 | ... When Republicans say they want to reduce/stop abortions in this country what they seemingly want to do is to reduce the number of non-pregnant women. I don't know how you can conclude anything else when you take a look at their policies. |
First Up: Paying, or rather, not paying for birth control
Surely one way to reduce the number of abortions is to increase access to birth control. (How many times have you heard a Rethuglican harp that women use abortion as birth control?) And yet we see that Republicans just can't stomach the idea that insurance companies would be required to cover birth control prescriptions. The most recent examples of this is Republican nominee for President, John McCain stumbling and bumbling over whether he believes insurance companies should cover birth control when they cover Viagra. Along with an excruciating eight-second pause, he remarks that he hasn't really considered the question and doesn't want to think about the question (despite already voting twice against any such protections.) Then, we have Bill O'Leilly insisting that while erectile dysfunction is a medical condition, pregnancy is not a medical condition -- it's a choice (whereas, of course wanting to get a boner is not a choice, it's a god given right).
Next Up: Limiting access to birth control
The current Republican administration now wants to enshrine in law the "right" for medical professionals to refuse to give information about/give prescriptions for/ fill prescriptions for birth control. So even if you can pay for it, someone can tell you: "No thank you, I don't feel like letting you have access to a legal substance." Yes, screw you if they're the only pharmacy in town, or if your secular hospital has been bought up by a religious hospital. And, while Republicans are quite clear that each state should be allowed to decide their own laws on access to abortion, they want to refuse the right for each state to mandate that medical professionals actually do their jobs As Feministe puts it:
"This proposal’s hiring section seems designed specifically to allow people to apply for jobs they don’t want to do per the job description, but which they don’t want others to do either. The goal then of this proposal is to help people and organizations deny patients their legal rights."Last Up: Redefining abortion so that it includes pretty much everything except "Honest, honey, I promise I'll pull out"
A proposal that was circulated in the Department of Health and Human Services last week defines abortion as follows:
"...any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”Guess what folks, that means they want to reclassify oral contraceptives and emergency contraception, among other birth control methods, as abortions.
So, to recap...
Republicans, while decrying abortion, want to make it as difficult as possible for women to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. These are the folks, after all, who want all women between the time they get their first period and the time they enter menopause to consider themselves pre-pregnant and to be treated by the health care system as pre-pregnant.
The Republican Party seems to be suffering from a mass case of Madonna-Whore Complex. On the one hand, their prominent members have no problem making jokes about women enjoying being battered and raped by gorillas, or spinning tales about bears being trained to rape little girls, or calling the wife a trollop and cunt in public, while on the other hand, they come up with uber creepy Purity Balls wherein girls as young as six pledge their virginity to their daddies until daddy transfers their purity over to their husbands (while simultaneously making sure they have no real Sex Ed to even know what human sexuality is).
Yes, women are scary creatures who will bang a gorilla and fuck everything else in sight because they know they can just abort!abort!abort! so you gotta wrest control of them as young as possible and make sure you keep them barefoot and pregnant by any means possible.
Or something like that.
[sigh]
If you actually want to cut down on the number of abortions, watch the video and sign the pledge
If you agree with Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray that:
"This is a gratuitous, unnecessary insult to the women of the United States of America. … It is an end-run around the rights of women to make choices about our own health, and we are not going to stand for it. … We will fight you every step of the way."Then sign the petition to Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services here.
Let the P
(Full transcript at Shakesville)
.
24 comments:
John K: A fetus has a heart beat. The ACLU ought to have some integrity and get out there and defend the civil right to life of the unborn. Or at least the partial birth.
Um, troll, do you ever fucking read anything? what does a fetus have to do with women who are trying to NOT GET PREGNANT in the first place?
I hate to break my ban on directly responding to any of your clueless comments, but, seriously, do you actually read?
And funny how none of these alleged pro-life Republicans were very concerned about life when they were taking their little trips over to the Marianas where women were being forced into prostitution and, afterward, abortions. No, that was just fine and dandy. Heck, Delay is still a darling of the right, and he and his buddy Abramoff personally saw to it that these sweatshops could continue operating.
John K: Pregnancy is a choice. Remember left wing kooks, I can be imprisoned for disturbing the nest of an unborn sea turtle but applauded for destroying the life of a fetus. Fetus's have a heartbeat. They got there by choice. You left wingers and you ACLU people ought to think of responsibility before you act.
To forbid the offering of goods or services for the public good is reasonable. Forcing any merchant to offer a good or service he/she does no wish to offer is an unacceptable infringement on merchants' rights as free citizens. The goods and services in question are irrelevant. If you don't like what a merchant has to offer, shop somewhere else. If he's the only merchant of his type in town, deal. Life's hard; wear a helmet. Stop whining and stop defecating on the Constitution.
Two can play this game
Democratic Policy: Infanticide until the child becomes a minion under control of the state.
Aaaah, Mr. Libertarian (Eric), if you were paying attention to anything besides the noise in your own head, you would see that these rules mean that THE GOVERNMENT is FORCING "merchants" to hire people who refuse up front to do the job that they are being paid to do (for example: you cannot refuse to hire someone who refuses to dispense the drugs you are selling) and that these rules say that state governments cannot write their own laws against denying patients their legal rights. Naaah, why bother to actually comprehend what you're reading when you can whine and claim that someone's "defecating on the Constitution?"
Amazingly, I agree that employers should not be forced to hire anyone they do not wish to hire - whatever the reason. This applies to the issue at hand regarding freedom of conscience, but also more broadly to any kind of anti-discrimination laws. I don't believe employers should be forced to hire anyone for any reason. Prejudicial discrimination - be it ageism, racism, sexism, whatever - is immoral, but I do not believe a liberty-loving State should make it illegal, at least not at the national level. If governing bodies at lower levels wish to do so, so be it. Freedom of association means freedom to surrender rights. More about that here.
i signed.oh, you bet i signed.
i remember just what the "state" is capable of outlawing, including condoms. the pill was first only allowed for women that hand hormonal imbalances and when i had my tubes tied back in 78 or 9, i had to have my husband's damn permission.
"Guess what folks, that means they want to reclassify oral contraceptives and emergency contraception, among other birth control methods, as abortions."
OC/EC that have abortifacient effects should, by definition, be regarded as abortions. They are chemical abortions. That said, I do not believe Plan B is abortifacient.
John K: I wonder what Dr. Rice thinks about your women comments?
John K: Hey get this. Since you mentioned O'Reilly. MSNBC (Yah with Olbermouth and Matthews) has been moved. Comcast is moving them way down the dial to Ch 183 from Ch 31. LMAO And they are leaving standard cable. LMAO Low ratings anyone. O'Reilly WINS ! LMAO The best part. This did not sit well with the Cullen crowd. Oh gee I weep for them. LMAO
Channels get moved to digital-only tiers because people want them. Comcast is trying to create incentive for people to leave analog cable. They'll gradually move more and more channels off the analog tiers as they increase digital capacity in order to convince more customers to upgrade.
Pregnancy is a choice, John K.?
Then why are creeps like you and the conservative swine you associate with denying them the choice to not get pregnant? Why are you against promoting public health by preventing the spread of STD's?
You know what - stay the fuck out of people's lives; take your "superior" morality and shove it up your ass because it is absolutely ridiculous that a bunch of hypocritical conservatives are running around telling people how to live their lives.
And Eric, to defend sexism, racism, etc. by saying that it should be permitted, to support a hateful society, pretty much disqualifies you from any debate, as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, if you can't take a stand against that, if you're going to defend someone's right to not hire someone because they don't like women or african-americans or whatever is utterly reprehensible.
How about a person's right to work? You don't think that falls under the pursuit of happiness, to secure the necessities required to live a life just because you want it to be ok for people to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or age?
Give me a break...and don't wrap yourself with the Constitution to defend such a morally reprehensible position. You're supporting the right of some to deny the rights of others - if you propose that freedom to associate means surrendering rights, why doesn't that apply the other way around? If you want to run a public business, if you want to "associate" with the public, then why should you have to surrender your right to be a racist or a sexist? You can take that mentality back to the 19th century, friend.
But don't stop there, Eric. The Constitution doesn't guarantee an education, so why should we provide one? Sure, an educated citzenry promotes the general welfare, but the Constitution doesn't say we can do that - so if you have money to send your kids to school, good. And if you don't, well, tough shit. Life's hard, right?
And if an employer doesn't feel he should have to protect his employess from toxins or hazardous work environments, then he should be allowed to, right? It's his/her business - who the hell's the government to tell them that they have to promote the safety of their workers? You want a job, then deal with the risks, right? Life's tough, stop whining, eh? So what if you inhaled a little asbestos or were exposed to chemicals that cause cancer and other maladies?
And if a business whats to dump it's waste, whose the government to tell them not to? So what if it endangers the general welfare? If people want jobs, if they want to buy things, well, life's tough so learn to deal with dirty water and dirty air, right? So what if in some places there's so much mercury in the water that we can expect a generation of birth defects because of it - life's tough, stop whining, right?
These people wrap themselves in the flag and the Bible and the Constitution and present themselves as "true believers" and anyone who disagrees is a heathen.
You're political philosophy is insane and a recipe for a corrupt, unhealthy society.
"And Eric, to defend sexism, racism, etc. by saying that it should be permitted, to support a hateful society, pretty much disqualifies you from any debate, as far as I'm concerned."
Evidently you missed my description of prejudicial discrimination as immoral.
"Honestly, if you can't take a stand against that, if you're going to defend someone's right to not hire someone because they don't like women or african-americans or whatever is utterly reprehensible."
I didn't say I wouldn't/don't take a stand against that. I just don't think it's the federal government's job to fight every moral evil.
"How about a person's right to work?"
Right to work and right to employment are not the same thing.
"You don't think that falls under the pursuit of happiness, to secure the necessities required to live a life just because you want it to be ok for people to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or age?"
I'm not OK with discriminatory hiring. I'm also not OK with the ever-growing list of PC laws.
"Give me a break...and don't wrap yourself with the Constitution to defend such a morally reprehensible position. You're supporting the right of some to deny the rights of others - if you propose that freedom to associate means surrendering rights, why doesn't that apply the other way around? If you want to run a public business, if you want to "associate" with the public, then why should you have to surrender your right to be a racist or a sexist? You can take that mentality back to the 19th century, friend."
I'm not supporting anyone's "right" to deny the rights of others. Employment is not a natural right.
"But don't stop there, Eric. The Constitution doesn't guarantee an education, so why should we provide one?"
We shouldn't. I oppose public education.
"Sure, an educated citzenry promotes the general welfare, but the Constitution doesn't say we can do that - so if you have money to send your kids to school, good. And if you don't, well, tough shit. Life's hard, right?"
It's not the job of the federal government educate. If states choose to offer public education, and extract taxes to fund it, so be it. I'd prefer they didn't, but I respect state rights. However, if I'm to be taxed for education, I should have the freedom to choose how my money is spent. I should be permitted to opt out of the public school system and put that money toward private or home schooling. I shouldn't have to pay tuition on top of the taxes I pay to fund public education.
"And if an employer doesn't feel he should have to protect his employess from toxins or hazardous work environments, then he should be allowed to, right? It's his/her business - who the hell's the government to tell them that they have to promote the safety of their workers? You want a job, then deal with the risks, right? Life's tough, stop whining, eh? So what if you inhaled a little asbestos or were exposed to chemicals that cause cancer and other maladies?"
Ah. Apparently, you have a deeply flawed understanding of libertarianism. Dangers to health and safety are very clear infringements on right to life. That said, if the risks are shared openly, foolish or brave individuals should have the freedom to perform those jobs (aka informed consent).
"And if a business whats to dump it's waste, whose the government to tell them not to? So what if it endangers the general welfare? If people want jobs, if they want to buy things, well, life's tough so learn to deal with dirty water and dirty air, right? So what if in some places there's so much mercury in the water that we can expect a generation of birth defects because of it - life's tough, stop whining, right?"
Again, you misunderstand. Pollution and other environmental hazards are infringe on right to life. They also infringe on right to property. If your business' waste pollutes my water, I should be about to seek compensation, either amicably or with the aid of the courts.
"These people wrap themselves in the flag and the Bible and the Constitution and present themselves as 'true believers' and anyone who disagrees is a heathen."
Flag? Bible? True belief? Heathens? Where is that in anything I wrote?
"You're political philosophy is insane and a recipe for a corrupt, unhealthy society."
Actually, it was the recipe for the United States. This country was founded on libertarian ideals. Our government and society are already quite corrupt and unhealthy, but it's not libertarianism's fault. Our problems have grown in proportion to how far we've wandered from the principles of a limited, constitutional republic.
P.S. Stop hyperventilating and start arguing rationally. You're starting to sound like John K.
John K: Eric, they did not move FOX news. LMAO O'Reilly wins!
John K: Uh yah pregnancy is a choice. You should know what you are doing although I suspect Jaywillie thinks women get pregnant from toilet seats.
It is a choice, and the child is a responsiblity. Except of course if you are Hussein Obama then it is a mistake that no one should have to bear as a burden.
Like I said, I can be imprisoned for interfering with a sea turtle egg but applauded for encouraging an abortion of a human fetus. That is about how twisted the left has become.
Such interesting comments by all.... In my opinion, it remains even more interesting that these issues that deal with sex are among the most volatile. People respond with such passion and vehemence.
Why is this? Again, it is my humble opinion that sex and sexuality are at the core of what it means to be human, and therefore these issues become extremely personal.
Let us all continue to read and learn about what abortion and contraception really do, and what their ultimate purpose really is.
But then, this requires us to look these issues honestly in the face... and it also requires some of us admitting our own similarity to the character of Veruca Salt in the story of Willy Wonka (a reminder I use with my own children of how NOT to behave). Those familiar with the story will recall one of Veruca's infamous lines, "I want it NOW!"
Is this how we want to be in our sexual lives? Acting like Veruca Salt, who thinks she can just do anything she wants, or have anything she wants, whenever she wants it?
This is surely NOT how we wish to behave, and yet we often do-- when we say we want these things such as abortion and contraception. We want our sex.
And the desire for that sex is, of course, a good desire! But just as the desire to provide for our families is a good desire, it would be disordered if we were to hold up a bank in order to do so. The ends don't justify the means.
ROTFL...*coming up for air - collapsing again*
Honest, Honey...oh shit
l.k., let's assume you have 2 kids? maybe 3? so you've only had sex that many times in your life then, right? because you are opposed to birth control, and you are opposed to abortion, and sex is meant only to reproduce. so, however many children you actually have... that's how many times you've had sex, right???
'cause if you've had it more than that, then you aborted a life, right??
or no?
John K: Cathcatz, did you pay attention at all in school. Chance plays a huge factor in that. And being able to control and restrain yourself. After all, acting like a dog in heat seems to be beneath the attributes of the human race.
Oh yes, let me respond to dear Ms. Cathcatz again....
Well, first, let me say that I'm not sure why you presume to know anything about my family or my sexual life.... But since you've brought them up- I have to ask you- who in the world ever told you that sex is ONLY for having children? I mean, it's obvious that that is ONE of its purposes-- and a very important one at that. You and I would not be here if not for that purpose.
Are we forgetting, though, the other very important thing that sex does? It makes us bond with the one we love. It brings us closer (on many levels) to that other person. How phenomenal.
Now about that comment you made... the one about my having "aborted" some other children by having more sex than the number of children I have?
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. I just have no idea what you mean by this. UNLESS-- are you implying that our other times of sex resulted in pregnancies of children we aborted??
If that's the case, then no. Of course not. I would never allow anyone to dismember, burn to death, or suck the brains out of my children.
But some people do have these procedures done to their children.
And some people think this is the RIGHT thing to do.
How inhumane have we become as a nation?
dear, i was referring to the fact that you are against the use of birth control.
so logically, one can assume that you take the chance and spin the wheel each and every time you and yours have unprotected sex.
so what exactly do you do with that baby batter????
and yes, i'm being crass on purpose.
Cathcatz:
Yes, crass on purpose, and ignorant without realizing it....
"so logically, one can assume that you take the chance and spin the wheel each and every time you and yours have unprotected sex"
Have you never heard of Fertility Awareness Method or Natural Family Planning?
Post a Comment