The politics surrounding women's health have taken center stage this year in ways unseen in quite a while, and it's not likely to fade away anytime soon.
With the Affordable Care Act back in the news -- the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on Monday -- the Democratic National Committee has a new video, connecting Republican repeal efforts to the larger concerns about women's interests.
The message focuses on an aspect of the health care reform law that often goes overlooked: it prevents insurance companies from charging women more for coverage based solely on gender. Those who want to scrap the Affordable Care Act also, whether they like to admit it or not, are pushing to end this protection for women.
Similarly, a Chicago woman named Courtney Everette has a powerful op-ed today, explaining the role Planned Parenthood played in helping her with medication to treat endometriosis, which is why she's a mother today. Her son, Everette wrote, wouldn't be here today if Mitt Romney "had his way."
Every year, more than 3 million people visit a Planned Parenthood health center. More than 90 percent of the care they get is preventive -- birth control, like I got; clinical breast exams that can help detect breast cancer early; Pap smears; or tests for sexually transmitted diseases.
Last year, 770,000 women got clinical breast exams at Planned Parenthood. When an abnormality is detected, Planned Parenthood arranges for mammogram referrals, often at a low cost or no cost.
That's what Mitt Romney wants to get rid of... [H]e's using women's healthcare to score political points. Our most personal medical issues shouldn't be political fodder.
In recent years, when the political world talked about "women's issues," the focus tended to be fairly narrow, limited largely to reproductive rights. In 2012, thanks to an unexpected culture war agenda from Republicans, it's a much larger and more encompassing policy landscape, covering contraception, medically-unnecessary ultrasounds, the Violence Against Women Act, insurance discrimination, and whether Planned Parenthood and family-planning aid should even exist.
One can only wonder if the GOP realized what it was getting itself into.
Leave a Comment:
Thanks Steve. One thing I have wondered about is WHY the GOP is so hell bent on eliminating Planned Parenthood when they want to privatize health insurance. Especially WOMEN'S health insurance. You would think they would EMBRACE PP. Unless of course, they just want us to DIE.
Republicans live and die by their facetious talking points. Mention Planned Parenthood and all they hear is "Abortion." Mention "Healthcare" and all they hear is "Government Takeover." Mention "Obama" and all they hear is "Kenyan born Muslim Nazi communist fabian socialist terrorist fascist America hating partial birth abortionist, black panther supporting, madrassa educated Marxist elitist snob who wants to destroy America through ACORN, illegal immigration, college education, contraception, porn and high gas prices and who has never actually produced a legitimate US birth certificate."
I don't think they want us to die, though I am not sure they would really be busted up too much if we did. I think more they want us out of the job market and off the college campus. They want us home in the kitchen. A woman with a baby on her hip and one of the way is not going to seek the same jobs a man might.
because the insurance companies can make more lobby money to give them if it wasnt for Obama care,and as for them wanting us to die they don't give a dam about what happens to us or those fools who keep them in office ,as long as they can get their message preached from the pulpits they will have a strangle hold on us!
It's not that they want all women to die. Just enough to remind the others of their proper place.
The misogynist Republicants would be delighted with not having to deal with women's issues AT ALL because, to them, we are nothing more than something they can screw...that would be the ONLY reason they'd keep us around. And really SMART women (like even smarter than THEM) are their worst nightmare....even worse than Democrats.
I know that your question is somewhat rhetorical, but clearly the reason that republicans are so against Planned Parenthood is because one of the services they provide is pregnancy termination and counseling that includes discussions of this as an option. They are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, excuse the expression. They can't see the irony in the fact that the less ability that Planned Parenthood has to spread their message about women taking control of their own bodies, the more likely it is that women will have unwanted pregnancies, increasing the number of abortions. In their zeal to eliminate all abortions they are actually taking actions to increase them.
Add to this the very real perspective of many of these misogynistic throwbacks that women "belong in the home" and you have proposals and policies that are stridently anti-woman. They don't seem to know or care that most women don't agree with their perspectives on these issues. Their ideology has taken the place of reason. From a progressive perspective this is a good thing because it does reduce their chances of winning elections. The problem is that too many people in this country, including conservative women, seem willing to vote against their own self interest if faux news tells them to.
Sonny hit the nail on the head. A provision of the ACA went into effect in 1/2010 that dictates 80% of revenue needs to be spent on direct medical expenses. 85% for groups over 50. Thus leaving on 15 to 20% left for operating costs, salaries, bonuses and shareholder dividends. This cuts into the dollars available to lobby Congress typically favoring R's over D's. By 6/2012 all health insurance providers need to submit to the DHHS financial audits for the previous calendar year. Anything over the target percentages needs to be rebated to customers. Unless of course your policy has be "grandfathered" which I found out recently mine was so I may need to go shopping again...
For some reason you've started a chain of thought in my head that led me to something the Guardian says in Ultima IX: "If I cannot turn a thing, I can at least destroy it." Republicans will either subvert something to serve their own ends or, if that fails, do their best to end it. Planned Parenthood can never be made to work for Republicans, as anything that benefits women is always going to be counter to their designs, so of course it has to be eliminated. Their totalitarianism won't allow any other course of action.
Name one GOP agenda item that in any way will be a problem for those rich enough to buy their way around.
note Romney et al:
In 1920 we passed the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote.
What makes you think they won't?
The problem is, sizable blocks of women have traditionally voted against their own self interest in matter's of equal rights, probably owing to cultural brainwashing.
Watch the movie: Rain Without Thunder
This movie is set in the year 2042. Yet, this movie could easily be set in 2012. The basic premise of the movie is, "In a futuristic society, abortion is a crime punishable by a harsh prison term, and all female sexual activity is electronically monitored."
The movie was made in 1992. Listen to the dates stated in this movie. Almost everything that was discussed in this movie has happened or is happening.
The reviews of the movie at the time (1993) dismiss it as "pro-choice speculative fiction." The NY Times review: "The film dwells portentously on the Unborn Child Kidnapping Act and other imaginary legal developments, like a 28th Amendment giving full Constitutional rights to fertilized eggs."
Any of this sound familiar?
Sorry, but I forgot to add the best quote from the movie, "Rain Without Thunder"
“We don’t walk with men, we walk behind them, we walk in their footsteps. To their rhythm; with their gait, down their paths. To their heaven. To man’s heaven. Those women who choose to walk with men, they’re fools, they’re fools to think they can control their destination. A house built by men is a house built for men. We must build our own house. We must do it with our own hands. No one will do it for us.”
The number one reason for them to get rid of Planned Parenthood is two-fold. The republicans and the religious right do not want you to plan a family, by using contraception. The other is they believe Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory. Which it is not, 3 percent of it's business are abortions which must be payed for by the patient. So if we were to get rid of Planned Parenthood it would not even stop half of the abortions in this country. People need to know the truth of what these clinics really provide and protect them. Another thing we need to do is point out the real expense of having a child and how that impacts society in comparison to the cost of birth control and abortions.
The people know the real truth but it doesn't go along with what they are brainwashed to believe!
I just believe there is more to this story than meets the eye. There is something we don't know.What was the motivation for changing their views? Who started this, and why? They cannot bring Church and State together it just won't work. all of these ridiculous laws against women are going to be overturned .Why are they wasting their time on this. Women know how to fight. And fight we will. I expect more and more republican women are going to see the light and reject this. If someone in the Congress would propose a law that would make all the women in the government to state whether they have used birth control or had an abortion all of this may end.
This is going to be their Waterloo. I don't know how they look their wives and daughters in the eye.
They don't have to -- they've trained them to keep their eyes downcast.
I don't think that Republicans thought they'd run into the buzzsaw they encountered when they backed the Catholic bishop's attack on contraception. And then, to make their situation even worse, the GOP presidential candidates jumped on the bandwagon and made it part of their campaigns. I suspect they figured it would rally the base but not get noticed by anyone else.
Wrong.
When John McCain is suddenly the voice of reason on the right, you know that Republicans have gone too far. It will be very difficult for Mr. Romney to walk back his statements on women's health issues come the general election campaign.
On the other hand, the party has already alienated Hispanics, African-Americans and young people. Why not go all the way and blow off the woman's vote, as well.
You are correct. The Bishops Conference opened up this issue and Republicans just dove right in. Now, they can't back off because they are so far invested in social issues. This is going to defeat the Republicans because overwhelming public opinion is contrary to their positions. Dems are yelling "Jump!" at the Republicans looking over the edge of the cliff.
501(c)3 tax law prohibits political activity by leaders of non-profit organizations.
That includes ministers, nuns, monks, priests, bishops, and cardinals.
I am aware of that, but no administration has truly taken on religious institutions that are involved in political activities. No president wants to get into a fight with the religious community with a proxy war through the IRS. Unfortunately, the Constitution only prohibits the government from establishing a state religion while not providing for a corresponding obligation by religion.
Aren't these the same people who go on and on about "those people" having too many children and feeding at the public trough? Seems like PP would be high on their agenda for bringing down births for the "welfare class". But then, here's the disconnect. It seems like they're also scared of the burgeoning numbers of non-white citizens because too many people they like are limiting their families. It's all so confusing when you try a clumsy hand at social engineering.
Planned Parenthood likes to 'claim' that abortion accounts for just 3 percent of its services, for instance, and this statistic has been endlessly recycled in the press. But the percentage of the group’s clients who received an abortion is probably closer to 1 in 10, and Planned Parenthood’s critics have estimated, plausibly, that between 30 and 40 percent of its health center revenue is from abortion. By way of comparison, the organization also refers pregnant women for adoption. In 2010, this happened only 841 times, against 329,445 abortions. So, what is the real purpose and goal of Planned Parenthood? You be the judge. No one is advocating taking away women's healthcare. That is just stupid. Some women do themselves a disservice by spouting off with half cocked ramblings. Stick with the facts. No one is advocating that women go back to barefoot and pregnant. Be realistic and don't believe everything the biased media tells you. Use your brain!
Liar.
Wow PEM manipulate information much? The information regarding PP services (the 3% statistic) comes from how their funding is raised and spent. They service roughly 3 million people per year and yes perform roughly about 300,000 abortions per year. And the majority of their funding does not come from abortion. I'm not even sure where you pulled that statistic out of. PP brings in around $360 million of revenue per year w/ almost all of it coming from private donations or from federal funding. No federal funding can be spent on abortion services by law. Roughly 2/3 of that revenue is spent on preventative health care like breast exams and roughly 16% is spent on education and tests for STDs. The remaining 3%, as I said, is spent on abortion.
This is the most manipulated way of presenting information. You cannot list things in this manner and then say 'you be the judge' as if this somehow means you've now presented information in a non-partisan matter by saying that it's up to other people. You aren't being neutral in any way, shape, or form by the way you present information. This is like me saying well the state of Texas killed 170 prisoners last year, but they only allowed 80 go. So what's the real intention of the state of Texas? You be the judge. This is a very hinky way of begging the question. You are presenting information in a way purposely intended to make the reader conclude that X is true w/o actually coming out and saying X is true.
Additionally let's just analyze this sentence from a critical analysis perspective since you encourage us to "stick w/ the facts" and "be realistic and don't believe everything the biased media tells you" and to "use [our] brains."
Well by using my brain here is my first question- which you conveniently left out of your information: what is the procedure for referring women for adoption? Presumably PP can't deny services to women seeking abortions so presumably women are at liberty to decide what they want to do. This is what PP claims so unless you can provide evidence to the contrary I'm calling bullpuckey here. You're purposely taking a statistic out of context to make it appear like all PP wants to do all day long is abort fetus' solely because they don't refer more women to adoption centers. NEWS FLASH: perhaps those women are choosing to have abortions of their own free will. Ya know since you clearly are operating under the premise that if women aren't told what to do they will naturally be too confused and brought in by corrupt PP tactics (tactics which, for the record, you don't even bother to research into or provide evidence of). So this is either grossly manipulative because of it's statistically flawed representation, or horribly insulting to the intelligence and decision making of women who seek abortions from PP.
Actually advocating that PP is some evil, awful organization that only wants to abort babies is advocating taking away women's healthcare. Because what you're insinuating here is that abortion is bad (because you're arrogant enough to imply as much) and then you're indicating that because more abortions are performed this therefore means there's some giant conspiracy going on to deny women adoption. And of course this would all be justification for what? PP's continued existence? Yeah, I think not.
While Planned Parenthood officials claim that abortions constitute only 3% percent of their services, this figure is misleading. Out of the 10.5 million individual services they provided in 2006, 289,750 were abortions—roughly 3%. But this figure fails to account for the fact that a woman visiting Planned Parenthood for an abortion will receive several services—from a pregnancy test to some manner of counseling to the abortion itself—each of which is counted separately. A closer look at Planned Parenthood’s client and income numbers shows that the abortion figure is actually three times what they claim. Of 3.1 million Planned Parenthood clients in 2006, 9% got abortions. Moreover, abortion accounts for at least a third of Planned Parenthood’s total income from clinic services.
Source: Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2006-2007 Annual Report.http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf.
Frankly, you're missing the point. This should not even be a national debate. If someone wants contraception, they should go pay for it - just like I do my Crestor or allergy meds. Has nothing to do with sex. Just pay your own bills. How much do people think the government should do for them? We have become this complete entitlement society. It's ridiculous. The government owes us something, the state owes us something, employers owe us something. Come on.
People, women and men - republican and democrate alike, have taken this issue and made it way more than it should. How about we focus on something important like the HUGE debt that we will never get out of. This is a country of equal opportunity. Some choose not to take that opportunity and be spoon fed instead.
Thomas Sowell said it better than I can "One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence."
The two numbers quoted are correct (see http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage, which I got to from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm). But all the other numbers for 2010 are omitted:
This shows that abortions were 3% of the total services supplied.
And if you check their 2010 IRS Form 990, you can see exactly how much they received in contributions, grants, investments, etc. The 990 is available at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA_FY_11_990_-_public_disclosure.pdf.
PEM if someone has an unwanted pregnancy you will end up paying for it. Even if social programs did not exist you would end up paying for them via the loss in economic revenue, the poverty, and the disease that these people bring about. You either can pay the 20$ upfront or spend the $100 later on to pay for food stamps, pay for public housing, etc. for an unwanted child. Either way you end up paying for it. You are acting as though you have a choice here about payment- you do not. If you don't take your medication for heart disease I will end up paying for that when you have a heart attack and the insurance company bills me for it. I'm not on your policy but your cost gets redistributed across other policy holders. That is the concept behind preventative care. You provide services that prevent people from getting very sick that way the rest of us don't have to pay the larger cost of treating you.
Yes the government does owe us something. Because we are the government. We pay for the government, we work for the government, we make the government work for us. That is the whole point of being a society.
Look, I'm not a big anti-abortion nut, and I just stumbled onto this article. So I'm going to bow out of this conversation and move on. Abortion is not preventive medicine - certainly not in most cases. I'm against people using abortion as birth control - that is just irresponsible and wrong.
Birth control, in many cases, is preventive medicine. Birth control should be provided by health insurance just like many other drugs. However, I certainly understand and agree that a institution or employer should be able to 'opt out' of certain procedures / meds that go against their religious beliefs. Frankly, having employer sponsored health insurance is not a right. I am an employer. I provide that insurance to my employees at great expense. My choice - I don't have to provide anything.
The government is too too too big and needs to stay out of all of this fray. Their meddling, IMHO, is what has created this entitlement society. Tax the so called rich is not the answer. Hell, based on the governments standards, I'm rich. Far from it. They tax us to death to pay for yet more entitlements. That is bad for the economy no matter how you look at it.
So, back to my original point - that I keep straying from - this should NOT be a national debate nor should women be fear mongered to that anyone is going to take anything away or push them back to the kitchen. That serves no purpose, is silly and has no merit. We have bigger issues in this country to debate than who pays for the pill.
BTW... new service coming out called banter.it - no I do not work for them. Some sort of political forum where folks of like and unlike minds can come together to debate all the issues of the day as it relates to politics. Last thing I need is something else to have to keep up with. But I signed up for an invite when it goes live. Point is, you make solid arguments Mouzer. May be a place where more people can engage with you. Might wanna check it out.
All the best.
But this is skewed. First people don't use abortion as birth control. Nobody goes out and has sex and then says 'hey, I'll just have an abortion.' Abortion is the result of not having access to contraception, contraception failing, or other issues like rape/incest. Second there's no such thing as an abortion mill. This is part of what I was trying to say earlier. You can't project that because abortions are performed at Planned Parenthood that this makes the organization some sort of abortion mill where a woman grabs her Starbucks and gets an abortion. It just isn't like that I think it does a disservice to skew the argument as such.
It's fine for you to argue that employers shouldn't have to provide health insurance. But you aren't mandated to do so. You choose to provide health insurance to your employees. Health care reform did not change this. However if you make the choice to provide health insurance employees you don't get to enforce your morality onto theirs. Just as you, the business owner have rights, so too do your employees. Since you are the one exercising choice by providing health care to your employees you are intentionally opting out of denying them certain services. Religious institutions who run private businesses like hospitals and universities are choosing to provide health insurance and choosing to employ people w/ different views than that of the church and are employing people who aren't operating in an official capacity as a religious representative. No one should be able to enforce their beliefs onto someone else. But there are certain circumstances in which one person's beliefs will come into direct conflict w/ another person's beliefs. In this scenario you're advocating that you, the employer, should be able to make your employees conform to your belief system. It's fine to argue this position as well, but I am sick of it being skewed as though one option is freedom and one is tyranny. In either scenario someone is walking away w/ some inhibition put upon them. Either it's the employer or it's the individual employee. I submit that the individual should always be the person to whom we default rights and that any time we grant rights over an individual to the business the burden of proof should be on the business to explain why. I don't feel that this has been done by the Republican Party or by conservatives therefore I maintain that the default still stays to that of the individual.
The government cannot stay out of health care or health care services. This is what you are not understanding. If the government doesn't get involved in health care you end up paying more.
And your wealth is relative to other people's wealth. The government considers you part of the 1% if you make more than 370,000k/yr and part of the upper 10% if you make more than 100,000$/yr. This standard is set because 90% of Americans make less than 100,000$/yr. How about instead of feeling so entitled you get your budget into order, hm? I make 20k/yr and I have no debt, I pay all of my bills, and I don't use any government 'entitlement' programs. Why are you so spoiled that you can't get your house in order? Seems to me that you want to punish the poor for being poor, but you want the government to give you breaks because you're too fiscally irresponsible to keep track of your bills.
Of course this harsh criticism isn't meant to be serious. The point I am trying to illustrate here is how you talk about your fellow citizens. You call them entitled and lazy. How does it feel when someone else turns it around on you? It doesn't feel good, yet you have no problem judging others. This, I would submit, is far more immoral than anything else.
I agree. It is the Republican Party who made this into an issue and it's a serious annoyance. But since they have decided to double-down on this policy it will be covered in the news. Your anger is that Maddowblog covers this. Yet no anger at the candidates themselves?
I'll check it out thanks. And FTR, again, I wasn't trying to insult you. I was trying to illustrate a point about how we talk about the poor in this country and how we throw about arbitrary terms like 'entitlement' and 'spoiled' and 'lazy' and this and that. People need to realize that these terms are subjective and not objective. You are poor in some other man's eye. Your wealthy in another's. But your rights and your humanity don't stop being important regardless of which eye you're looking out of.
The Mouzer is correct.
Health care issues are access and cost.
Increasing access reduces cost. Removing access increases cost.
Antibiotics and birth control pills reduce health care costs by eliminating the number of trips to the emergency room.
Requiring a prescription to purchase antibiotics increases the cost fro $30 to $300.
Blocking access to birth control increases cost from $300 to $3,000.
The ultimate cost of medical prohibition is increased cost, higher death rates, and increased social security disability rates.
Prohibition, like the women's health care debate, is responsible for the outrageous increase in the price of health care.
These costs will wind up being paid in taxes if not paid by insurers and employers.
Two points...
First, I would ask Mickey to marry me if she weren't already married and I were biologically female. (So, I guess in this case two strikes make an out.)
Second, if PEM1234 only 'stumbled' onto this topic, how is it that he has spent so much time and energy on something he doesn't really care all that much about? I mean, seriously, he only registered on Newsvine this month (making doubly sure I'm reading the numbers right) and has only made novella-length comments on this topic. Seems very purposeful and dedicated to me, and not random at all.
I hope he is moving on. I've whinged about the tr0ll problem in the past, but we don't really have it that bad. They come to stir up trouble, but the never get the trouble they're looking for, not when there are so many smart people around here who leave the bait and beat the tr0ll over the head with the trap.
One last response to Meddling - you left me know choice. I did just stumble on the article. I am active in politics - this is just not my normal venue. I am just a normal working person with a large family - that includes a wife and four daughters. So, yes, women's health issues are important to me. So, am I reading you right that those of differing opinions are not welcome? My intent was not to stir trouble - just add to the discussion. Of which, I thought Mouzer and I had a lively yet respectful one. I thought that was the point? Two people come together to respectfully debate and try to find common ground that it seems NO ONE in Washington can do.
Best of luck. I enjoyed the lively discussion. But, see no point in staying where I am not welcome and my views are not welcome. That attitude does not help the huge chasm in our political culture.
All the best.
Sometimes, like on a long drive over boring roads, I worry that they did.
Mitt Romney and the GOP:
Wrong for humans,
Wrong for human health
Steve,
Here's something interesting I found recently - and it's more than simply hiding it under the non-descriptive heading of 'women's health.'
Two professors from the universities of Milan and Melbourne recently published an article in the online Journal of Medical Ethics entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be,” write Drs. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
How do they justify this conclusion? By agreeing with what a lot of us have been saying all along: that a newborn is no different from a baby in the womb. But instead of accepting that both have a God-given right to life because they’re human, these ethicists argue that it ought to be legal for parents to kill either at their discretion.
If reasons like cost, stress, and inconvenience are good enough to justify an abortion, say Giubilini and Minerva, then they’re good enough to justify infanticide, or as these ethicists call it with a straight face, “the killing of [a] potential person.”
Happily, Giubilini and Minerva’s article is getting a lot of attention: and exposing their deadly logic. This is a chance for the world to see abortion for what it really is: the killing of innocent human beings, whether in the womb or just born.
Many of our laws in this country are built upon the fantasy that birth, not existence, bestows a fetus with personhood. If you kill a newborn in the United States, as infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermitt Gosnell did for decades, you go to jail. But just minutes prior, that same act of killing can be legal.
This is nonsense.
I’m hoping that articles from ethicists like Giubilini and Minerva will wake people up to the reality of what they’re justifying. If enough people start to get it, then it won’t matter what a few academic elites think.
John, this is nothing more than the "acorn is a tree" argument. Acorns are not trees; fetuses are not babies; miscarriages and abortions are not infanticide. A fetus in the womb is not a human being. These "ethicists" are not making a valid argument.
Actually what they are doing is a logical fallacy and more than likely it was intended to be. More than likely this was a manipulation of Swift's Potato Famine. Although in Swift's case he was blatantly aware of what he was saying and the fallaciousness of his statements. In fact that's why he could go through w/ it because he was full aware that advocating that babies be eaten is ludicrous. The argument they are presenting is called an accidental fallacy. It's a syllogism error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29
Additionally you do not provide citation so these people cannot be researched. Perhaps they are known pro-life advocates in which case this entirely debunks their arguments? Or perhaps they were paid by a pro-life institution which would also debunk their arguments? Or maybe you're making the whole thing up? Or maybe you're completely misquoting them and misrepresenting their argument and the intention they were actually presenting?
By not providing citation you prevent people from fact-checking you thereby making it entirely impossible for people to know what the context of the situation actually is.
Additionally your argument w/ Gosnell is using post hoc reasoning. Gosnell got into trouble because he ran his 'clinic' in, literally, backdoor fashion w/o following any health practices or using medically acceptable means to conduct abortions. He was arrested on the premise of malpractice.
Presumably speaking an ethicist would be an academic John. So you are being hypocritical here. It's OK to believe academics when they agree w/ your beliefs, but it's not OK to agree w/ them when they don't agree. Good to know.
Mouzer, here you go....
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
It is not possible to use the word "kill" to describe abortion until the third trimester.
This is because the fetus has less than 50% survival rate until after the third trimester begins.
Any discussion of "life" before that point is religious by definition.
It is likely the trauma you are describing is being inflicted by religious organizations.
Projection is 2/3 of any argument. So if you've just experienced a miscarriage, you didn't! You're simply the mother of a dead infant!
Context, it's a bitch
Premise of their argument:
Conclusion (minus what I already shared):
I do not think this study meant what you think it meant.
I had a long conversation with a right wing "I'm right and you are wrong" fellow the other day. He made an interesting point that gives me insight into his mindset. He said "The employment crisis can be solved by single worker homes. If only one person went to work, then we would be back at full employment. Women should be home raising families."
I said something similar on another topic on this subject, but in jest. And now you give me an example of someone who said it in earnest. I wonder how Jon Stewart can face coming into work every morning when he knows that no matter how hard he tries, the wingers are only going to twist satire into reality?
John, exactly who are "a lot of us"?
Casere,
'No' on all counts.....
...and I found it interesting (and, sadly, expected) that you didn't focus on ANY of the points in my post - but wanted to focus on unrelated issues like my sex, my profession, if I'm religious, etc.
....and 'a lot of us' are the majority of folks who believe that personhood doesn't begin once the baby leaves the birth canal.
Johnny, you may be "the majority of" "a lot of us," but you're a very crazy and stupid minority of the country. Loud noises does not a majority make, honeybun.
Umm the majority of people don't agree that personhood begins at conception. Additionally it's irrelevant what the majority believe. Majority opinion does not automatically equate to correctness. This is known as an appeal to population. The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat and slavery was good. By using your logic this would mean that they were correct.
Quite possibly not, in any sense that compares human infants to other primates. Human infants are quite a bit less alert, interactive, etc. which casts strong doubt on any claims to self-awareness above the levels we observe in animals which are (mostly, PETA aside) agreed to be "non-persons."
However, as a society we try to err conservatively so we use birth as the point of demarcation. It's a very practical point, because once the baby is born its fate is distinct from its mother's -- manifestly a different situation from pregnancy, where the fetus is effectively a parasite totally dependent on its host.
My apologies to johnlorican, I was at lunch and trying to respond briefly. I did read your entire comment. But, will you do the same courtesy of reading my entire response now?) I also find it interesting that your responses (although sadly expected) were NO to all of my questions.
And, no, this is not nonsense.
I asked the questions 1) Whether you are female, 2) Are you an OB-GYN, 3) Are you a medical doctor or nurse of any kind, and 4) As you so succinctly put it, I was "asking about your religion" because they ARE related and relevant issues. (My original comment asking you my questions was erased by my trying to type too fast during the countdown editing process to add my last question of "who are 'a lot of us'.")
Your beliefs and ethics are not mine; and should not, in any form or fashion, trample on my, currently, lawful existing rights. Yes, I am female. No, I am not an OB-GYN. No, I am not a medical doctor or nurse. As for religion, I am agnostic. Why did my questions matter in regards to your original posting? Because I AM female and know more about female anatomy than you do (based upon your answers), including giving birth or, sadly, having a miscarriage. I will always believe in CHOICE for women.
My questions posed to you were based upon some of your own comments. For example: "god-given right to life" (whose god and at what point is life?) and "Many of our laws in this country are built upon the fantasy that birth, not existence, bestows a fetus with personhood". Who decides what is or is not existence of a "person"?
IF I believed that all male sperm should be granted "the right to life" and "personhood" and should only be "used" to create children, would you agree with me? Recently, Mississippi voters had to decide whether fertilized eggs qualified as "persons" under the law from the moment when sperm and egg meet. Why not take it a step further and make it that all male sperm and female eggs should be protected under the "personhood" law? Sadly, the intended Mississippi law "almost" did this against women (the law, at its root, implied that unfertilized female eggs would be protected under the "personhood" law by outlawing oral contraception), but nothing was mentioned about men and their male sperm.
As for the article you mentioned, I've read the article. I've read the backgrounds of the authors and editor (who have previously all worked with each other at Oxford - and yes, I am implying that is why this article was able to be published to begin with) and believe that this article in the Journal of Medical Ethics should never have been published. The Journal of Medical Ethics Editor's follow-up comment is what bothered me the most. He specifically states: "However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises." Here is where I disagree with the article put forth by the authors. The article is poorly written and does not present a well reasoned argument, especially when stated as a widely accepted premise. It is flawed in substance.
Thank you for clarifying that "a lot of us" means "the majority of folks who believe that personhood doesn't begin once the baby leaves the birth canal." And that you did NOT mean the majority of the voting populace.
Casare, I'll never understand why the leftist response always ties in to, as you put it, 'my, currently, lawful existing rights' - which, apparently, trumps all. The ethicists made the argument that I've made for years: if it's legal to murder the preborn one minute before birth, why should it be illegal one minute after birth?
The ONLY difference is location. That's it.
Abortion has been a godsend to men who could care less who they impregnate. While the women undergo a procedure that they'll remember for the rest of their lives, these selfish, 'if you love me, you'll let me' men get off scot-free. No fuss, no muss.
Feminism has been a gift to these guys....
John, your response is ignorant on many points. First and foremost, you argue that "leftists" always refer to our legal rights, while using legalities for your own argument. Either you believe that our legal rights are valid and a useful tool for argument or you do not. Don't bash us "leftists" for doing the same thing you do.
John, you are not a woman. That is a valid point. I'm sorry, but it is. You do not understand our anatomy, you do not live your life as a female in a society that is less and less concerned about our rights as individuals. Do you think I am wrong there? Can you tell me that while I sit and watch as conservative men and some women are debating my rights away? Do you know how it feels to be pregnant? Do you have ANY idea the agony of deciding to abort a child? Do you really think that is an easy decision? Perhaps it is for some, but I promise you that every woman who has ever had to have an abortion for any reason has felt the emotional repercussions. But you know what is worse? Watching your child freeze or starve to death because you can't afford to feed them or provide heat or housing. Do you think that doesn't happen here John? I worked for the homeless for many years. The large percentage of them were women, battered, broken and devastated because they simply could not find the means to pull themselves up in a society that treats them like dirt.
Simply put, John, you don't know what you are talking about. You feel abortion is wrong. That's your prerogative. Don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, lazy, slutty or any of the other pejoratives I am sure are rattling around in your mind. And by the way, John. I'm proud to be an elitist leftist. You can throw the words leftist, elitist, liberal around like epithets all you want. It doesn't offend me. Why? Because being a liberal means I am compassionate, open minded, intelligent and open hearted. Wait. That means I'm a true Christian doesn't it?
PS. Since I don't have facts and figures at my fingertips, I will not argue on those merits. I'm sure you think having the title Professor in front of a name gives some weight and credential. But even professors are humans with their own agendas and point of view. Anyone can manipulate facts.
Oh, and by the way. Most women do not go for late term abortions unless their health is threatened or the fetus has died. No I don't have statistics on that. Yes I know that you have fallen for the same conservative pro life bull hockey brainwashing they tried to feed me as a teenager in the 70's. It doesn't wash. You want to do something constructive John? Adopt one of those unwanted kids. Otherwise keep your male hands out of my uterus.
It's amazing how men just hate women so much and how women wanting to have sex allows these women to hate men so much. I mean jeeze, we all know that it's the woman's fault when men don't respect her.
Or did you not think this through before saying it?
My point was that feminism has allowed men to be cads - without any strings attached.
These men manipulate women to go to bed with them - and when 'unplanned pregnancies' occur, they talk these same women into getting an abortion...and then the men hit the road without a trace.
Like I said, feminism has been an absolute gift to the selfish, promiscuous male....and when I see the 'get your hands out of my uterus' women protesting and defending this nonsense, I have to just shake my head.
Believe you me, the promiscuous male is right behind you; hand him a sign while you're at it. He LIKES free access to abortion!
@johnlorican
I tried to have a civil conversation with you without any labels. Why couldn't you?
"Leftist?" No, I am NOT left-handed (and yes, I do know the "supposed" definition of the word, but I wanted to put in a joke.)
"The ONLY difference is location. That's it." --- So, you must be a real estate agent... Location, location, location.
I had to add another joke because it's been a long day.
Right because if she'd just stay in the home, in her rightful place, then all these vile men would be out abusing her. And of course the vile men aren't to blame since they can't be expected of to act any better
Umm most women aren't manipulated to go to bed w/ anything. This right here shows your sexism in a disturbing fashion. Women, just like men, enjoy sex. Women don't have to be cajoled into having sex. Women aren't victims of men's sexual preying. Women go to bars looking to hook up for sex just like men do. Women aren't helpless victims of men's unyielding sexual appetite. And men aren't unyielding sexual predators. Additionally who says men are pressuring women into getting abortions? The number 1 reason cited by Guttmacher for why a woman has an abortion is because she already has 1 child and cannot afford another child. I don't doubt that there are instances in which the partner pressures her into have an abortion, just like there are instances in which the partner wants to keep the child, but she does not. But do not frame the argument like women are naturally helpless, pitiful, and stupid. Women- just like men- are as capable of making decisions and exercising choice. It's an insult to imply otherwise.
This might surprise you. Women like to have sex. Women like to have sex. Women like to have sex. Women are not abused by men looking to score and then run away. Now a lot of abortions come about because relationships end, yes, but this isn't usually because the woman was a victim and the man was abusing her (although I am sure that happens). Usually, in terms of relationships, men don't bolt the second that they hear a woman is pregnant. Again this is sexist towards men in some ways more than it is towards women. Men aren't a punch of pig-headed jerks waiting to @!$%# the first thing that moves. Additionally men don't rely on the fact that 'well she can just have an abortion.' No one does this. This is a fantasy that people have created.
No, it shows my acknowledgement of reality - and to acknowledge reality isn't 'sexist.'
Which is why, like I said, men who want to use women for sexual release have thoroughly enjoyed the feminist movement and the supposed sexual 'liberation' that has resulted. These men have zero interest in commitment - while the majority of women - who desire that commitment - are left scratching their heads. Meanwhile, the women are giving away the store for free.
The men go on their merry way when they're done using the women (they've gotten what they want) - and these women are seen holding signs asking others about 'getting their hands out of my uterus.'
Just nuts.
An absurd statement.
This is what happens when there is no separation between Church & State ~ when we start asking preachers about politics and politicans about religion!
Republicans may not want us to die (jury's still out on that) but they sure seem to want us to have more abortions, since that's one outcome of having less access to birth control.
These men are so short sighted. Do they really think that once the line is crossed, that employers are allowed to delve into the most private of matters (as in the AZ bill) that they will be immune? Suppose a man's PSA numbers are up? Or he has a few pre-cancerous polyps removed or a lung biopsy. Or even the idea of his boss snickering over his Viagra prescription. Do they really think this won't happen? And then, the next thing, will be a sudden and unexpected layoff. The employers won't be able to lay blame on the medical reports that they are now able to review but that will be the reason, of course. These foolish men won't think twice about the terrible infringement of a woman's privacy but their on might be another matter.
If you look at this from the standpoint of turning back time to 1900, the Tea Party Republican attitudes make a horrible kind of sense. Margaret Sanger started advocating birth control and healthcare for women in 1916. You also have the rise in the labor movement at that time. Income Tax came into being with the 16th Amendment in 1913. The middle class was a much smaller sliver of the pie. Social Security and Medicare hadn't come onto the scene. In 1900, the business monopolies hadn't been busted, the robber barons had few regulations to contain them, there was a large workforce that could be had for pennies a day, and women were not a part of that workforce - they were subservient to men and stayed at home. You also had a life expectancy of 46-48 years, and an infant mortality rate of 140 per thousand life births. (Why worry about social security when only those who can afford healthcare will make it to 67?) The actions of the Tea Party Republicans who gained control of local and state governments in 2010 all seem aimed to return this country to the end of the 19th Century, when the poor would die quickly "and decrease the surplus population."
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an interesting person.
I wonder if leftists are aware that she viewed black Americans as 'human weeds' and openly desired that that population be limited?
Yep....quite the lady!
Poor Johnnyboy! So, 100 years ago a woman supposedly thought of blacks as "human weeds." Sad, but not surprising for the times. A hundred years later, the entire GOP thinks blacks, including the president, are disposable. A hundred years, and the GOP are where Sanger was then. No wonder they've turned into a group of paranoid, stupid, crazy snake handlers. Sad, sad Johnny. I guess you could move to FL and off a few for "threatening" your putrid existence, hey, buddy? We all know the GOP is a death cult.
Actually she did not. These are brutal misquotes from her books. Sanger wasn't a racist and she was not pro-eugenics. The only way you can believe this is if you grossly misquote her books. When she talks about blacks as being 'human weeds' she was talking about the black women who do not stand up and fight for their rights. When she was talking about how contraception would lead to a purer race she wasn't talking about whites OR blacks she was talking about Americans and specifically that Americans would not longer be morons. Her belief was that people like you would stop existing by the means of contraception. You can certainly not like her for saying such a thing and certainly attack her on that ground, but don't attack her on made up ground.
Such warmth and compassion, Mouzer...!
Here are a few choice morsels from the late, great Margaret Sanger:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population - if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Margaret Sanger's words - from the book, 'Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America' (Linda Gordon)
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." ('Women and the New Race' by Margaret Sanger, 1920)
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief aim of birth control" (Birth Control Review; May, 1919, page 12)
The woman was a piece of work....
As i already stated the only way you can believe these things about Sanger are if you've never actually bothered to read her books and instead rely on other people to take her quotes out of context (and half the time not even provide the whole quote).
Margaret Sanger never wrote this. This quote was a summary of Sangers work as written by the editors of American Medicine.
Full context of this quote: Sanger was discussing the deplorable condition in which most American families were living at the time. These families would have 11-15 children in which their mothers often would die of suffer significant health costs that caused their mothers to be physically ill forever. Often times people would have as many children as they could for the soul purpose of labor and as a means of hoping that at least 1 child would make it into adulthood. Therefore giving birth to more and more children created a situation in which children were being exploited and, in Sanger's viewpoint, tortured into their adult life. Her statement here, in full, was that it is better to kill a child before it spent it's life in misery than it was to torture it until it either died of starvation or disease.
You should actually bother to read this quote in it's entirety sometime instead of relying on right-wing blogs:
See the quote you gave wasn't even her entire sentence. Which is always lovely. Her point here was that she wanted to reach out to African American churches and get the black community involved.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/
If you want to criticize people that's fine. But do it on what they actually say, not what you mishear, or what you misrepresent, or what someone else mishears or misrepresents.
Mouzer, I don't get my information from 'right-wing blogs' (since you must be looking over my shoulder at my computer, you have yet to introduce yourself)...
...and you're going to have to do better than 'factcheck.org' to support your claims. The Annenberg Public Policy Center is pretty leftist - but I think you already know that...
Mouzer, since you clearly indicated things would be better if people like myself were prevented form being born by contraceptive means, I can see why you would be such a staunch defender of Ms. Sanger and her heinous worldview.
I'm trying to tabulate all of Margaret Sanger's affairs and sexual promiscuity. I'm losing count....I don't think I have enough fingers.
Like I said earlier, she was quite the lady.....!
No I never said this. I said if you want to attack Sanger then attack her on the things that she actually said. Don't take her out of context and then attack her on fantasy comments that she has made. Doing the latter is just disingenuous and a lie. Sanger's belief was that people who had abortions were murderers and that the only way to prevent abortion was to use contraception. She believed that those who were too stupid to use contraception would naturally be weeded out over time. If you don't like this- that's a perfectly fine argument- but don't make up a bunch of lies in order to attack her. Seriously all you tell people when you make up a lie to attack is that you personally can't attack her on the truth. And I think that's giving yourself less credit than you deserve. I don't have a problem w/ your existence, but I do think your political views are propagated mostly by lies, propaganda, sexism, misogyny, religious ignorance, and entitled white fear. Quite honestly if you want to bring my feelings into this subject I take every time I post to you as a reaching out to you because I pitty you.
This comment has nothing to do w/ anything. First off it's irrelevant whether she had an affair and 'sexual promiscuity' is an ambiguous term. What's 'promiscuous' to you isn't necessarily 'promiscuous' to someone else. Lastly you are only presenting this argument as a means of attack and further derailment. I have explained to you and provided backing for how you've misquoted her. I would even be so bold as to suggest you actually read her books instead of just regurgitating crap you find on the internet. Since you did not dispute this claim I am going to assume that this makes my assumption correct that you are getting this information from biased sources as opposed to doing individual research.
While I'm cheering you on, you're really not going to get anywhere with this johnlorican person. He just isn't playing by any recognizable set of rules. You move your rook to bishop 3, and he counters with the jack of diamonds. He's in his own world, one that operates on dream logic. Keep hitting him, but don't expect anything but nonsense and hostility from him.
Mouzer's comment:
(Emphasis mine) The reference was to me. I then said this:
Mouzer then inferred that never said that...don't know how one can come to that conclusion based upon the first comment.
MeddlingMonk, thank you for your comments. I, of course, have yet to make a 'hostile' comment or one that represents nonsense. Interestingly, after I commented on the article about the academic ethicists rationalizing why a mother shouldn't have the right to destroy her recently-born child - if she can do it in a pre-born state (abortion), I was called several names like 'slabhead, ignorant' among others....and, of course, these are comments from folks who are always talking about the need for 'tolerance.'
My dear, the hostility is coming from others - not from myself....
I didn't dispute the claim - largely because I have a life to live. I have a job, a wife, three children - and outside interests.
You go to 'objective sources' like the Annenberg Public Policy Center whose 'fact checkers' consist of left-wing academics who pen books about 'Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing media machine' and end up on the various broadcasts of Bill Moyers; hardly a centrist on anything...
The essential truth is that Margaret Sanger was a promiscuous woman, she had multiple affairs with married men, she had a heinous worldview on the birthing practices of minorities and the handicapped - and she foisted that destructive worldview upon the world via Planned Parenthood.
The sad truth is the American government supports her efforts to the tune of millions of dollars - so, sadly, her legacy lives on.
It's impossible to know the scarring effects that organization has had on women. I can't tell you the number of women I've heard on radio/television/internet who have lamented their abortions from up to decades past - and how Planned Parenthood informed them about nothing. They describe nothing but miserable experiences......talk about a TRUE 'War On Women!'
Living in the St. Louis area, I find it interesting that the Planned Parenthood centers are planted right smack in the middle of poor - and of minority - neighborhoods.
I guess abortions are profitable in those areas...how sad. How tragic.....
@johnlorican
I never called you a name. Well, except speculating that you were a real estate agent due to your comments on the location of the embryo/fetus/infant in the "ethics" article from your original post. And, I specifically stated that I was making a joke of "name calling" you a real estate agent. I like real estate agents. Some are even friends of mine (yes, another joke).
Your response to me was to "label" me as a leftist (name calling/labeling).
As I have stated in my early posts, I never called you a name. I never labeled you. However, I did ask you questions; such as: if you were female (you are not), if you were an OB-GYN (you are not), if you were a medical doctor or nurse (you are not), and your religion (you didn't specify, nor should you have to. That's up to you. Your comments seem to infer that you are religious. Please correct me if I am wrong.)
Again, I will state that I attempted to have a civil conversation with you, without labels, yet you could not do the same. Why is that?
I also wrote:
You have yet to respond to this comment I made.
Casere, I never said I called you a name - and, technically, I didn't even call you a 'leftist.'
I DID say you had a leftist response because your opinions were reflective of a left-wing point of view.
As to your 'location' joke, I suppose one might consider it funny....however, I was making serious points on a very serious subject - abortion.....and though I love to laugh, I guess I find it challenging to make a joke about ANYTHING surrounding that sensitive subject....
All this pollyanna fails to consider that the vast majority of women are not impacted by PP elimination or other war on women efforts. If PP has 3 million patients that is about 1% of American women. Of these many are teenagers or non-citizens--none of whom can vote. Others often come from low turnout demographics. Many middle income women either already receive birth control, etc. coverage through their employer insurance wo co-pays or very low co-pays because of earlier non-discrimination legislation.
Are most women going to vote based on impacts on other woman or on their own economic situation?
Not much difference.
Many people seem upset with Republican men who "care so much
for women" that they want them to have vaginal exams--shoving
a probe up their body part.
I say we should show the love for their concern.
How do we do that? Well, first of all we start with their premise that all sex is for procreation only. So we decide on an upper age that is good and proper to become a father...say 45. So we won't even consider prescribing Viagra to anyone over 45.
Second, we have to determine if they are in good physical shape to be able to take care of the proposed baby, so they must undergo a complete physical including shoving a scope up their rectum to take a look around.
Now if they pass the physical, then it's on to the sperm test. They must have a high sperm count and also the sperm must be viable--to produce a baby, so the doctor sticks a needle up their penis to extract a fair amount of sperm for a viability test.
Passing this, then it's on to the counseling part of the exam. The man's wife (not partner) must join him in the doctor's office and later for an hour of sex therapy for them both to 'tell all' about the sexual dysfunction of the husband.
Then one more hour of why this man wants to father a child now. And finally a look at his finances to determine if he has the financial where-with-all to support a child at this time.
A final chapter might be a look at his religious beliefs -- does he subscribe the 'correct' religious system? And lastly a psychological test to determine if he is of sound mind. (The cost of all these exams to be paid for the man asking for Viagra.)
Passing all of these tests with an A+, prescribe Viagra, and then publish his name in the daily newspaper under the title 'Sexually Dysfunctional Men.'
Show the love, people! Show the love!
Once upon a time, in the not-so-distant past few hundred years, powerful
religiouspolitical men were able to control theircongregationsconstituencies through threats of loss ofreligious favor (going to h*ll)personal religious choices, healthcare, jobs, etc.These powerful
religiouspolitical men stated that a woman's only place was to be submissive to men.These powerful
religiouspolitical men created a process to eliminate the threat of non-submissive women and non-compliant men.This process was called a witch-hunt.
Anything seem familiar?
Of the (very roughly) estimated 100,000 individuals condemned as witches from 1300 AD - 1700 AD, approximately 80% were women. Of those individuals who were tortured and killed the estimate is roughly 85%. Numbers are rough estimates since most records of this shameful time have been destroyed or restricted.*
*http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25002078?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=55924601843
Many people seem upset with Republican men who "care so much
for women" that they want them to have vaginal exams--shoving
a probe up their body part.
I say we should show the love for their concern.
How do we do that? Well, first of all we start with their premise that all sex is for procreation only. So we decide on an upper age that is good and proper to become a father...say 45. So we won't even consider prescribing Viagra to anyone over 45.
Second, we have to determine if he is in good physical shape to be able to take care of the proposed baby, so he must undergo a complete physical including shoving a scope up their rectum to take a look around.
Now if he passes the physical, then it's on to the sperm test. He must have a high sperm count and also the sperm must be viable--to produce a baby, so the doctor sticks a needle up his penis to extract a fair amount of sperm for a viability test.
Passing this, then it's on to the counseling part of the exam. The man's wife (not partner) must join him in the doctor's office and later for an hour of sex therapy for them both to 'tell all' about the sexual dysfunction of the husband.
Then one more hour of why this man wants to father a child now. And finally a look at his finances to determine if he has the financial where-with-all to support a child at this time.
A final chapter might be a look at his religious beliefs -- does he subscribe the 'correct' religious system? And lastly a psychological test to determine if he is of sound mind. (The cost of all these exams to be paid for the man asking for Viagra.)
Passing all of these tests with an A+, prescribe Viagra, and then publish his name in the daily newspaper under the title "Sexually Dysfunctional Men."
Show the love, people! Show the love!
Thank you! You said it so much better than I could.
Does anyone here really think it's a coincidence that JUST when we are talking about income inequality and taxing the rich and top 1% vs the rest of us that the political right (the lackeys of the top 1%) gin up the religious right base about issues that resonate deep into their pathology? Do you really think the political right and financial right would have EVER turned towards things like redefining rape, employers denying contraceptive coverage, defunding pap smears or legalizing domestic violence IF we weren't in danger of hitting them where they really live? The reason they are allowing the crazies to take the lead may in part be to make Rmoney seem moderate by comparison ultimately, but also because lower income people across the strata were considering and agreeing with the idea that corps should not be people, that there's too much money in politics, that the rich should pay more and that our privatized health care system is killing us......desperate times call for desperate measures. How much of this is a game of FINALLY giving the nutbags in the religious right the go-ahead they've always wanted to take us back, back, back in time and how much of that game is about distraction? Notice we aren't talking about OWS or the 99% so much right now...now we are desperately playing their game and trying to keep long established rights. I've said it before....the GOP is truly evil. The right is truly and deeply wrong.
Nice one.
I think, though, that one reason we haven't been talking about Occupy so much (apart from the breakups of the encampments) has been the fact of winter. There are more signs of new life than just vegetation these days. I wouldn't dare predict what all we'll be talking about in the coming months.
To those who said women should pay for birth control if they want it: All men who want contraception--vasectomies--should also pay for it. When the men are paying for their contraception, then we can talk about parity. (Ever heard the Catholic Bishops mention contraception & vasectomy in the same sentence?)
I've spent 45 years on this: Just get your Government hands out of my womb!
Not just women issues, they should concern men too. that is if they are real men. Those laws are allowing the government to rape your wife. Pull your head out of your ass and say enough is enough and when it's time to vote remember this because your wife will never forget!!!!!!!!!!!
In the 15, 16, and 1700s, it was not unusual for men to have several wives in a lifetime. Why? Girls were married at 14 and frequently dead in childbirth by 16. Thank goodness, due to advances in medical science, that is no longer the case. Thanks to contraception, women may explore their sexuality without fear of unwanted pregnancy. But when the birth control fails or a woman is the victim of violence, and there is an unwanted or unforseen pregnancy, there is an option. Babies should always be born to mothers and/or fathers who will love them, treat them well, properly feed, clothe, house and educate them. They should NEVER be born into situations where they are not wanted because that often leads to abuse. Abortion should not always be the first option...but it has a place as AN option. And men need to remember that without the women they are waging war against, none of THEM would be here.