Not a tasseled Gucci loafer in the whole bunch

This is what lobbyists really look like.

That's nearly eight hundred volunteers, posing on the Capitol's south steps, after a hard day of advocating our government on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

People who took a day off to travel, people who took the time to visit their representatives to say, "Please don't abandon poor women."

See, it's not about 'killing babies'. It's not about abortion. It's not about ending pregnancy.

It's about preventing unwanted pregnancy, so that abortions become rarer.

Who's against that?

You see, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured women in the United States, acoording to the August, 2004 US Census Bureau. Over 1.5 million Texas women have no health insurance. For them, the subsidized family planning visit is the only medical care they receive. These aren't abortion services, either: the program includes breast and cervical cancer screenings, diabetes, hypertension, anemia and sexually transmitted infections in addition to contraceptive methods and counseling.

And guess what? Family planning is extraordinarily cost-effective. The Texas Department of State Health Services (DHS) estimates that it costs less than $150 per client per year for preventive family planning, whereas it costs $8265 for the first year of a Medicaid pregnancy.

Every public dollar spent on preventive family planning saves $3 in Medicaid costs for prenatal and newborn care. And all of the women served by Texas' family planning program would have been eligible for Medicaid-paid prenatal care, delivery, and newborn care if they were to become pregnant.

And finally, the lobbyists pictured above represent a vast majority of Texans and their viewpoint. An August 2004 Scripps Howard Texas poll found that:

-- 80% of Texans favor increased funding for family planning, and

-- 79% of Texans agreed that Planned Parenthood should continue to provide family-planning services to low-income women.

So the next time you see someone screaming (or writing) "it's all about killing babies", remember these statistics.

And ask yourself: "Who's being extreme in their opinion, again?"

Even Republicans agree: TRMPAC broke the law

A lot has been written about Tom DeLay and TRMPAC, so if you need backstory go Google around. There's a trial underway, and yesterday a well-connected GOP hack disclosed what most of us already knew:

A former chairman of the Federal Election Commission with deep Republican roots testified Tuesday that Texans for a Republican Majority violated state election laws by failing to report the corporate money it spent during the 2002 elections.

Five Democratic candidates who lost that year are suing Bill Ceverha, the political action committee's treasurer, accusing him of illegally using corporate money for political activity and then failing to report it.

Trevor Potter, a Washington lawyer with ties to former President Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared on behalf of the Democratic candidates.

Potter testified that Ceverha should have reported the corporate money spent on the 2002 elections and disputed the contention that state election laws are unconstitutional because they are vague.

He also said the political action committee's $190,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee raised questions about whether the corporate money was laundered into noncorporate donations for Texas candidates.

Go read the whole thing.

Here's your pop quiz. Which of the following statements is the most plausible?

(Merriam Webster defines 'plausible' as 1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious; a plausible pretext 2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive; a swindler..., then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman -- R. W. Emerson 3 : appearing worthy of belief; the argument was both powerful and plausible)

a) -- Tom DeLay and his cronies didn't know they were violating campaign finance law when they solicited contributions from corporations;

b) : Karl Rove was completely unaware of the gay hooker who for two years masqueraded as a journalist in the White House press room;

c) : Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; it was necessary and proper for the US to invade and disarm them (too easy; pick another. Really. This is the answer for those of my readers who get all of their news from FOX. You're smarter than this.) ; or

d) : the Attorney General of the United States is a firm, forceful advocate against the torture of 'enemy combatants' at Gauntanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.

Acknowledging that "all of the above" is the most correct answer, that's not one of your choices. Pick one and post it in Comments. If I get a statistically valid sample -- oh hell, even if I don't -- I'll post the results.