Skip to main content

Most of you know that I’m not afraid to speak my mind.

Even though House Republicans refused to let me speak at a hearing on contraception coverage – a hearing with five men and NO women on the panel – I continued to speak up for women’s rights, for students, and for workers.  And even though I faced disgusting personal attacks from none other than Rush Limbaugh, I refused to be silenced.

Now, I’m asking you to raise your voice.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will decide whether corporations can deny women insurance coverage of birth control.  If you believe that the supposed rights of corporations should NOT trump women's rights and worker's rights, now’s the time to say it.

Please sign this petition declaring that a woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.

The Supreme Court will announce its decision in the Hobby Lobby case on Monday morning. Private companies are refusing to offer their employees’ health insurance that covers birth control.

Plain and simple -- A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.  No one's boss should.  The stakes are too high for us to be silent:

Sign on now if you think private employers shouldn’t have a say in their employees’ health care decisions.

Decisions this important don’t just affect us -- they affect our loved ones, our neighbors, and our country, and this decision will impact other health care access and employment protections.  That’s why I’m counting on you to send an unmistakable message: we will stand together to protect women’s rights and worker's rights, not the right of corporations to further their own agendas.

I’m asking you stand with me today. Please, sign this petition, and share it on Facebook, Twitter, or any other platform you have.

Thank you,

Sandra Fluke

Originally posted to Sandra Fluke on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 09:43 AM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts and This Week in the War on Women.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's such an idiotic case on so many levels (23+ / 0-)

    meaning that it's going to be a close call.  I forget the numbers, but there was a report of a survey of twenty law professors, and 18 thought the ACA should be upheld but only 8 thought it would, or something like that.  The SCt is notably bad.

    Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at

    by Inland on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 10:25:11 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, but it won't be close... (3+ / 0-)

      The arguments we heard do not given me hope for a favorable ruling.

      I think we're going to lose this one 7-2 or 6-3...continuing a string of disappointing decisions during the past week.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:57:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the SCT may just drop a turd before (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        skedaddling on their three month vacation.

        Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at

        by Inland on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:31:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Prediction: i think we'll win, as follows: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        One or more of the following:

        1)  Allowing a corporation to declare a religious orientation is equivalent to advertising for unlawful discrimination against other religions in employment:  "no (whatevers) need apply."  This conflicts with a half century of standing statutes and case law on religious discrimination.

        2)  Employer's vs. employee's rights to religious expression.  Favoring either over the other amounts to an establishment of religion.  Neither can be favored.

        3)  Burden on international businesses: expectation to declare a religious orientation will create conflicts for boards of directors.  Should Exxon be Muslim to get along with its suppliers in Saudi, or should it be Christian to get along with its customers in the USA, and which branch of either of those should it be?  This puts international businesses in an untenable position.

        4)  Companies may be given a right to not offer any health coverage at all, or to pay employees additional sums of money in lieu of offering coverage, so the employees can buy their own coverage independently.

        5)  Separation of corporation from owners as a legal entity, for purposes of limited liability, per case law going back to forever-ago.  If a corporation can take on the religious identity of its owners who are natural persons, this begins to puncture the wall of separation that is an essential component of limited liability protection.


        Alternately if the USSC rules in favor of HL, they will not give reasons, just a blunt decision with nothing to back it up.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 06:29:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow...quite a leap... (0+ / 0-)
          Employer's vs. employee's rights to religious expression.  Favoring either over the other amounts to an establishment of religion.
          Which religion would be established?

          I think you are paining a rosy picture when compared to reality, but that's your right. But even a couple liberal justices sounded mighty close to the conservative justices during the oral arguments.

          Sticking with my prediction: 6-3 or 7-2...and we'll lose...big.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 11:07:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  we'll find out soon enough... (0+ / 0-)

            ... and I'll post my predictions in the comments under a story on Monday, with a correct/incorrect rating.

            Re. my leaping leap:

            If the court rules that a corporation has a right to a religious identity, and the right to enforce that religious identity upon the employees of the corporation regardless of their own religious identities, that would constitute privileging the religions of one class of parties over those of another class of parties.  

            Any such privileging or favoring by government or governmental acts, of one set of religious beliefs or the entities that hold them, over another, has through long case law and statutes been found to be an "establishment" of religion.

            This also brings up another "can of worms," having to do with companies that hold government contracts.  Here we would see a large quantity of wrangling over exactly where to draw the line between a corporation's contractual activities, and its non-contractual activities, and the expenses relevant to each.  If an employee, who is engaged in work on a gov contract, is subjected to religious conditions as part of their conditions of employment (e.g. health insurance, required attendance at company prayer services on paid time, etc.), how do you parse out the monies involved?  

            From that, we would have to conclude that the gov contract money is supporting religious conditions upon employees, and is thereby directly supporting the religion of the corporation over those of its employees.  That is an open-and-shut case of establishment, and since there are no charitable purposes involved, it would not even have recourse to "faith-based initiatives" as a rationale.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 05:03:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, there must be a mistake. (5+ / 0-)

    When I follow the link and provide email information, it takes me to a donation page for your campaign. I want to sign the petition, not donate to your campaign. I'm sure this was an oversight.

    The more we are, the less we need.

    by Fiddlegirl on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 10:36:48 AM PDT

  •  A Good way to fix the ACA (23+ / 0-)

    Would be to decouple healh insurance from employment, give everyone subsidies, and put a payroll tax on ALL businesses - profit or not profit, church or non-church, in order to pay for everyone's subsidy.

  •  If Hobby Lobby wins hypocrisy will have reached... (26+ / 0-)

    If Hobby Lobby wins hypocrisy will have reached an all time high given the fact that Hobby Lobby holds stock in and makes $$$$ from the very birth control methods they are opposing in this lawsuit

    •  Hobby Looby must have much weaker (12+ / 0-)

      Christian convictions about the Chinese women who make most of the goods sold in Hobby Lobby stores.  

      I guess Chinese maybe-babies don't matter as much.

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:18:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What I'm looking for after the announcement is (10+ / 0-)

      whether or not this fact influenced the decision-making process.

      Because on their claim they say their opposition to being forced to pay is that they would be forced to support abortion, which is against their religious beliefs.

      So, does their investment in businesses which produce the products which cause these "abortions" constitute a failure to adhere to their stated beliefs?

      And if so, if they can voluntarily violate their own beliefs in order to make money, does their claim of "loss" then still hold true? Or is it merely a dodge to not spend money and not comply with a Law which they don't like?

      I put "abortions" in quotes above ^^ there, because I've read what they claim. It's nonsense. They claim that use of an IUD or the morning-after pill is an abortion. Both of these methods of contraception prevent an egg from implanting, thus preventing a pregnancy. Therefore, use of these methods is contraception, not abortion.

      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:12:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But if you believe that conception occurs (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State, G2geek

        when the sperm and the egg shake hands, then anything that prevents that egg from implanting is equivalent to an abortion. If conception isn't until the fertilized egg successfully implants then that "abortifacient" term doesn't apply.

        So, what's next? Do women have to show up to the doctor's office every time they have a period, to make sure there were no fertilized eggs mixed in with the menstrual blood thus meaning she had a miscarriage (and an inquest to ensure she wasn't at fault)?

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:23:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conception does not a baby make. (4+ / 0-)

          And those who believe otherwise are merely monkeys in a man suit pretending that they know better than Mother Nature.

          As an atheist I've long put up with nonsensical ideas, to keep the peace, to not rile folks up.

          But the gall of the religious to decide matters of Medical knowledge and experience from their pew benches? It makes me want to throw things, like heavy hardbacked books. Some of which the Christians among us know for a fact contain NOT ONE WORD against the practice of abortion.

          It's only been since the uber-fundamentalist evangelicals (who really did say and believe back in the 80's that the freaking Armageddon was coming on the eve of the millenium, I used to know some of them) started ginning up ISSUES for the Repblican Base to get outraged over, that we heard anything about abortion in the US.

          You know, other than women's groups who wanted women to stop having non-doctor performed abortions in private and instead go to a doctor and receive modern medical treatment while doing so.

          Some days I don't know how far these extremists will be able to go before the nation as a whole has Enough and finally pushes back so hard it puts these idiots in their place, which is so far from public view that I never have to hear another word from OR about them.

          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:44:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "no brain, no mind, no person." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Angie in WA State

            (which applies to fetuses and also applies to fetus-fetishists;-)

            "A blastocyst isn't a baby, it's a blob."

            Agreed, the nerve of these people, they are in the same league of evil as anti-vaccination CTers: both are major threats to the health of others.

            In the end it's all about the desire to dominate others, whether bodily in the case of women, or genetically as in tribal competition by birth rate.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 06:44:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Smart men will understand that this ruling (11+ / 0-)

    affects us ALL...dramatically.  

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:12:48 PM PDT

    •  this here guy has been absolutely outraged... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... about the whole stinking thing from the beginning.

      To paraphrase Bill Clinton out of context, "How dare they?!"

      (Original context: at one of his public speaking engagements, when he took questions, someone offered up a rhetorical question as a vehicle for some truly odious 9/11 CT, and Clinton's reply was, "How dare you?,  How dare you?" in a slowly & carefully enunciated tone of voice that could have melted steel, no pun intended.)

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 06:48:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correction (11+ / 0-)
    A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions
    Should read
    A person’s boss should not have a say in their health care decisions
    Contraceptives are just the first volley.  If that one is lost, and I hope that SCOTUS does the right thing and goes against Hobby Lobby, there will be a lot more religious objections to follow.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:00:34 PM PDT

    •  blackhand, I think you were right the first time-- (4+ / 0-)

      unless you mean, "A person's boss should not have a say in his/her health care decisions."

      I know "their" often is used to indicate both genders, but IMO it is awkward, as English sometimes is.

      In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

      by Mayfly on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:07:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, his/her is less awkward (6+ / 0-)

        I think that employers should NOT have a say in their employees medical care choices, regardless of gender.  For one, it just isn't their business.  Two, it is information that they shouldn't have and will only be used against the employee.  Three, as part of the employee compensation package it belongs to the employee, not the employer.  Claiming that they can choose what to cover or not is like telling you what you can an can't buy with your earnings.

        I have a coworker who falls squarely in the other camp.  He believes that employers should be able to restrict contraceptive care on religious grounds.  I used my wife as an example.  My wife and I both had weight loss surgery which was covered.  We were told that it was important for my wife to use contraceptives for at least a year to a year and a half because pregnancy during that time carries extra high risks for both mother and child.  The reason for contraceptives has nothing to do with moral decisions but medical safety.  

        His immediate response was, well your case should be an exception.   Not that it would make a big difference cost wise.  My copay on her prescription is $12.00.  The retail price of the pills is $12.61.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:41:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so ask him this: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          How would he feel about all the oil companies becoming Muslim corporations in order to facilitate their business with supplier nations in the Middle East?

          Where would he buy his gasoline?

          And what would he do if, at age 50 and wholly unsuitable for looking for a new job, his lifetime employer to-date decided to become thoroughly pagan, goat statues in the lobby included, and religious holidays only for the solstices & equinoxes?  

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 06:54:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  they're all awkward, we need new pronouns. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        His/her, s/he, etc. etc., should all be replaced by "hir" and "ce" or "ze" or something along those lines.  

        In written form the slash-mark formations are merely blocky looking, like needless punctuation.  In spoken form they really break the flow of speaking.  The "hir," "ce," etc. ones don't have either of those problems.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 06:51:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Except that NOBODY (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Diana in NoVa, newpioneer, G2geek

      has suggested that a man's boss has the right to impose his religious beliefs onto the health care and reproductive  decisions of her male employees. Discrimination is discrimination and, along with several other morally objectionable aspects, this is also overt and blatant employment discrimination.

      •  and no gayitousness either (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that's right out...well, you want to keep your job...right?

        but first, on your knees, prey with me...

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:26:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Discrimination is discrimination (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, DMentalist

        This is exactly my point.  The argument against Hobby Lobby and their ilk is bigger than female contraceptives.  Expanding it into an inclusive discrimination issue is also a much stronger case.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 05:52:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's my main prediction: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          We win, court rules that allowing corporations to declare religious affiliations is an impermissible end-run around long-established statute and case law forbidding discrimination on religious grounds.

          "We are an XYZ-faith corporation" = "no (anyone other than XYZs) need apply."

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 06:57:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I know there is a S-Ct. ruling that corporations (7+ / 0-)

    are "persons under the law."

    I hope the current Supreme Court remembers that the 19th Amendment implies that women are "persons under the law."

    In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

    by Mayfly on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:00:49 PM PDT

  •  Hobby Lobby is one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, G2geek

    that if they decide to go "full batshit" (Corporate 1st amendment rights) , there is no workaround.

    The way to get around the 1st amendment ruling today is just to make walking through protestors or opening blocked doors not prosecutable under the assault statutes.  Granted that's not a great workaround and it's not available in red states, but it's a workaround.

    Hobby Lobby, on the other hand,  is a fatal blow to the notion of a rule of law.

    I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

    by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 02:21:30 PM PDT

  •  I'm nervous about this one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newpioneer, KenBee, G2geek

    It's going to be a 5-4 decision one way or another I fear. If it goes the way of Hobby Lobby, the unintended (and the intended) consequences will be huge.

    Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

    by pajoly on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 02:35:44 PM PDT

  •  We have your back going into November Sandra (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, KenBee, G2geek

    You proved to have deep knowledge of a wide range of issues when you spoke at our meeting in Los Angeles;

    Sandra Fluke meets Los Angeles Kossacks (w/video)

    Certainly you'll be able to move California in the right direction when it comes to women's choice.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 02:54:53 PM PDT

  •  I am all in favor of guaranteeing access to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, kfunk937, G2geek

    the kind of medical treatment and medicines that Hobby Lobby does not want to provide.  I also greatly admire the diarist.  That said, I don't think that the Supreme Court will pay any attention whatsoever to the petition that is mentioned in this diary .  If I am right about that, and I think that I am, then why is now the time to circulate and sign such a petition?

  •  If you want our (0+ / 0-)

    email addresses for the purpose of fundraising or organizing, just say so. Many of us admire your work and would be happy to help. However, dressing it up as a "petition" to the Supreme Court is insulting.

    You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

    by cardinal on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:50:53 PM PDT

  •  Hobby Lobby in California (4+ / 0-)

    Hobby Lobby is in many states throughout the country. It has been in California for years, yet California is one of 28 states that REQUIRE employers to cover contraception. Does anyone know if employees of Hobby Lobby in California have access to insurance coverage for contraception now?
    Does anyone know how the upcomming Supreme Court ruling will affect those 28 states that do require contraceptive coverage?

  •  I dread Monday morning! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kfunk937, newpioneer, G2geek

    If the Supremes rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, it will drive me into despair. Women are rapidly losing all our rights. What's next, the right to vote?

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:48:58 PM PDT

    •  careful, don't give them any ideas. (0+ / 0-)

      Though, I think it would be "interesting", as a tactic, to circulate petitions to repeal the suffrage amendment, and then post the names & addresses on a Wall of Shame website set up for the purpose.

      If it's war those shitheads want, they'd better be careful what they wish for.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 07:01:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  actually, the case has already been "decided" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newpioneer, DMentalist

    they just have not released the opinion yet

    i support your candidacy, Ms. Fluke, but this petition is useless and shows a lack of understanding of how the S.Ct. works

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:29:07 PM PDT

  •  Petitioning the Supreme Court? Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Supreme Court can't ethically receive ex parte communications.  The way to raise our concerns would have been to file an amicus curiae brief.  

    Besides, the opinions are already written.  

  •  FIGHT for REAL RELIGION (2+ / 0-)

    Why are people of faith just sitting on the sidelines and allowing the fringe & extremists to take the religion label and abuse it so?

    Personal Religious beliefs are between you and god. to think you have the blessing or permissions by that god to decide the course or the health care issues is most likely itself a failing.  

    To allow the CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING SCOTUS to now SLANDER and undermine the religious standing of faith in this nation should be a call to action by REASONABLE and spiritually enlightened folks of ALL RELIGIOUS brands. Time to stand up and push the fringe extremists back to the edges of religious interactions.

    The Religious governing history seems to show that like Iraq, and other nations which elevate the religious leaderships to governing soon become oppressive and dogmatic entities. which ironically we are at war with or fighting covertly.

    I doubt good folks with a good relationship of faith believe the work place is the place to demand your views or the god you follow to subvert FREE WILL and become the morality dispenser responsible for the consequences of such actions?

    If that employee pays even the cost of their own contraceptives in their prepay or their premium YOU do NOT pay. you have already transgressed their freedoms. As they have paid for their own medications, NOT YOU.
    just like praying to A GOD, it does not by default mean your god. the funding which subsidized insurance is not solely yours to allocate, as god does not recognize your gold or your political views. only the ethics and actions of your heart and the motivations. and that will be dealt with when you meet him. As will all who deserve to suffer for their transgressions.

    IF you believe in such things. and there in lies the point. its a belief. insurance is a product. when did god get packaged and become the profit toy of extremists and the tool of religious political hacks to undermine policy??

    sad really

fly, Angie in WA State, vicki, coral, fcvaguy, Adam B, Gooserock, Shockwave, Matilda, Walt starr, MarkInSanFran, susans, sponson, lorell, BlackSheep1, whenwego, themank, retLT, sngmama, Cedwyn, Texknight, kharma, Joe Bacon, TexDem, Dallasdoc, texasmom, Jujuree, Diana in NoVa, side pocket, Nova Land, Kane in CA, rapala, Skennet Boch, G2geek, marina, Tinfoil Hat, blueyedace2, sap, offred, dewtx, Tod, Sara R, Inland, blue jersey mom, markdd, Tunk, peacestpete, SocioSam, Alan Arizona, BlackWolf, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, edwardssl, emeraldmaiden, Themistoclea, KenBee, Wary, DarkestHour, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, middleagedhousewife, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Statusquomustgo, slksfca, One Pissed Off Liberal, john07801, jessical, tgypsy, camlbacker, gloriana, puakev, terabytes, newpioneer, carpunder, leonard145b, on the cusp, roycej, TomP, Empower Ink, GAS, Sixty Something, Youffraita, elwior, jamess, Calamity Jean, petulans, JamieG from Md, maggiejean, Ran3dy, Throw The Bums Out, LinSea, ewmorr, lilsky, Carol in San Antonio, followyourbliss, sfarkash, ArthurPoet, louisev, ruscle, confitesprit, Mokurai, Polly Syllabic, Dingodude, annieli, implicate order, cv lurking gf, myadestes, NormAl1792, thomask, Santa Susanna Kid, SoCalSal, SteelerGrrl, jham710, Apost8, GrumpyOldGeek, Eric Nelson, 2thanks, JGibson, CA ridebalanced, peachcreek, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, MartyM, doroma, tytalus, jennyp, Glen The Plumber, SBParrothead, countwebb, Linda1961, remembrance, librarisingnsf, mmcnary, OregonWetDog, Penny GC, kfunk937, BMScott, jessbell911, calgalnfl, Alexius Banks

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site