Woody Allen once admitted he had experience with oral
contraception. He asked a girl to go to
bed with him and she said, “No.”

Do I see an empty bottle of aspirin in the lower right corner?

There is something that is being so double standard on this very issue of birth control that it isn’t even funny. Too many of those who want to get rid of birth control and women’s rights claim they are doing the right thing and are indeed very much wrong. These are just no more than selecting and making up things to give them power and control over people. Here is the case why. If you look at the religious issue of no man should basically waste his sperm and it should be implanted in a woman, then you would have a lot of men in sin. All those wet dreams, self pleasuring, and celibate men are sinning up a storm, you had better start collecting all that sperm it is going to waste. Than now they have a policy in certain church’s that men will be celibate, well I am sorry you can’t have one without the other. You can’t select so easily what you want to do, unless simply and point blankly Jesus got rid of following all that, because he understood the basic human nature and it would be better to find better solutions and answers. These religious groups can have it so easily where men have rights, but foolishly think they can deny rights to women. And that is hypocritical. Jesus cared about living walking around people in plight, not some sperm swimming around or some woman’s egg.

This is perfect. Really.

Ohio Republican lawmakers are at it again, voting in committee "prohibit Ohio physicians' assistants from fitting, inserting, or removing a device 'designed in such a manner that it functions either solely or in combination with other functions by preventing or hindering an embryo from implanting within the uterus or from growing if implantation occurs.'" There was no public testimony!

http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/02/17/war-on-women-iud/

Bill Wolff & Rachel Maddow

You really want to look at this (your next BIG series of discussions):

by Eric Byler

Could it be that the Montana Supreme Court has given the United States Supreme Court the opportunity to reconsider the "Citizens United" decision? The Montana ruling on Dec. 30, 2011 defied the highest court in the land by upholding Montana's ban on corporate spending in state elections, prompting a very interesting response from Washington DC.

John C. Bonifaz, Director of Free Speech For People explains:

In an unusual statement, US Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have called for a reconsideration of the Court’s January 2010 Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court this evening issued a stay of the Montana Supreme Court's December 30, 2011 ruling which had upheld the state's century-old law banning corporate money in elections. The US Supreme Court's stay order means that, for the first time in 100 years, corporations may make unlimited expenditures in the state's elections.

But, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, issued a concurring statement making clear that this case is “an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

The Court is likely to accept review of the Montana case. The main question now is whether it will issue a reversal of the state supreme court ruling without a full argument on the merits or whether it will allow that full argument. Either way, this will push even further to the forefront the impact of the Citizens United ruling on our democracy.

Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, writes:

The Montana Supreme Court had cited the state’s demonstration of corruption caused by corporate spending in elections, and the effect of Montana law in preventing that corruption, as a reason to distinguish the state’s law from the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act struck down in Citizens United.

And:

In taking the action based on its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court did not examine the substantial factual record in the Montana case or give the State a hearing. Nevertheless, the Court will decide whether to allow a petition for certiorari and may consider the case further.

Ginsburg and Breyer's statement references a claim made by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion for the "Citizens United" case, speculating that the impact of unlimited and undisclosed election spending by corporations and other special interests would not create the appearance of corruption. Ginsburg writes:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. _— (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at _— (slip op., at 42. A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

According to the customary "Rule of Four," it would require two more Justices on the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear oral arguments on the Constitutionality of Montana's law.

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization that fights against environmental regulation and laws that oversee corporate spending to influence elections. To that end, ATP filed suit to challenge a Montana law passed in 1912 called Corrupt Practices Act, after the "Citizens United" decree.

Montana's Attorney General, Steve Bullock, defended the state of Montana's century-old law before the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that political corruption made the Corrupt Practices Act necessary in 1912, that the law had been successful in protecting Montana's democratic process from corruption for 100 years, and that the possibility of corruption requires its continuation despite of the Supreme Court's decree. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in the state's favor on Dec. 30, 2011.

ATP then asked the US Supreme Court for three things: (1) a stay on the Corrupt Practices Act, (2) a review of the Montana Court's decision, and (3) a summary reversal. The Supreme Court's reply on Feb. 17, 2012 granted the stay, which means that the Corrupt Practices Act is no longer being enforced as Montana approaches its June 16 primary election. ATP would have preferred that the Supreme Court quietly grant the summary reversal without hearing oral arguments which could attract the attention of the public. But the Court's response implies that this request may not be granted.

Due to Ginsburg and Breyer's striking statement, the public scrutiny ATP had hoped to avoid may be inevitable. The issue plays into a dominant narrative of the 2012 GOP primary race, which has been flooded by Super-PAC money, drawing complaints from across the political spectrum. Less than 24 hours after the statement, there is already talk of a rally at the US Supreme Court to allow the People to weigh in on whether or not anonymous and unlimited campaign donations creates the appearance of corruption (sign up for details). The Court may decide to hear the Montana case as a way of revisiting "Citizens United" with new information to consider.

Update: ​Bonifaz explains:

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), the corporation challenging the Montana law, has until March 29 to file its petition for review before the Supreme Court. It may decide to file it much earlier than that. Under the normal rules, the State of Montana will then have 30 days to file its response, and ATP will then have 10 days to file its reply. However, the Court could possibly order the response and reply briefs on an expedited
schedule.

It is very likely the Court will accept review of this case, given the claim that the Montana Supreme Court ruling defies the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The main question is whether the Court will reverse the Montana ruling without allowing full argument on the merits. If it does that, we could see a decision very soon after the briefing on the petition for review has been submitted. If it allows for full argument, there will be merits briefing and then oral argument. That oral argument could happen this spring or it could be scheduled for the fall (the start of the next term for the Court).

Last fall, Bullock announced his candidacy to succeed Brian Schweitzer as Montana's governor.

Read the Supreme Court's Feb. 17, 2012 order

A response to Citizens United:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YFZAmTUbPEo

You might consider doing a story of symphysiotomies in Ireland, where hundreds of women were permanently mutilated instead of being given cesareans, to remove the tempation to use birth control. Bring some churchmen to defend the church and ask if Catholic hospitals plan to use it.

I think that the Catholic Church should come on your show to discuss the practice of symphyosotomies peformed on unwilling women in Ireland, crippling them for life, instead of more "sinful" cesarean sections which "might lead to contraception". Have them swear on a stack of Bibles that they will perform none of them in Catholic hospitals, under the "freedom of conscience" proviso.

Do the republicans want freedom of religion for polygamists, religions that wont allow blood transfusions or medicines for their ill children? Why aren't they screaming about that and not just freedom of religion for the catholic church?

If I had t look at that panel viagra wouldn't help me

The Republicans are following the assult on women began by St. Thomas. Look at the bright side, you're not being burned at the stake anymore

I think the women of this country should tell all the men that unless they support them in this fight there will be no more sex until they do!

We need those women back. Recall them. We need recruits to fight against the American Taliban's War on Women.

They fought for the wrong issue back then but they embody the spirit we need to counter the War on Women.

Around the world religion is used as a club to oppress women and subjugate them to men's desires.

The right's abortion frenzy has never been about the unborn but entirely about punishing women for expressing sexual freedom. Anything that stands in the way of women being punished is wrong to them. Listen to Santorum on birth control.

When the right uses religion as a way of enforcing rigid puritanical behavior on us maybe it is time we have a war on religion.

I look at this picture and it reminds me of the opponents of marriage equality. It's always the straight people objecting. No one ever sees actual gay people opposing marriage equality.

My wish would be for every legislator who voted for this bill to undergo this procedure to prove it isn't rape. You could pay off the debt selling Pay Per View tickets to that show.

To those who think fluoride is still beneficial: "...fluoride (that is added to municipal water) is a hazardous waste product...for which there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects and, contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits," says Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President, Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

And: At least 22% of all American children now have dental fluorosis as a result of ingesting too much fluoride, according to The Centers for Disease Control (CDC). That rate may be 69% in children from high socioeconomic-status families and those who live in fluoridated communities, according to a July 1998 report from The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and corroborated in several reports published since 1995 in the Journal of the American Dental Association. Fluorosis is the discoloration and, in advanced cases, the pitting of teeth. Bleaching is not effective.

We need to stop putting fluoride in the water

Photos from that era make just about everyone look ridiculous. It's a combo of the lighting and equipment.

In spite of the photo, it is, in fact, a good idea to have a panel on Viagra and other ED drugs and treatments in connection with a panel on contraception. Not going to take the time to research it right now, but I believe prostate cancer (PC) rates are about the same as breast cancer. PC is often a slow progressing cancer but, both in incidence and mortality, the rates are similar to breast cancer. The side effects of all successful(!) PC treatments leave about 80 percent of men impaired with some degree of ED. Treatments include surgery (Bob Dole's option) and radiation (Rudy Giuliani's option). Followup treatment with ED drugs after PC surgery, leads to better long term outcomes.

Medicare does not currently cover ED drugs! Nor do I believe, will they by covered under the new health care act.

ED drugs are expensive, more expensive than birth control. Because Medicare does not cover them, most insurance companies also refuse to do so. Many post PC treatment guys in the US purchase them online via India, where they are significantly less expensive, but that is getting more difficult.

Sex is a long discussion, too long to go into now. Except, sex is more than for procreation -- and pleasure. It is a central aspect of our humanity, one of the ways we bond with each other.

A stupid mentality that wants to restrict contraception for women also denies covering ED drugs to men following impairing PC treatments.

A couple positive acts we can take:

Let's praise Bob Dole for his courage back in the day for being a Viagra spokesperson.

Let's encourage adding ED drugs to Medicare.

PC rates are high in Europe and North America. Men on a traditional Japanese diet have a much lower rate (probably has to do with soy). Otherwise, Republican men are as likely to confront it as are Democratic. Maybe there is an opening for bi-partisan (and gender alliance) action here.

Of course. That's been going on for centuries and it's time women should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish, especially in the area of contraception. The republicans want to eliminate all abortions even in cases of rape, incest, and and the mothers health. They constantly complain about too much government in our lives but now in Texas make it mandatory for women to have an expensive sonogram the day before etc. One big problem is they don't want to take care of them after their born. Child protective services are not doing a decent job. Almost every day there is news about children being severely injured or killed by their caretakers.

Who knows, they may be here to endorse Viagara!

ROFL Love it! That sizes it up just perfectly. After all, what ever happened to Equal Opportunity???