Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
I don’t think Barry Goldwater would recognize Conservatism or his Republican Party if he was alive today. Conservatism used to mean belief in safe and sound economic spending and freedom for all from governments getting too large and too restrictive on personal freedoms. Recently we have seen Republicans offer up a brand new and dangerous definition of rape in an attempt to restrict abortions and to restrict government money being used to pay for them. Now we are seeing another Republican attempt to restrict the use of contraceptives under the guise of ending the alleged use of Federal funds to pay for abortions.
A recent article outlined the legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Spence of Indiana to eliminate the entire $327 million dollar budget for Title X. Title X is a program that provides funding for women’s health and family planning costs. “The measure would eliminate all $327 million in funding for Title X, a family planning program that began 40 years ago under President Richard Nixon. And while Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the program, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services. The money is to be used for noncontroversial family planning services, mostly for low-income families.”
Rep. Spence and his fellow Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood because it receives millions from Title X funds to assist women in their family planning and health matters. In order to try to end abortions without testing the strength of Roe v. Wade in the courts, the sponsors and backers of this bill don’t care if low-income women suffer by not getting the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these same legislators also backed the repeal of the Affordable Health Care act which would also assist low-income women get affordable health care.
The proposed legislation would end all monies from Title X and the effects of those funds drying up could be catastrophic for women. “The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL said the legislation would lead to more unwanted pregnancies by cutting funding for contraceptives. “The new anti-choice House leadership now wants to take away birth control and cancer screenings from millions of American women and men,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL. “While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that’s the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy. Americans will not stand for this blatant hypocrisy.” ‘
Is it just me or do I detect a pattern here? What do these mostly male Republicans have against women? I was thinking of writing an article asking when America will have its own “Egyptian” moment, but maybe I should ask when will American Women have their “Egyptian” moment?
Source: Raw Story
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
rafflaw
1, February 14, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Blouise,Buddha, Woosty et al,
Great job this morning dealing with the religious right that seems to have reappeared. I do like the idea of getting to pick where my tax money goes to, but it is interesting what the Right would pay for and what the Left would pay for.
=====================================================
Re religious right … I view answering their claims on this blog as a form of welfare on my part. I’m sure they’re posting for peanuts so if I respond they get to write back, make a little more “egg” money … I’m a softie that way …
Besides, they’re all probably looking at cutbacks due to the money Breitbart is going to have to redirect to the lawyers handling his civil suit.
This is really getting interesting now.
Tootie, have you checked out the out of wedlock pregnancy rates in right wing states as compared to left wing states? You are in for a surprise. Furthermore, if you don’t want pwople to call you names, don’t call lefty women and lefty men stupid. Just a suggestion.
BIL and Stamford,
The Republicans and Tootie and BBB really want to protect their fetuses, but if they get sick after they are born, let someone else take care of them.
I’m laughing my ass off at you for laughing about your ignorance of biology.
A human fetus, biologically speaking, is both human and alive.
Awwwww.
“Screw you.”
I’m so . . . laughing my ass off at your inability to understand basic biology, BBB.
BIL,
“If you can’t live outside the womb?
You’re not alive.”
Now who’s resorting to fairy tale in lieu of science? It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It meets the scientific criteria for life. Just because you don’t desire to recognize it as life doesn’t make it any less living.
“You certainly don’t subscribe to logic either.”
Screw you!
It’s not surprising that Stamford Liberal would mimic your ways.
Stamford Liberal,
I just didn’t think I’d have to s-p-e-l-l out for you that at 23 weeks, chances of viability are nil and anything before 21 weeks is well, nil.
Nil; nothing; naught; zero
Now I understand. Like BIL, you make up your own definition for words.
BBB:
No wiggle room and no need to call me a liar, sport. I just didn’t think I’d have to s-p-e-l-l out for you that at 23 weeks, chances of viability are nil and anything before 21 weeks is well, nil. Sorry, I thought you were smart. Obviously not. My bad. Therefore:
A fetus is LESS VIABLE outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival.
There, all better?
—————————————————————–
Taliban Tootie:
Other than point out what an angry and bitter white woman you are, there’s really no need to respond to the rest of the vomit you call a post.
BBB,
If you can’t live outside the womb?
You’re not alive.
You are, to the extent you are anything more than just a grouping of cells, a potential, but not an actuality.
You may not subscribe to a religion.
You certainly don’t subscribe to logic either.
Stamford Liberal,
“Did you bother reading the whole post? You, either willfully or not, skipped over the following sentence:”
Quoting yourself from your previous post “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival.”
“I never said it couldn’t happen. What I did say was that statistically, its chances are slim. Common sense would then dictate that since a fetus has a 20 to 35% chance of survival at 23 weeks, the percentages for survival would drop for each week prior to 23 weeks.”
Are you honestly trying to say that you did not say a fetus was not viable prior to 23 weeks? What part of your statement “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation” says that it is less viable under 23 weeks? You must not know the difference between “not viable” and “less viable”. You stated that at 23 weeks “it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival”, but, by your own statement, you ruled out viability prior to 23 weeks.
If you didn’t mean what you said, accept the correction. Following it up with “I never said it couldn’t happen” when your own words said “A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation” makes you a liar in the face of evidence to the contrary. Following it with “What I did say was that statistically, its chances are slim” is just another lie.
You’re searching for wiggle room where none exists.
I realize that left-winger women are very stupid and get themselves pregnant when they didn’t want to be, yet expect to get a do-over.
And I realize that a good many of them are so ugly and evil that even their men don’t even want anything to do with their spawn. It also appears that the lefty men are so ugly and evil their women want nothing in remembrance of the engagement.
It is understandable that lefties cannot tolerate what happens after they copulate with each other. I get it. It is a disgusting thing all around and their reaction to it is the evidence.
And, though its good politically, from my standpoint, that such stupid, ugly, and evil people are not reproducing, it s still not the little ones fault.
But Title X is unconstitutional anyway.
Congress had and has no authority to pay for non-military womens medical services. Not under Nixon and not now.
It is not an enumerated power and unconnected to the general welfare and defense.
And if people cared about what happened to these stupid lefty women they could get good state programs to help with the problem. Especially the problem with left-wing women being too stupid to get the birds and bees story.
“destroying …”
Swarthmore mom:
No problem, it happens all the time 🙂
Stamford used to be a sleepy little hamlet way back in the day but since it has grown as much as it has, and is so close to NYC, it’s considered part of the NY Metro area. Hell, even my own state government considers this part of CT more NY than CT!
I’m sorry to hear what they’re doing in Texas, but it doesn’t surprise me. Particularly where Perry is concerned. I’m sure he’s foaming at the mouth in the hopes of destroy those damned “liberal” policies.
Swarthmore Mom,
Can you convice Gov. Perry to make good on his desire to secede? The whole country would be better off.
eniobob,
that was an interesting link. He was way too nice in his dissection of the nonsense that the Right wing tries to pawn off as facts. He did do a good job in mentioning some of the biggest offenders, but he missed a couple .
Stamford liberal: Sorry I referred to you as Stanford Liberal. I know where Stamford is. Have driven through there on vacation. The legislature here in Texas is passing the legislation requiring the sonogram and Gov. Perry is all for it.
Check out some of the comments to this editorial and you will see how we got to where we are,Talk about eating your own.
Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America’
Some conservatives call the president the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so consumed with hatred that he’s willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132631175113322.html?mod=WSJ_comments_MoreIn_Opinion
Swarthmore mom
“Stanford Liberal: It does mine to, but once Boehner replaced Nancy Pelosi, it was sure to happen. The republicans have made cutting family planning services and eliminating abortion a priority. Some states have fast tracked anti-abortion legislation.”
I agree – I can guarantee that John of Orange and his buddies were chomping at the bit. The Right is already drafting bills in the CT legislature to force women to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion but since the legislature and the governor’s office are firmly Democrat, the chances of passage are slim to none.
—————————————————————–
BBB:
““A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation.”
That’s not true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html
“Because this bright, beguiling toddler was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation”
Did you bother reading the whole post? You, either willfully or not, skipped over the following sentence:
“A fetus is not viable outside of the womb until, at minimum, 23 weeks of gestation. At that point, it has a 20 to 35% chance of survival.”
I never said it couldn’t happen. What I did say was that statistically, its chances are slim. Common sense would then dictate that since a fetus has a 20 to 35% chance of survival at 23 weeks, the percentages for survival would drop for each week prior to 23 weeks.
Blouise,Buddha, Woosty et al,
Great job this morning dealing with the religious right that seems to have reappeared. I do like the idea of getting to pick where my tax money goes to, but it is interesting what the Right would pay for and what the Left would pay for.
Someone earlier stated that they didn’t like stare decisis because if it wasn’t for stare decisis, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned by now. I am paraphrasing, but I think I got it right. If the Republicans who are waging this back door approach to end all abortions had really wanted to end abortions, couldn’t they have done that during the Bush years when they controlled both houses of Congress and White House? They need abortion to be legal to keep the religious right stirred up. One more Republican boogey man that we are supposed to worry about.
HenMan
1, February 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm
The last clause in the proposed anti-abortion, anti-birth control legislation reads:
“None of the above restrictions shall apply to any mistresses, call girls, hookers, bimbos, or lap dancers associated with any United States Senator or Member of the House of Representatives”.
======================================================
You nailed that one
“Also, a general point of advice: If you want me to believe you’re the side of logic and reason, don’t use a slur to describe the other side.”~ Shirenomad
_______________________________________
You are absolutely right, my discourse has become shoddy and I don’t care for name calling either. Apologies.
—————————
From Woosty: “Other Societies do not make it an either -or- situation.”
“And neither do we. Acts that are undeniably murder may still be excused by reasons of justifiable homicide or necessity. If the situation the woman has been placed in is truly atrocious, then I excuse an abortion on THOSE grounds, NOT by pretending a child is not really a child.”~Shire nomad
———-
Yes, we do. That is what this conversation is about….further erosion of rights and more hardship placed on the backs of women. It is nothing about whether or not YOU excuse abortion. The ramifications of these political posturings go ***far***beyond***abortion***. If you need a comparison, how about those who blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors call themselves ‘Pro-Life.”