Challenge: What Rep. Barbara Lee Forgot

Rep. Barbara Lee

Once in a while, a politician or two tries living on the budget of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for a day, or maybe a week. This week, 26 members of the Congress will do it, in reaction to the Senate’s Farm Bill, that would once again cut the SNAP recipient budgets. The current amount that the average recipient can eat on is $4.50 a day.

I was struck by Congresswoman Barbara Lee's (D-CA) blog post on her shopping trip:

Getting your budget down to $4.50 a day is complicated. You need to try to make sure you have enough protein, limit your sodium, and find good vegetables. If you have special dietary needs, like diabetes or an allergy, there's even more to think about.

Congresswoman Lee’s heart (and those of the other 25 members of Congress who took on the challenge) is in the right place, but she forgot something: She made a tuna noodle casserole part of her week's meal plan. She noted that she found a box that only required water, since milk and butter were not on her budget. Some SNAP recipients also don’t have electricity or gas. Therefore, they can not cook.

More after the jump.

In addition, food tends to cost more in poorer neighborhoods. I am not saying that only "the poor" are on SNAP — there are many people living in middle-class neighborhoods who have lost their job, and are eking out from unemployment compensation and SNAP. But if your only food source is a bodega, it is likely that a can of tuna will cost more than if you can compare prices at multiple markets from the flyers that get delivered weekly, and choose the best location. 

Having said all that, I applaud the members of Congress taking on this challenge. I wish that at least one of the members of Congress voting for the cut to SNAP would take it on also, and see how expensive it is to buy food.

Every time I write an article about SNAP, I look  at my log and see what I ate the day before, and how much it cost. Yesterday, I had three cups of coffee (58¢/cup), about a half pound of grapes ($1.50), a yogurt (79¢) and a salad from a fast food restaurant, plus dressing. I hit $4 before even figuring out the cost of the salad. I am a tiny eater, and I know that "regular" people wouldn't be able live on what I eat. Some people have no choice.

If you want to help, you could try eating on $4.50 a day, or just add up what you spent on food yesterday. And then call your Congress member. If they are participating, thank them. If not, ask why.

We have money for weapons, money for corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich, but no money for kids who will be very hungry this summer, when they will not get school lunches. I called my Representative’s office. They wrote down my questions, but I doubt that I will get an answer. Maybe you will do better.

Remembering 9/11

Drybones: September 11, 2001

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch

On this 11th anniversary of the fall of the towers, the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of the plane in Western Pennsylvania, we are ALL Americans attacked. The DCW team bows its collective head in remembrance of those lost and injured, and of the brave men and women who did all they could in the aftermath.

While this should not be a day for politics, there is new information that the Bush neo-cons were apprised not just in August, but also in May of 2001 that Bin Laden was planning an attack on American soil. Rumsfeld and company chose to believe that Saddam Hussein was the greater threat. Read here. Think of everything that went wrong AFTER 9/11, the unnecessary war in Iraq, the ineptitude in chasing down Bin Laden by the Bushies, the intolerance directed against innocents. Remember it today, act on it November 6th.

Matt and I are Native New Yorkers, and Oreo is originally from the 'burbs. We grew up with the Towers being part of everyday life. Huge, a giant shadow, but just part of what we knew. I personally remember being a kid and going on school trips to see its construction. To those memories, there is this from Dan Meth.

We wish you peace on this sad anniversary. 


On The Road To The DNC: American Presidents

DocJess is on her way to the Democratic National Convention. She will be covering it for DemConWatch, the Philadelphia Jewish Voice and West Chester’s Daily Local. Here is her first report…

— by DocJess

It was over 500 miles and 8 hours, but a reasonably uneventful trip. Crossing the border from Virginia to North Carolina, my nimble fingers managed to get James Taylor’s Carolina on my mind into the CD player at just the exact moment.

Mostly though, it was about presidents. A shout out to Dwight Eisenhower, whose dimsay at the state of American roads during WW2 made sure that I, and everyone else, can travel across the country, up and down the states, or around in circles on a giant interconnected Interstate highway system. Most of my trip was on 81, which intertwined with Route 11, that it replaced. No 81? The trip would have taken more than double the time. There was very little construction on 81 compared to the amount that obviously needed doing. Thanks GOP House, she said with dripping sarcasm, for an under-authorized Highway Bill. Ike, I’m sure, is turning in his grave that his party will not even fund the filling of a single pot hole.

And then there’s Lincoln. My travels took me near Gettsburg, Antietam, Harpers Ferry and big billboards advertising what “plantations used to be” – how different an America before the Civil War.

There was the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, “A National Treasure”  according to the signs. I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would think about how we are now managing what is left of our environment, our national parks, and our ecosystem.

Finally, the was FDR. As I made my way through the Appalachians, I couldn’t help thinking about the Great Depression, and how a combination of smarts and dollars not only put people back to work, but also brought electricity, indoor plumbing, and other infrastructure throughout so much of America, including those Appalachians.

Yes, kids, that is what I think about alone in a car for an extended period. It did fire me up for everything this week – that sense of looking at history to move forward. As opposed, of course, to the GOP which looks at history and yells “take me back”….

On my agenda today: pick up my media credential and parking pass, attend the morning press conference, and then on to Carolinafest. I hope to have pictures up all day on the Twitter feed.

Annotated Lowlights of Paul Ryan’s Acceptance Speech

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch

What Paul said, my tags for the bottom of the screen in blue.

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored by the support of this convention for vice president of the United States. It's nice to see he mentioned Joe Biden in the first line.

I accept the calling of my generation to give our children the America that was given to us, with opportunity for the young and security for the old – and I know that we are ready. If every kid was like Paul, they'd get college paid for by Social Security, the reins of a government-subsidized construction firm, and a wife with a giant inheritance.

I’m the newcomer to the campaign, so let me share a first impression. I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power. WOW! I didn't know he considered multiple choice Mittens to be an "opponent" – and he forgot to add"tax returns".

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory. That factory closed in 2008. Before the election. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama’s first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost $831 billion – the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government. Um, not really. The Democrats didn't get everything we wanted as we believed in bipartisanship and worked with the GOP. We didn't get half of what we wanted. And as for "one-time expenditures" – we spent more on Iraq and Afghanistan – the large Republican messes. It's the gift we keep on paying for. 

But this president didn’t do that. Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care. Lie #3, but hey, Paul and his family have been getting government paid health care since the day he was elected. Why is it okay for him, but not other people?

Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country. Unlike Paul, I read all 2,700 pages and I can say conclusively that these things DO have a place in a free country. And well, they are enacted in every other industrialized nations (and some that aren't) around the globe.

The president has declared that the debate over government-controlled health care is over. That will come as news to the millions of Americans who will elect Mitt Romney so we can repeal Obamacare. It may well come as news to the millions who will vote for Mittens and Eddie Munster, but not to the Supreme Court, nor the millions who vote for Barack Obama, who will win the election.

The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we’re going to stop it. That's right, Romney-Ryan is going to stop Medicare. Wait? Did I read that wrong? NO. They want to dismantle the donut-hole fill the ACA put in place (the donut hole Paul voted for), they want to increase the cost to current seniors, and give everyone else a voucher that will go as far towards Medicare premiums as a free Big Mac voucher goes to buying a steak at Ruths Chris.

A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my Mom’s generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours. Lie #4.

Mitt Romney and I know the difference between protecting a program, and raiding it. Yes they do. And they're going to rob the little left for the poor and middle class and give it to themselves, the rich white guys.

It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America. Thank you teabag idiots, the only people stupid enough to vote against raising the debt ceiling.

Yet by his own decisions, President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined. One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt. Lies number 5, 6 and 7. Just not objectively true in any regard.

Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. Really, name two. Like voting to repeal the ACA 33 times, and not even bringing a single jobs bill to the floor? Like shutting down the FAA by temporarily defunding them? Like cutting Pell grants? Hey Paul, you've sponsored exactly 2 bills that were enacted in all your 13 years Congress. One of them renamed the Janesville post office, and the other modified the taxes on arrows used in archery equipment. 

My Dad used to say to me: “Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution.” Please Paul, be part of the solution. Lose both elections, go home, and never be heard from again.

My Mom started a small business, and I’ve seen what it takes. Amazing she didn't want to work for the multimillion dollar construction company the rest of the family owns and operates. You know, the one that got big and rich using Federal funds.

We have a plan for a stronger middle class, with the goal of generating 12 million new jobs over the next four years. They've never published the actual plan beyond the platitude. And 12 million jobs would dwarf anything the world has ever seen. But I'm game: prove it Paul, or this is lie #8.

In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government. And that is it: they do choose to limit government. Federal spending at 20% of GDP is only possible if government ceases to exist in most forms. I'll publish the numbers this weekend.

I learned a good deal about economics, and about America, from the author of the Reagan tax reforms – the great Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp lost.

He was the Republican governor of a state where almost nine in ten legislators are Democrats, and yet he balanced the budget without raising taxes. Unemployment went down, household incomes went up, and Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, saw its credit rating upgraded. Lies #9, 10 and 11.

Mitt and I also go to different churches. But in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example. Insert list here of pedophile priests, gay evangelical ministers caught on camera, churches closed due to embezzlement and court settlements and the whole Warren Jeffs group.

Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Except, of course, pregnant women who'd die under your belief system because the life of a never-viable ectopic pregnancy is more important to you than the mom. 

Whatever your political party, let’s come together for the sake of our country. Join Mitt Romney and me. Let’s give this effort everything we have. Let’s see this through all the way. Let’s get this done. I'm taking this to heart, Paul. I'm going to give it everything I have to make sure that you guys lose in November. I'm going to see that through. I'm going to get it done, with the help of all the other people in America who believe in America: all its people, all its promise.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: The Lawsuit

Even A Ketubah Won’t Help A 91-Year Old Disenfranchised Jewish Grandmother

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,

Det Ansinn, the Borough Council president in Doylestown, told of taking his wife’s 91-year-old grandmother to a PennDot office, looking for a photo ID so she could keep her 70-year voting record intact.

Joyce Block of Doylestown Township is such a dedicated voter that Ansinn took her from the hospital in a wheelchair to vote in 2010 because she couldn’t get an absentee ballot.

She has an old voter registration card with her married name, but she has never had a driver’s license.

Block had all the documents on the Department of State checklist – birth certificate and Social Security card, both with her maiden name; her marriage certificate; deed to her house; Peco bills; plus her IRS refund check. That wasn’t enough to satisfy PennDot, Ansinn said.

Her Hebrew marriage license was rejected because the PennDot worker couldn’t read Hebrew, and the deed and Peco bill were rejected because they had her married name, not her maiden name.

The state worker suggested she take legal action to switch the ownership of her home to her maiden name, which she hasn’t used in 60 years. Then, maybe, she will be allowed to vote in the November election.

“This is absurd,” Block’s daughter, Randee Block, said at the meeting.

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch  From the ACLU Press Release:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Advancement  Project, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP), and  the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP filed a lawsuit  today on behalf of ten Pennsylvania voters and three prominent advocacy  organizations, alleging that the state's voter photo ID law violates the  Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving citizens of their most  fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote. The plaintiffs are  asking the Commonwealth Court to issue an injunction blocking  enforcement of the law before November's election. If the law is not  overturned, most of the plaintiffs will be unable to cast ballots in the  fall, despite the fact that many of them have voted regularly for  decades.

You can see bios of the plaintiffs here. The lead plaintiff is Viviette Applewhite, shown in the video above. She is 93 and lives in Philadelphia. She had an ID card, but it was in her purse and the purse was stolen. This is her official bio:

Ms. Applewhite is an African-American woman born in 1919 in  Philadelphia. Ms. Applewhite worked as a welder during World War II in  the Sun Shipyard in Chester, Pennsylvania. Ms. Applewhite married and  raised a daughter who for decades worked for various federal,  Pennsylvania, and municipal government agencies. Now a widow, Ms.  Applewhite has lived in Philadelphia for more than twenty years and  enjoys five grandchildren, nine great grandchildren, and four  great-great grandchildren. She has voted in nearly every election since  at least 1960. Ms. Applewhite marched to support civil rights for  African-Americans with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Macon, Georgia,  and traveled on several occasions to hear him preach in Atlanta's  Ebeneezer Baptist Church. Ms. Applewhite does not have and has been  unable to obtain photo identification required by Pennsylvania's voter  photo ID law and thus after voting at nearly every election for more  than 50 years will be unable to cast a ballot this November.

Special shout out to Marian Schneider, one of the lawyers at the Advancement Project, who has been working for fair and clean elections all the years I've known her. From the Advancement Project:

The lawsuit claims that the voter photo ID law imposes a severe  burden on the fundamental right to vote in violation of Article I  section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states that,

“Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military,  shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of  suffrage.”

It also alleges that the ID requirement illegally adds a  new qualification for voting.  Article VII section 1 of the state  constitution only requires that people be 18 years of age, U.S.  citizens, and residents of Pennsylvania and their voting district.

Finally, the suit claims that the voter photo ID law irrationally  distinguishes between in-person and absentee voters because the latter  can vote without photo ID (just writing down the last four digits of the  Social Security number).  Pennsylvania allows people to vote absentee  only if they can demonstrate an impossibility of getting to the polls on  Election Day.  While in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent,  there have been far more reports of absentee ballot fraud across the  country, yet under Pennsylvania’s law this form of voting is exempt from  the photo ID requirement.

Lawyers for the petitioners filed a motion for preliminary injunction  with the court, asking for expedited discovery and a trial date in June  in order to allow the Commonwealth Court to decide the case in  sufficient time to permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review the  decision in advance of November’s election.

Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the law triumphs over the racism and cupidity that reigns amoungst the GOP in Harrisburg.

Why Rick Santorum Doesn’t Give Up

Crossposted from Democratic Convention Watch

Matt has the song. We all see the writing on the wall. So why doesn't Santorum just hang it up? It's not because he can't do math: despite his “grandson of a coal miner” “man of the people” demeanor and antipathy for higher education, he's got a BA in Political Science, and MBA and a law degree. Not to mention a professional delegate guy. And it's not just that he knows that if Mittens gets 100% of the delegates from this point forward Romney still won't seal the deal until May 26th. Losing a few and that point moves to June 20th. It's that there is every reason for him to keep going.

Rick is an ideologue and a theocrat, and he's only 53. 53 is a problem if you're looking for work as a regular person, but relatively young in politics. And he's got 9 mouths to feed. His wife, despite having been a neo-natal nurse, and having attended law school, does not work. It should be noted that his youngest daughter has a fatal malformation called Trisomy 18, requiring a lot of medical attention, which he does not need private insurance for as he and his family are covered under the retired-Senator insurance policy courtesy of us, the taxpayers.

Rick keeps going because making it to August gives him more gravitas with his base after the election. It raises the amount he can charge for speeches. It gives him more material for his upcoming book. Mostly, though, he'd be the first “pure” conservative to make it to the end of the slog, all the way to the convention. He'll get national speaking time. He has a huge amount of grassroots support in the wacko right base, he's their first national candidate who can read. (Aside from Sarah Palin, who can't, or at least doesn't.) In the fight for the soul of what's left of the Republican party, Santorum emerges from this election cycle as head of the head of the far right wing. 

The fight for the GOP won't end with Obama's re-election in November. The base will say “we lost because Mitt wasn't a true conservative. With a true conservative, we would have won.” And then Rick can keep running for 2016, spewing lies and rancor for 4 more years. He will be able to get up in front of audiences and say, truthfully (which is rare) that he gave it everything he and Foster Friess had. There is no down side to Rick continuing to run. He won't get the veep spot: if they want a Pennsylvanian Pat Toomey is the better choice. But even Pat is behind Rubio and McDonnell. But he's got to do something with the next decade before he can collect his multiple government pensions: and heading the wacko wing is a good choice for him.

PA Senator Responds to Corbett’s “Don’t Watch” Comment

The following piece is reprinted by permission from Daylin Leach's State Senate site:

Gov.  Tom Corbett said he would sign a proposed law to make women getting a  state-paid abortion watch a fetal ultrasound but said: “I don’t know how  you make anybody watch it, OK? Because you just have to close your  eyes. … But as long as it’s "on exterior, not interior,” he will approve  it.

By Peter L. DeCoursey
Bureau Chief

HARRISBURG  (May 15) – The new Quinnipiac Poll says Pennsylvanians disapprove of a  proposal 48-42 percent to show a fetal ultrasound to women getting  state-paid abortions, but an unexpected demographic led that opposition:  men.

Women are tied on the idea, 45-45 in the new Quinnipiac Polling Institute survey, but men oppose it 51-39.

Voters with a college degree opposed it 57-35, while those without a degree are essentially tied, 45 percent for it, 44 against.

The poll surveyed 1,256 registered voters and its results carry an error margin of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Gov.  Tom Corbett said Tuesday he continued to support the bill, and would  sign it “as long as it’s not obtrusive,” and the ultrasound is done  externally, over the belly, not intrusively in the vagina.

“But as  long as it’s on exterior, not interior,” he will approve it, Corbett  said. The bill awaiting House action, from Rep. Kathy Rapp, R-Warren, is  silent about whether the mandated ultrasound would be external or  trans-vaginal. A bill signed by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell requires the  mandated ultrasound to be external.

Corbett was then asked if he  considered forcing women to watch it “obtrusive?” He said: “I don’t know  how you make anybody watch it, OK? Because you just have to close your  eyes” to avoid seeing it.

Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery,  responded: “I'm going to assume he meant ‘intrusive’ instead of  ‘obtrusive.’ And while I'm not a woman, I would imagine that any woman  would find a tube inserted into her vagina against her will to be  ‘intrusive.’ This, coupled with his admonition to women to just ‘close  your eyes,’ shows a breathtaking, almost inhuman, insensitivity. I mean,  oh my God.”

Reminded that Corbett said he would only sign a bill  that mandated an “exterior, not interior” ultrasound, Leach responded:  “Well, I'm also told he said he'd sign the Rapp bill, which, if you read  it, is ‘interior.’ If he now says he veto Rapp, then that's different.  But we can't let him get away with looking slightly less crazy while  signing a fully crazy bill.”

Medical groups have said that  interior ultrasounds are needed during the early term when many  abortions are performed, to see the fetus, and asked that the Rapp bill  be clarified so that like the Virginia law, it is limited to exterior  ultrasounds.

The poll showed voters opposed trans-vaginal  ultrasounds 64-23. Men opposed it 67-18 and women, 61-28. It also showed  voters favored abortion to be legal in all or most cases, 54-37.

Tim  Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, said  they were not sure why men opposed the bill more than women.

I'm proud and pleased that Daylin is in the State Senate. I'm considering moving 2 miles so he can be MY  state senator. It gives me hope that there are a few (Daylin is one of 3  I can think of offhand) people in the PA Senate who are thoughtful,  conscientious and sane. Hopefully the Pennsylvania electorate will elect  more of them. I feel ashamed that I pay taxes to support a  gubernatorial administration that supports these ultrasounds, as well as  the new Voter ID law.