scrappy, I don't know that that would be available. It sounds like personal medical information.

However, the more pertinent question might be an economic one: How many people choose the clinic because they can't afford the abortions in private offices that Pro-Life Mississippi seems to leave alone. I can't get a straight answer on why they're not targeting abortions that more well-to-do women, regardless of race, can afford.

This whole thing feels a whole lot like economic discrimination on top of an attempt to attack women's constitutional rights. Can it really be true that they think abortion is only "murder" when done in a clinic?

I will say this: The presidential debates are going to be interesting—if the GOP doesn't figure out how to dump Romney at their convention. Very interesting. It's hard to trot out lies (such as the out-of-context business remark today) at a debate with this POTUS and get away with it. Romney better watch out or he'll be stumbling around the stage calling B.O. "that one" if he's not careful.

It's the old telling folks without shoes to pull up their bootstraps problem.

Look, I get the point here, but they don't back it up with reality. Corporations are sitting on cash and refusing to hire right now. How can people without decent health care hope to lift themselves out of poverty. And don't even get me started on access to education. We could go on and on, but these folks are not walking the "want to help everyone get rich" talk. They're just not.

And people like us—only speaking for Todd and me here—who don't believe in massive handouts without systemic change and accountability—are called communists because we don't go along with the idea that the uber-wealthy—who like Romney take advantage of all sorts of government largesse and corporate welfare to stay that way—shouldn't have to pay a fair amount of taxes. We're "socialists" because we think a health-care plan the Republicans thought up is actually a decent idea (but could use some tweaks) in order to get businesses like ours, as well as larger companies, as well as individual people be healthy enough to succeed.

What the hell kind of people go around attacking people who actually care about the needy in our society, lying about what we believe and say, and calling us stuff that they don't even bother looking up the definition of!?

This is tragic, and I feel deeply sorry for people who are drinking the trickle-down Koolaid, especially since none of them will ever benefit from it. Maybe the people who can afford $50,000 a couple tickets to hear Romney condescend to the wait staff, but not most of the people who are going around calling the president a communist, socialist or worse.

This whole thing is stressful enough. We don't need sensationalism on top of it.

Not to go journalistically technical on you, kdavis, but we didn't "quote" you. We used information you provided on a public forum and not with your name attached.

I said I know who you are, not that we've met. And I've never been to a Communist meeting of any kind; I don't believe in communism and never have. And I actually know what it means.

Also, you're over the troll line at this point. You're just trying to pick a fight and now you are accusing me of being a communist. We just may not be the right kind of forum for you, kdavis. Show up to have respectful discussions about the issues or move on, please.

kdavis, you are tedious. (A) I know who you are. (B) I know other people who are members.

I do appreciate your help, though.

Your comments are public, kdavis. You know that, right? And I didn't quote you by name. I used information you provided. Nothing wrong with that.

Please point out anything you want about all the money in politics; we need to stop it. Meantime, we cover Jackson and the fundraiser that was in the above news story happened right down the street from us. Thus, why it was covered.

Kdavis, you probably define "exclusive" differently than many people: $3,600 a year is pretty exclusive. The fact that exclusive clubs recruit doesn't take away from that. But, again, we didn't say that was a bad thing; this is your defensiveness, and I don't know, or care, if you're mad or not. And the snot was way more information than I needed. I prefer people keep body functions to themselves in any context.

I told you in Twitter that we'd report it when a Democrat holds a big-ticket fundraiser; you must not have read us for very long. You clearly aren't clear that we're not big on giving any party a pass. Preferring one candidate over another is not the same thing as partisanship, although it's remarkable how many people have been dulled into believing that it is.

So when you hear that President Obama is holding a $50,000-a-couple fundraiser at the Courthouse, or anywhere else, you be sure to let us know.

Meantime, let's all get behind campaign-finance reform so we can stop the ridiculous money in politics--and vote for candidates who support it. Note that Senate Republicans filibustered the disclose Act yesterday; Dems are trying against today at 2 central. Call your senators:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0…

kdavis, granted, the $50 a month example was hyperbolically low. But I was trying to make the point (if you read it in context) that many, many, many people (including many who will vote for Romney in November) cannot afford a $50 a month membership fee to anything. That in itself can make something feel "exclusive." However, River Hills is more than a health club, as we've discussed.

Friends tell us that River Hills has really pushed for diversity in recent years and I know from my one visit there, it didn't have the same overly stuffy vibe you get from a lot of country clubs. So, remember, you're ticked off over the accurate word "exclusive." That doesn't mean we have anything against River Hills or the people who are members there. That's all your imagination.

All that said, River Hills was pretty exclusive yesterday. We understand that it cost $50,000 a couple to attend the Romney fundraiser and that he raised $1.7 million there (and condescended to the wait staff).