Oops. Guess Whose Health Insurance Covers Abortion?
Or did, until Politico reported it. The Republican National Committee issued this statement late last night:
News reports have revealed that the RNC's health plan dating back as far as 1991 may have included some coverage for elective abortion. Upon learning of this, Chairman Michael Steele instructed the RNC Director of Administration to opt the RNC out of any coverage for elective abortion services in its health insurance policy.
"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled." – RNC Chairman Michael Steele
-
1
That's it! Not a penny more to the RNC from me!
-
1.1
Are you going to ask for a refund of the 2 cents you always put in???
-
1.2
Thank you Karen for bringing this to our attention. It is hypocritical to ask for any abortion payments not to be included in a health insurance policy which is government backed by tax payer dollars, but your own private insurance would have abortion coverage. It is indeed shameful.
.
While you were INVESTIGATING this Karen, did you also find out if any Republican had actually used an abortion benefit? Do you have on record anyone or their family members, who work for the RNC, who may have used the abortion benefit?
.
What about congressional insurance policies, do those policies contain an abortion benefit?
.
Or, is this simply another MEDIA GAME of playing GOTCHA journalism? -
1.3
Rusty, what this means is that money from the RNC was going into the "paying for abortion" pool. The whole point of the Sustak amendment is that even mild cross contamination with funds that are used for abortion is totally evil. The RNC were given the option to not have abortion coverage when they got the policy in 1991, but decided to keep it in. They have kept the policy in place for 18 years.
.
Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly pointed out that the hardliners in congress are arguing that even if the actual policy offered does not offer abortion, if the insurer itself does, those funds again are cross contaminated because if say the RNC one year had very low medical expenses, their premiums would cover things like abortions being done by other members in the Cigna network. -
1.4
Yes Karen, please violate medical privacy laws by asking about specific procedures. 'Rule of law' isn't a belief system, it's only a rhetorical tactic.
-
1.5
"Do you have on record anyone or their family members, who work for the RNC, who may have used the abortion benefit?"
.
Are you fishing for hypocrisy or purity among the GOP ranks, Rusty?
.
Good luck either way... -
1.6
...did you also find out if any Republican had actually used an abortion benefit? Do you have on record...
.
I would imagine that such personal medical information would be considered confidential by the insurer and provider, rustycakes; HIPPA laws and all that... -
1.7
Oh my poor little liberal friends are unable to recognize sarcasm and snark when written. As we know our dear friend Karen LOVES to use snarky posts and comments all the time.
.
I have just used her own game on her is all. Relax now. I am not advising Karen to "break any HIPPA regulations".
.
As well as my SNARK to Karen for her "investagative" measures looking further into the politico blog posting as well.
.
The hypocracy is simply the media's "gotcha" game.
.
Now for the real comment. Who cares if the RNC has a health care policy, which is A PRIVATE POLICY, not funded with tax payer dollars. I would think that you would be happy as pigs in mud that the RNC allows women who work for that group to give those women coverage for abortions. Talk about hypocrisy!!!
.
The question on the minds of most sane individuals is whether or not an abortion should be paid or subsidized for through TAX PAYER DOLLARS.
.
I say no. I do not want my tax dollars used for abortions. It is an elective procedure, and tax payer dollars should NOT be used. That is all the Stupak Admendment is saying as well. If a woman wants to pay out of pocket or purchase a separate policy that will have an abortion election, out of her own money, not the governments money then she is free to do so. The same way she is free to also choose to have an abortion.
.
You all simply are blowing this completely out of proportion the same way as you do 99.9% of everything else. -
1.8
...unable to recognize sarcasm and snark when written.
.
That's because it has to be recognizable, rustycakes...it's the job of the person communicating to be clear, not the job of the audience to glean intent. Sarcasm and snark should be obvious; if it is not, then you haven't written it well enough.
.
I would think that you would be happy as pigs in mud that the RNC allows women who work for that group to give those women coverage for abortions.
.
More like, "it's disturbing that the GOP is advocating against practices that it was allowing itself to enjoy."
.
You all simply are blowing this completely out of proportion...
.
No need to do that; this example of hypocrisy stands out enough on its own, rustycakes.
-
-
2
Serious question KT. Are you really surprised? Michael Steele is the 12th RNC chair since 1991. Nobody noticed this before? Or, is it the simple fact that it really isn't that an important issue to them personally?
.
We know how many gay members of congress there have been who have been republicans, as well as staff members. Isn't this simply the different rules that apply to people who live in the beltway as opposed to what they tell the peons in the district?
.
Democrats mind you do the same thing. They scream about protecting the working class, then fly back for private dinners, and take money from those who screw the working poor.
.
My question is who is to blame for the rampant hypocrisy? Much of this information is out there, but hard to find. So, the populace does share responsibility. The politicians have most of the responsibility because they are the ones acting this way.
.
At the same time, I am thinking of NPR sensoring a review by an employee of a movie about outing politicians because it was against their policy. Then it being pointed out that NPR has run features on closeted entertainers. Those are fair game, but politicians are off limits. I would love more journalism about hypocrisy regardless of party. Politicians are getting away with too much self serving pablum because they know that for the most part, it won't get reported.-
2.1
Or the hypocrisy of members of both parties of Congress enjoying government health care while at the same time yapping about how horrible it would be for the rabble to have a real public option.
-
2.2
The hypocrisy is unending. Do you think Megan McCain practices abstinence? Or Huckabee's daughter? Do you think that if Jenna or not Jenna got pregnant before marriage, she would not have an abortion.
.
This hypocrisy is not just at the level of our elected officials. Clinic workers tell stories of women protesting outside the clinic, and then showing up needing an abortion.
.
But the real failure lies with the beltway media's unwillingness to expose the depth and breadth of the hypocrisy of these elected officials. Reporting on, say, a Republican Senator's sexual preference could easily cost him his seat, because a large number of the people who vote for him are homophobic.But if that is how they vote, don't they deserve to be informed?
-
-
3
This would have been a cable/Fox news scandal for days had it been a similar embarrassment involving the Dems. Double standard...
-
3.1
Democratic party hires only non-union people to work as cleaning crew at the DNC. Democratic party bans employment by gays and lesbians.
.
Yeah, we would get days of screamfest over that. Fox would be all over it, then the "liberal" media would have to cover the story because it was out there, and they needed to prove their balance.
.
Best example of this is that Dan Rather and Jayson Blair are huge news. When Fox makes things up, not so much. Heck, I am sure that the majority of the hosts, including news anchors at Fox have said things worse than Don Imus. Never a huge stink. Then again, Fox thought Imus was on the right track, so they hired him. -
3.2
Thought of a better one. Remember a few months ago when it was shocking that Rahm Emmanuel used profanity; the first politician in recorded history to ever do so.
.
That was great. -
-
3.4
I thought Rahm was a choirboy. Wait, what? They don't have choirs in temples??
-
-
4
Does the RNC's plan also cover contraception? Or breast augmentations for pageant contestants? (still thinking about Carrie "Talk to the Hand" Prejean's awful Larry King interview)
-
5
As far as I know the RNC finds themselves boxed into a corner here. They can opt out of the coverage for their employees and this will be only their women employees, but guess what? Unless they get their health insurance coverage through a carrier that does not offer the elective coverage to any of its policy holders at all, the RNC will still be indirectly subsidizing elective abortions for other customers.
-
5.1
Or, maybe the RNC is self-insured. In that case they select the policy riders, electives and everything else. The insurance company basically is only the "manager" of the policy for the RNC.
-
5.2
Well, are they self-insured all of a sudden, because if they were than we wouldn't be having this conversation correct?
-
5.3
I do not have a clue if they are or not, gysgt. Perhaps our "INVESTIGATIVE journalist, Karen Tumulty can find out for us. You know, the investigative journalist that was able to "crack" this story from reading a Politico blog posting, and then regurgitate here in the swamp.
.
Please see my comment on 1.2 -
5.4
According to the Politico story, "Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion." So, no, they are not self-insured, and as I understand it, their actions would violate the Stupak Amendment if it were applicable.
-
5.5
rusty, what's with kicking Karen this morning? If this story is so important to you, why didn't you quote Politico here first? Which of course means your post should be at MS' piece …oh wait, it is. But KT still beat you to the story ahead of your double posting.
-
-
6
Poor Michael Steele.
To understand him, it helps to know who's coaching him:
(satire)
-
6.1
Nobody understands Micheal Steele except Micheal Steele.
.
BTW, when did Micheal Steele rate an "administration" anyway.
.
I heard that Rush only lets him outside at night to pee...
-
-
7
"I don't know why this policy existed in the past."
.
Aside from mistresses and girlfriends, Republicans also have wives and daughters.-
7.1
Let's be fair about this, grape, considering the number that have been outed in the past.
.
Don't forget boyfreinds, too... -
7.2
Does the RNC policy cover children born by a mistress? And does it cover injuries incurred by hanging oneself in two wetsuits and having stuff crammed in every orifice? http://is.gd/4Ufva
-
7.3
Don't forget boyfriends, too...
.
LOL...but the whole issue of abortion coverage doesn't apply to that, I think... -
7.4
Oops. Now how in hell could I have missed that!
-
7.5
"Does the RNC policy cover children born by a mistress?"
.
No but I do have it on good authority that the DNC does, but John Edwards elected to HAVE his love Child
-
-
8
Word is Focus on the Family also had abortion-enabling insurance.
You realize that under the Stupak "money is fungible" doctrine, every single politician who has taken money from any insurance company (or their employees or PACs) that sells a policy anywhere providing for abortion services has accepted donations from the abortion industry?-
8.1
That's why there are no easy solutions to complex problems like this. Trust me, the RNC and Focus on the Family are not the first and will not be the last to find themselves in a quandry because they have taken an inflexible position and attempt to make everyone live by it.
-
-
9
Big freaking deal. The Republicans (having been one at some point myself) are a bunch of hypocrites who stand for nothing but power and more power.
I was watching a show on the Presidential election and was amazed the Republican party did not get the memo about America being diverse—all LILY white all the time—gosh. Do they know we have hispanics and other people of color here in the US??
Hmmm... yet, they pay lip service to the interest of the people—what people?? Old men who run big corporations??? A big mess. Party of No aka Liars club.And while we are at it... I am Christian but do not see why this issue of Abortion which is a Women's Health and personal Freedom matter should be this sort of CONTINUING political hot button. Give it a rest already, the hypocrisy and the holier, I know better than thou attitude (on both sides of the debate) is so tiring!
Hey, the air waves are bombarded with sex in all forms. Children are brainwashed into dressing seductively from an early age. Sex is pounded at us everywhere we look. Naked women adorn the trains and naked men rush out at us in bachelorette parties (haha Gag
).Let us get real. This society promotes “advanced” sexual interaction for the youth and when they get pregnant (which is what happens when you birth control fails or hormones trump good sense) the band of hypocrites (politicians) turn away their faces in feigned horror crying crying wolf and swearing they will not fund the problem THEY created. Yes, they promote these businesses that bombard the youth with sex and more sex, day and night.
Yes, I know older women commit abortions too but the culture has made it such that sex is just like brushing your teeth. Sex is used to sell even bubble gum, here in the US and elsewhere, so when people get pregnant because they are doing what they were bombarded with—a part of our culture-- I think their behavior which is as a result of this same culture should not become this high pitched political hot point for posturing.
The Republican party is pathetic. They got their own brown guy just like the Democrats—phooey-- yet it has changed nothing. They are still a bunch of old rich emm color free males, old establishment, obsessed with power and their own agenda who will do nothing for the USA but to fight and keep the status quo.
Thank GOD I am an Independent voter and no longer a dratted Republican. These old boys seem not to know whether they are going backwards or forwards.
PS: Shout out to the indomitable Sarah Palin. You are definitely not qualified to be Vice President but you sure can hold your own in any situation and keep the old boy network in your party at bay
LM
-
10
[...] Oops. Guess Whose Health Insurance Covers Abortion? - Swampland [...]
-
11
What's this I hear about the Rod and the Beam?
-
12
I don't think this reveals hypocrisy, per se, as much as the lack of principle behind the GOP's whining.
The GOP is more than willing to strip abortion coverage from their own policies. They are simply too lazy to bother finding out whether it is covered in the first place.
BTW, the Dem leaders may have really blown it on this one. By allowing Stupak to get a floor vote, the anti-abortion Dems have to save face on this issue and will fight hard against any bill without the language. OTOH, I do believe that the House language is a poison pill that is just not unacceptable to enough liberals to allow final passage.
On top of that, in the unlikely event that the bill is signed with the Stupak Amendment intact, it will almost certainly be challenged on Constitutional grounds.
Whether people like it or not, abortions are legal in the U.S. There is no way in Hell that the Federal government can not only force people to purchase health insurance, but then effectively bar coverage for legal medical procedures.
-
12.1
Sqr1
I don't think this reveals hypocrisy, per se...
Agreed. This is more of an opportunity for journalists to revel in their beloved irony, and for Democrats to dance on the graves of Republicans --until the shoe is on the other foot, and journos are reveling in some un-helpful irony again. The point of the exercise is for journos to advertise their objectivity, and to escape any scrutiny applied to themselves.
There is no way in Hell that the Federal government can not only force people to purchase health insurance, but then effectively bar coverage for legal medical procedures.
...unless the goal is to demonstrate in the most obvious way how health care can be dictated by the federal government under the Democrats' proposals, as the rightists have been screaming about all along.
.
I know this is conspiracy theory stuff, but it sounds like the leadership sat down together and tried to figure out a way to prove the merits of the rightists' claims of the horrors of creeping socialism. I mean, can you imagine if Congress had actually passed single-payer, and then we'd had this fight...and lost?
.
Obviously the Dem leadership isn't bright enough to do something like that, but somebody might be... -
12.2
"Whether people like it or not, abortions are legal in the U.S. There is no way in Hell that the Federal government can not only force people to purchase health insurance, but then effectively bar coverage for legal medical procedures."
I believe you are wrong. From a pure pragmatic approach to this problem of an elective proceeduer, than what you claim is that we can not have policies that do not cover face lifts, tummy tucks, nose jobs, cosmetic surgeries of any type.
-
12.3
"There is no way in Hell that the Federal government can not only force people to purchase health insurance, but then effectively bar coverage for legal medical procedures.
square1
November 13, 2009
at 12:17 pm".
I am glad you agree with me, that not only barring a woman from using tax payer dollars by the Government is potentially unconstitutional, BUT also that requiring someone to PURCHASE health care insurance under the Democrat bills under consideration is ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL -
12.4
10 states do not permit elective abortions to be covered by private carriers. As with any procedure, state insurance commission determine what can be included or excluded in a health insurance policy.
-
-
13
[...] Oops. Guess Whose Health Insurance Covers Abortion? - Swampland [...]
-
14
Did the C Street "Family" get a discount?
-
14.1
The C Street "Family" had all of their abortions blessed by God so that they could continue to do God's work in the House and the Senate. And in the cloakrooms, the backrooms and the local hotel rooms.
-
-
15
BTW, I'm doing my damnedest to not feed the trolls, but Rusty's distinction between tax-payer subsidized abortions and privately-subsidized abortions requires a response.
The ostensible principle behind the Hyde and Stupak Amendments is that people who oppose abortion don't want to pay for other people's abortions. It has nothing to do with taxes, per se.
What this incident reveals is that, notwithstanding any genuinely-held opposition to abortions that Republicans (and some Dems) may hold, and notwithstanding any genuine desire to reduce, if not eliminate, all abortions, abortion opponents don't REALLY care if their money or someone else's went to pay for a given abortion.
-
15.1
Oh poor square1. I am pro-choice. A woman has the right to have an abortion. She does not have the right to make me, a tax payer provide for her abortion.
-
-
16
Rusty points out that this is PRIVATE money, not government funds. But--as Steele points out--the private money in question comes from GOP donors. That's why Steele did what he did.
-
16.1
Oh I agree with Steele, that if they are going to take "donations" from people, and those donations pay for the RNC insurance plan, then the hypocrisy is deafening.
.
But, challenging this with this analogy to the tax payer funded Government Insurance plan is a whole different ball game all together.
.
The difference, private funds versus tax payer dollars. Now if tax payer dollars were being used to also fund the RNC health care plan, then I would also be against that as well.
.
Is that too difficult to understand Karen? If so, please explain to me in your opinion how it is the same. -
16.2
I am from the west. We have a situation out here where items purportedly used for agriculture can be bought tax free. Every kid in my high school whose parents owned two cows had a nice new truck they bought sales tax free and powered with untaxed diesel fuel (even though those trucks probably only carried a couple bales of hay a year). In a sense, taxpayers fund this handout to rural families.
In a similar vein, Insurance is an untaxed benefit. This is one of the key points of this whole health care debate, specifically how we pay for reform (i.e. do we, at least in part, take away this subsidization via tax policy of the insurance industry in order to correct the market distortion it has caused).
In the sense that an untaxed benefit is provided by the goodness of us taxpayers, us taxpayers did provide for Michael Steele's abortion subsidies. -
16.3
Rusty's mother should have had an abortion.
Oh. Maybe she did.
-
16.4
Hey jymallyn:
.
If you aren't actually a troll here to stir up trouble for your own amusement, then f*ck off with those unnecessary personal attacks, OK?
.
That's really f-ing uncalled for, don't you understand?
.
You're not helping anybody, even if it makes you feel good to get your rage out on people with whom you're even righteously angry.
.
Stop and think next time, will you?
-
-
17
We simply cannot have this discussion without noting this modest proposal by Digby:
"I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections.
[...]
"I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself."http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/immoderate-proposal-by-digby-i-have.html
-
17.1
I dare say the drug would be a heck of a lot cheaper if it wasn't covered.
-
17.2
John Ensign would have to borrow more money from his dad if this becomes law.
-
-
18
I knocked up a Republican once. What I found was that Republican women were just as likely to get an abortion as Democratic women.
-
18.1
Did you pay for that abortion of the person you KNOCKED UP? I see you had a lot of respect for her, and I am sure in your mind that that this some how convincves me of the correctness of your position.
-
-
19
Isn't this the point? The GOP opted out. That's their choice. The Schtupak amendment opts me out.
Of course the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites, and the sky is blue and water is wet, but Democrats voted for the amendment too.
-
19.1
What I mean is, it's always fun for liberals to point out the moral bankruptcy of the GOP but our own party is pretty bad.
-
-
20
Yeah well Michael Steele might suffer from delusions of grandeur, equating his tenure at the helm of the RNC with an actual administration, but no one died and made him King. He can't simply decree that the problem has been solved. Insurance doesn't work that way and it's paid for in 30 day clips and depending on the particular deals they've made they may not be able to change the deal during the enrollment period. the best case scenario is that they can change it on 1 30 day basis. but snap his fingers and say its gone -- not likely, unless of course there was a pretty special deal made by the insurance companies that might violate the rights of employees of the RNC, something else to look into.
-
21
Let's hit back at the anti-choicers in a different way.
First: Elective abortion providers, their personnel, their suppliers, etc. pay taxes, on a State and on a Federal Level. This of course can not stand. Everybody and everything who or which aides and abets abortion should be forbidden to pay taxes. The Anti-Choicers surely can not allow that the Government enriches itself from abortion. Do they?
Second. Everybody (women, or their families) who have worked hard to provided funds for themselves to pay for an abortion should deduct the costs of abortions from their taxes. Paying taxes over money that is used to pay for abortion is enriching yourself from abortion. This can not stand.
Third. We all know that elective abortion is often beneficial to Government finances, especially when dealing with people under to times the poverty level. Government pays more, not less, for women who bring their pregnancy to term, Government does not have to support the child after birth, in case of teens, girls will be able to finish their education, get work, and pay taxes, etc. etc. etc.
The Rider that women will be asked to "buy" seperately, probably outside of the Exchange, should actually not increase the premium; it should be more like a coupon which will REDUCE the premium...
What do you all think?
-
21.1
I like this line of thinking. Make abortion a tax write-off at all levels, so the government stays away from the whole issue.
Hey does anyone know if you can pay for an abortion out of one of those pre-tax medical savings accounts?
If the American Taliban wants cans of worms, maybe they can have cans of worms. -
21.2
Polderboy,
Thank you. Your "outside of the box" solution is even better than my sarcasm.
Sarah Palin's newest son and grandson have no choice about their status in the world.
But it sure does reflect on her as a hypocritical role model if you use the old "classic abuse" terms.
-
21.3
pafro and jymallyn, I really think it's an excellent line of attack.
Especially the government not benefitting from taxes from abortion providers. Can you imagine how for instance Wal-Mart would react?
Think about it. Opening an abortion-clinic at the back of the store, performing abortions for even 1 dollar. Because the proceeds from the store now contain profits from abortion, all the proceeds have become tax exempt.
Don't you think Wal-Mart would consider that to be profitable in the end? They will loose some die-hard anti-choicers, especially just after the start of their abortion-clinic, but I'm sure the vast majority of customers will keep coming, and many initial protesters will return after a while.
I really think Stupak-Pitts and the Republicans have opened a can of worms here that will backfire in a major major way.
-
-
22
I see an additional problem for Anti-Choicers: Teens who have had an abortion; who were therefore able to finish their education and find a job, should not be allowed to pay taxes. Never. From here to eternity. The consequences of her having a abortion are all fruits of that abortion.
-
22.1
Your argument is absurd, my 15 year old daughter was pregnant. Not only did she deliver that baby, but she finished high school, and college, found a great husband, and had two more children, and is a productive member of society. I should mention that she is also a Democrat.
I think that the parents need to step up and begin to support their children.
Getting pregnant maybe a result of a poor choice, but it need not be the end of the world.
-
22.2
Great. She and her hubby should pay taxes.
-
-
23
[...] “Oops. Guess Whose Health Insurance Covers Abortion?” and related posts (swampland.blogs.time.com) [...]
-
24
This is typical Republinut hypocrisy.
After 40 years as a registered Republican I have come to the conclusion that in the last 8 years the Republican Party has done more to harm our country than the Communist Party ever did.
The added insanity of the “Reich to Lifers” is that no where in the Bible does it prohibit abortion. The “prohibition” of abortion was a political decision that the Church made hundreds of years ago (long past the time of Jesus) as a means of controlling he sexual activities of the Church members. It is in the same category as Priestly abstinence which was intended to stop inheritance problems with the children of Priests. Those interpretations have NOTHING to do with religion.
-
24.1
" I knew you from your mother's womb"
-
24.2
allthingsinana: " I knew you from your mother's womb"
And? Where does it say the mother can't expel it from the womb when she doesn't want it to be there?
The bible even gives a recipe for abortion: holy water in a clay jar with some dust from the tabernacle floor. The abortions were performed IN the tabernacle, in front of the priest. Even the price is mentioned: a tenth of an ephah of barley flour.
-
24.3
Verses such as that imply that God had a purpose for individuals, and he saw the creation and said it was good.
He announced and appointed prophets to give an idea of the future.
Why do you insist that the unborn are unwanted, not of value to society and are a burden? This is contrary to anything I have read in the bible.
You have to remember that Bile is a story of Man's relationship with man, with man's relationship with God, and God's relationship with man which is not the same as man's with God.
The Good , the bad , and the ugly is all there.
-
-
25
Maybe pro-conscience people in charge of messaging can start talking to the nation about how "abortion" does not mean a first-choice birth control method exploited by irresponsible and immoral young women.
.
Then we might be able to have a national discussion about how tax-payer moneys used to help women in all kinds of situations (that men never face) obtain RU-486 prescriptions (and followups) does not in any way mean that ordinary moms and dads are forced to "condone" or "promote" the irresponsible and immoral behavior of the young, despite the hysterical and offensive claims of the rightists.
.
We might have to ask the geniuses at organizations like NARAL "How the f*ck did we get here?", though.-
25.1
We might have to ask the geniuses at organizations like NARAL "How the f*ck did we get here?", though.
They got here by pushing a law that was essentially made out of whole cloth hidden in some penumbra of the constitution. When you need to rely on fiction, reason takes a backseat and you end up pushing an indefensible position.
You can not start at one end of the abortion argument and follow it to its natural end because it violates every basis of common sense.
-
- ktumulty @LATimesrainey Could you get them to check for my earrings? I lost a pair of silver ones and have been hunting all over the house for them. - 11 hours ago
- ktumulty @TeresaKopec @fishbowlDC thanks! am declaring my age to be the avg of mine and fellow bday girl jen psaki. - 16 hours ago
- ktumulty New Blog Entry, "Health Bill: What Would It Cost Me?" - http://tinyurl.com/y8uxg5w - 1 day ago
Most Popular »
- Piling On Desirée Rogers--Is The Social Secretary To Blame For Two Ticketless Boobs At The White House?
- Through The 2008 Campaign Looking Glass--John McCain on Medicare Cuts, Now And Then
- Is Walking Away from Your Mortgage the Smartest Thing You Can Do?
- It's a Deal: 25 Days of Free MP3 Holiday Song Downloads
- Health Bill: What Would It Cost Me?
- Five Things The President Will Say Tonight About Afghanistan
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Video: Touring Tim Burton's Freaky MoMA Exhibit
- On Civility
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Tiger Woods Car Crash Bad Publicity for Rich Isleworth
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Dubai's Woes a Blow to Ambitious Ruler Sheik Mohammed
- The Muppets Perform 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- The Women of Islam
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
Quotes of the Day »
RSS