Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Stephen Morgan wrote:Except no-one is being forbidden from aborting, are they? Rather, it's being made less convenient for them to do so. If they want an abortion, they can still get one, they just might have to jump through a couple of extra hoops to get to it. People with no medical coverage, on the other hand, die slow and painful deaths every day because of the lack of healthcare in America, which isn't the case in the rest of the civilised world.
Joe Hillshoist wrote:Stephen Morgan wrote:Except no-one is being forbidden from aborting, are they? Rather, it's being made less convenient for them to do so. If they want an abortion, they can still get one, they just might have to jump through a couple of extra hoops to get to it. People with no medical coverage, on the other hand, die slow and painful deaths every day because of the lack of healthcare in America, which isn't the case in the rest of the civilised world.
Seriously Stephen how are those two things remotely related.
Its like saying you're not entitld to the dole cos of the plastic in the Pacific Ocean.
Welcome back, by the way. Unless you've been back for a bit and I just haven't noticed.
We're talking about the provision of health care, so whether their are children with none at all is relevant when we're talking about mandating private health insurers to provide birth control.
In the Noble Name of Freedom, Arizona Says No Slutty-Slut Pills For You Unless We Say So
by Abby Zimet
The latest insanity in lady news comes from Arizona, where the state Senate passed a measure giving employers the power to deny prescribed birth control pills to any female employee unless she provides proof she's not using it for, umm, birth control. No, really. And it's all about freedom ie: the freedom of a few wackos to tell the rest of us how to live. Bonus: Today's Doonesbury.
“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So government should not be telling organizations or employers to do something against their moral beliefs… My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion.” - Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, author of Arizona House Bill 2625
Stephen Morgan wrote:Except no-one is being forbidden from aborting, are they?
Stephen Morgan wrote:So, rest assured, if you think you have the "right" to an abortion, you're wrong.
Georgia Republican Compares Women to Cows, Pigs, And Chickens
By Adam Peck on Mar 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Republican Georgia State Representative Terry England
A speech from a Georgia Republican state representative surfaced last week in which he compared women seeking abortions of stillborn fetuses to cows and pigs.
State Rep. Terry England was speaking in favor of HB 954, which makes it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks even if the woman is known to be carrying a stillborn fetus or the baby is otherwise not expected to live to term.
He then recalled his time working on a farm:
“Life gives us many experiences…I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive. Delivering pigs, dead or alive. It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”
Suggesting that if a cow or pig can give birth to a dead baby, then a woman should too was not enough for Rep. England though. He then delivered an anecdote to the chamber in which a young man who was apparently opposed to legislation outlawing chicken fighting said he would give up all of his chickens if the legislature simply took away women’s right to an abortion.
Watch the unreal remarks, courtesy of amateur videographer Bryan Long:
Georgia Republican Compares Women to Cows, Pigs, And Chickens
Why Is The GOP Turning Against Anti-Domestic-Violence Legislation?
By Amanda Marcotte | Posted Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 11:26 AM ET
The most important thing to remember as Republicans pose as victims of Democrats igniting a culture war over women's rights is this: Republicans are not required to take the bait. They were not required to try to pass legislation restricting women's ability to use their own insurance to cover contraception. They don't have to draft laws allowing your boss to fire you if you use contraception. They're not obligated to think of new and interesting ways to shame women for seeking abortion, nor are they forced to sound like perverts and lechers when discussing these issues. They could always opt out, and simply let women have their rights without fighting us on this.
So when they strike the victim pose with regard to the Violence Against Women Act--accusing Democrats of being meanie bears who make them look like they're against women simply by asking them to vote on a bill that protects women from domestic violence--it's important to remember that no one is holding a gun against Republican heads and telling them to vote against VAWA. As Irin Carmon demonstrates, the excuses for refusing to vote for VAWA, which previously had a great deal of Republican support (just like contraception!), are impressively thin, even for Republican excuses. The claim is that they can't support women and men who suffer from domestic violence because this bill has special provisions for Native Americans and immigrants, and because the bill doesn't seem to go far enough to exclude LGBT victims of domestic violence from receiving help. The "we can't help women because we might accidentally help non-white people and queer people" argument isn't really the winning strategy in trying to convince people that your politics are based in anything but pure mean-spiritedness.
Just as with the contraception issue, the Republican revolt against domestic violence reduction legislation was predictable enough to anyone watching the right carefully, and watching the Republican turn to the right. The far right that opposes contraception, gay rights, and abortion also has opposed VAWA since the beginning. It's seen by the far right as an assault on "the family," i.e., on the absolute authority of straight men over their families. They also oppose it because their misogyny leads them to believe that many to most accusations of domestic violence are lies, and that women make it up so they can get out of marriage. (Even the most polished right winger working this angle can't help but portray marriage as a form of indentured servitude for women. They just simply reject women's right to say no to it, and suggest women would be happier if they would just submit.) Phyllis Schlafly is especially concerned that women might leave and get protection even without getting a sound beating first, and she doesn't even bother to frame constant belittling, screaming, and threats of violence as anything but a man's God-given wife-control rights. As Carmon establishes, the women-should-be-trapped-in-marriage attitude underlies the opposition to VAWA from Concerned Women for America as well, with the group issuing a press release arguing the act offers women a "'tactical advantage'" if they "want out of a marriage for any reason at all." There are lots of accusations from the right that domestic violence legislation somehow strips men of their right to due process; they're presumably referring to the existence of restraining orders that don't actually deprive men of their freedom, but simply require them to stay away from their ex-wives or girlfriends. Unless you believe in an absolute right of men to harass and stalk the woman of their choosing, this argument is something of a stretch.
Because of all this, we can safely assume Republicans are turning against VAWA as part of the larger embrace of extreme right wing views with regard to health care, unions, women's rights, and voting rights. If they're successful, the effects could be devastating. VAWA has had a dramatic impact on lowering rates of domestic violence and especially homicide, but those gains could easily be reversed if the federal support simply vanished.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests