Brad Schneider is right. Supporting women's health care is a position that must be fought for from the beginning of a congressman's term, not just when you want to be re-elected. Dold's motivation must be questioned.

The motivations of those opposing Dold should then also be questioned. The Democratic party was planning to oppose him BEFORE he was even sworn into office and before he even had a voting record.

Dold has been pretty consistent on this issue, which aggravates the Democratic arguments to the contrary. Facts are pretty stubborn things and all the surmising over Dold's "motivations" or "underlying motivations" ignore the facts and his record on this subject.

I don't know why I am surprised to read Brad Schneider's quote that " It’s legislation I would have supported in January, 2011. It’s one position to cover up a long record. You have to look at the whole record,” Schneider said. “You have to be there every year not just in an election year,” he added.

When I looked around on line I found that Dold was the only Republican to give a speech on the House floor in February of 2011 when he voted against an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. Dold HAS been working and leading on this issue since he first got into office in 2011. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR8j_4RkAeU&feature=topics . Schneider is either lying to us or doesn't know the truth. And well, either is not cool with me. I am going to Dold's campaign website to donate now.

And should we assume that President Obama is for gay marriage because the election is around the corner? Why didn't he endorse this 3 1/2 years ago if it's so important. Politics, that's why.

Tired of women being patronized by gov't officials and supposedly pro-women's groups like NOW, as solely being concerned about what goes on between our legs. I don't want gov't mandating or involved in my reproductive health. Have we not witnessed in modern history how horribly wrong that can go? China?? Don't think it can't happen.There are "czars" in the current administration who have clearly stated they believe health care intervention for certain individuals isn't in the best interest of the general population if it exhausts financial resources that would better serve the more "able bodied" of the population. It is not a stretch to wonder if they would determine who among us should be able to reproduce or not based on that premise. We can expect that scenario if we find ourselves living under a federal gov't nanny state health care regime w/ an out of control deficit. Why hasn't anyone polled women, to ask them what their top 3 concerns are? Or maybe someone has and the slobbering, federal gov't lovin', main stream media simply won't report it? They think we(Women) are dumb and they know what is best for the "simple people" aka anyone not on their plateau. This is very dangerous.

Mr. Dold has a problem in that the Illinois 10th is full of actual thinking Republicans, who are hugely pro-business, but generally much more mainstream in terms of social issues. Impossible in other parts of the country. Kinda makes him an outlier in a party which has lurched even further to the right with the primary system and the push to the extremes. In order to have a chance here, Dold has to at least pretend to be a social moderate, making him practically a pariah in his party. He's just lucky some Joe Walsh type didn't run against him in the primary or he would have had to take more rightward positions.

Dold is counting on the dis-engaged electorate to be swindled by his election year antics. Why not, they work!

Easy for Dold to use this as tool in the hopes of getting re-elected. He knows it will never get out of the house.

I'm guessing Dold went for the cheap and easy press on this one, and he got it. If it's the only way we can ever get anything done in Congress anymore than perhaps we shouldn't be so mad. But, introduced does not mean passed. It's a safe bet that Dold's bill won't see the light of day if he's reelected, and it therefore only proves the opposite of what he's trying to show, his importance to women voters. But this little doomed bill really shows that his reelection is not important to women no matter what happens. If Republicans win the House, and Dold wins reelection, he won't continue support for this policy because he'll have no need to do so, and opposing his own victorious party will not do his future political career any good, and in an increasingly right-wing Republican House, he won't get co-sponsors who can move the bill forward. If Democrats win the House, but he wins reelection here in IL-10, he won't continue support for this policy because he'll have to support his party against the opponent. If Democrats win big enough, they won't need his bill or his support. If Dold loses, Schneider would likely vote to protect Planned Parenthood and similar women's health organizations and get his party's support in any event. So, proving me wrong, will Dold pledge in writing to push this bill if reelected no matter what, and do the ultra conservatives who supported him in 2010 feel baited and switched or do they admire a deception to win strategy?

No Lou, she means that the Republican controlled house will never let it see the light of day so it is purely a political ploy on Dold's part. Doesn't matter whether any Democrats support it or not, You know Democrats support the premise, and they know that even a so called moderate Republican like Dold is just one more vote with the party when it counts and therefore any vote for a Republican in the house is a vote against women (and other minorities).

Tony, your logic and that of Ellen's, assumes that only one political party can "own" an issue. That is not how government should work. Assuming that logic, should Schneider defeat Dold and join a House dominated by Republicans, then he shouldn't bother introducing any bills as the majority Republicans would block it?

That is why moderates who are so despised by the extreme left and extreme right are so important to the process. The 10th has been represented by good moderates going back to the Porter days. Why should we allow that proud tradition to end due to extreme Democratic gerrymandering this time around?

Lou, the Republican party OWNS limiting access to contraception, eliminating abortion, blocking equal pay for women, voting rights restriction, and on and on. It is true that both sides are often guilty of pandering, and a lot of votes are purely political because the outcome is pre-determined, but the question is REAL support for the rights of women and minorities, and I often wonder how any woman, or person of color, or committed same-sex couple (or anyone who supports the rights of minorities of any sort) could ever vote for a Republican again, ever. We may be a bit more moderate here in northern Illinois, but the support of Republicans in general supports the stuff they do in North Carolina, and places like that. If you let the majority vote on minority rights, this is what you get.

Louise, today's republican party has been so hijacked by the right, not even moderate republicans can introduce bills that would be allowed to get past the leaders. Boehner has learned the hard way, and everything he does now is influenced by the far right. The far right do want to "own" every issue and their scare tactics and unwillingness to compromise have made this congress one of the least effective ever. It doesn't matter that not everyone in this country believes as they do. It's their way or the highway, as the saying goes. Political gridlock is what they do best.

Hey sully I don't think political gridlock is really only a Republican thing? When it comes right down to it, this country is split pretty evenly, so it's likely nearly half the people always disagree on what is correct.

But Local, these republicans, lead by the tea party, have filibustered or held up more proposals than any other congress before them. How many vacancies have been left open in important positions because holds keep being placed on the nominees?

I agree to a point, but Washington, Springfield, you name it, politics is broken. I put my faith in no party, my faith lies in the people! Unfortunately it seems even good people fall victim to the power and influence of the parties. We need to reform the political system, or we're all in big trouble.

I agree, Local. Start by getting rid of all the moneyed interest involved, beginning with repealing Citizen's United.