...how about we do something about ensuring accurate elections?

Everybody gets to vote-- Every vote gets counted!

That should be the most important issue to any Democratic candidate or politician who's been paying attention during the past six years.

My hunch, though, is that any candidate who is ready to stand up and be counted, and, if necessary, fight to have both their and our votes counted, is probably going to be more or less compatible on most issues.

Until this issue is resolved, though, any policy discussions are strictly academic. For the past three elections, it's been pretty clear that the GOP feels entitled to control the vote outcome to their own ends.

Ironically, the Democratic party and its candidates already get more than enough votes... according to anecdotal evidence. And, why should that be surprising when it's more in tune with voters on most issues, national security being a possible exception? (but not necessarily)

The real problem is getting all of the votes counted... as well as getting quite a few voters past the GOP's deliberate hurdles. Any Democratic candidate who cannot get behind this issue, should probably consider joining the other party... voter suppression being more of a GOP tradition.

...from taking advantage of an unsuspecting and vulnerable woman is exactly what family members are for. Granted, it's generally considered the role of the bride's family, but we live in interesting times, when your family's role is not always fulfilled by those who share your DNA.

First, these two aren't really "consenting" adults, if only one of them is "informed."

For one thing, given the serial groom's history, there may be other children (that he does or does not know about). If the fiancee's soon-to-be child might already have brothers or sisters, she has a right to know that, too. [And we haven't even brought up the topic of STDs, especially HPV or Clamydia. The original idea behind blood tests was to prevent the spread of diseases like syphillus. She has a right to know about risks to her health, too, and it seems pretty clear that SG would not be likely to come clean on this issue either.]

Also, is there even a possibility that one or more of his previous marriages has not been legally terminated? That would be worth knowing, too, and if not, it just might be why SG is so adamant about not telling his new fiancee.

I did like Karenand's idea to consult with the minister, but what if there is no minister involved? [Or, what if the minister is all hellfire & brimstone, and unable to deal with this situation?] Still, maybe a JP would be equal to this dilemma.

And Rex Luscus's idea for the family to agree to support the child after the SG moves on is a good one, too, and worth exploring before consulting with the minister or JP. This situation definitely has the sound of something that will need a contingency plan. And, since the child will be a cousin, aunt or uncle to their children, etc., the SG's family has a vested interest in helping things work out as best they can. [It does begin to sound like a movie script, though.]

Finally, Cary's last resort of speaking up at the ceremony is certainly less than ideal, but it does emphasize the importance that he, and most of the commenters here, place on the fiancee's right to know.

I, too, would like to know what happens in this case. Either way.

to Rep. Curt Weldon:

We certainly live in crazy times when the government expects a woman my age (50+) to treat herself as pre-pregnant-- since most pregnancies are considered suprises-- just because she hasn't yet reached menopause.

And you can imagine that it seems especially ironic to me, because of when I came of age, that groups who say their main goal is to prevent abortion are now attacking women's rights to proper reproductive health care, including access to contraception, and that hugely controversial boon to women, Plan B, (which is NOT an abortifacient, but really, according to the SCIENCE, just emergency contraception).

And, finally, imagine the plight of a poor woman who has already fallen through the cracks either because of the lack of access to contraception or because she was in the small percentage for whom her method failed, or had an uncooperative partner.

She sees a billboard offering help to women in circumstances such as hers (poor? too many children already? a high-risk for pregnancy? alone? under-age? over-age? etc? etc?) and decides to call for help in getting her pregnancy terminated, only to find herself in a Kafka-esque episode:

[NOW:] Fake pregnancy crisis centers attract women to their clinic through deceptive advertising.

Once the women arrive at the so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Center" they are provided with biased and inaccurate information designed to persuade them not to obtain an abortion. Women deserve unbiased complete medical information about their pregnancy and their reproductive rights. In order to achieve this I am asking you to support Rep. Carolyn Maloney's bill referred to as "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act" (H.R. 5052).

The Maloney bill would direct the Federal Trade Commission to create rules that prohibit any organization from advertising with the intent to deceive the public into believing an organization is a provider of abortion services if they don't in fact provide abortion services. Please help ensure through your support that this piece of legislation makes it to the floor. Women deserve to hear the truth.

It's the right thing to do, Congressman Weldon.

Sincerely,

Karen M.

[I decided to embellish NOW's message, figuring that the target audience must get tired of reading the same things over and over.]