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
And now a word from George Carlin:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM&w=480&h=390]
Chan:
“Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. Then a condom wouldn’t even be necessary”
That has to be one of the most sexist and pig-ish comments I have ever seen posted here. Congrats, kid. You’ve managed to surpass my already low opinion of you.
“My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking. No planned or unplanned pregnancies around these parts.”
My guess is she recognized your, uh, short-comings. Smart girl.
Woosty’s still a Cat
(Really like your new Avatar- I enjoy that you change yours)
question….
I know there is a separate Federal health insurance plan for our representatives and the families of our representatives. Does this plan cover abortion? Any type of birth control? Viagra? Mammograms? Pap smears? Male checkups for testicular cancer?
—
Unless there is a special, secret exemption for Senators and Representatives, the President, staff etc. no plan offered to federal employees contains a provision for abortion coverage, that is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment.
The language in most of the plans is kind of fuzzy though when you get to emergency care. Most emergency care is covered with language that leads one to suspect all necessary care will be covered, so if a medical abortion were necessary as emergency treatment one suspects it would be covered. But we are dealing with insurance companies and crazy laws so who knows.
As to the other aspects of women’s and men’s health you asked about, it depends on the plan contents. There is a choice among insurance plans. The specific checkups you asked about are not prohibited and are included in some plans. The members of the federal workforce, depending on the coverage they buy, can have access to the kinds of health maintenance that poor women will be denied if the attack on Planned Parenthood funding goes through.
Gyges,
Women like sex–but not with male weasels who look upon women as second class citizens and as beings who should be subservient to men. Women like sex with REAL men–you know, the guys who are self-confident, respectful, treat women as equals, and who care what we have to say.
😉
Gyges,
Right … I keep forgetting
Blouise,
No, see the way this works is men always like sex, but only bad women like sex. The rest just put up with it when they need things from men. Or at least that’s what T.V. taught me.
Chan L.,
Why is it that you only recommend “education” for women on these sexual issues–and not men? It appears to me that you have a double standard. You seem to think only women are responsible when they get pregnant. If a woman doesn’t say no–a man can’t put on a condom? You don’t think a male should take any responsibility–or any precautions in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies…or the spreading or contracting of STDs?
Chan L.
1, February 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Elaine:
…..
My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking.
…………
============================================
Had you had the proper control of your own sexual urges she wouldn’t have had to say no because you wouldn’t have asked. Fathers used to teach this to their sons back in the good ol’ days. Many still do.
Chan L.
1, February 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Elaine:
Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. …
===============================================
And men
“Just say no to copulation or coitus wont beat us.”~Chan
I’m glad that works for you Chan….and since it works for you we should ALL say no.
ShireNomad,
“But regardless, under Roe, absolutely the debate comes back to “is the fetus a person?” Arguing that privacy is the only factor forgets the key caveat I quoted.”
—
My response to your posting was 3 sentences long:
“With all respect due, no, it doesn’t. The debate in law always comes back to the Forth Amendment regarding privacy. That is the basis for Roe v Wade. The Court has always applied a balancing test that involves viability as well as the health of the mother but the issue still boils down to privacy at its heart. If it didn’t, any state or the federal government could prohibit all abortion.”
You argue as if I did not incorporate the viability and health of the mother in the equation. I did. You are putting the cart before the horse. The viability/health statements were qualifying factors to the heart of the decision. The heart of the decision was not viability but privacy, it moved from there to qualifying factors regarding the balancing of the states interest in preserving life (viability) as well as the health of the mother.
I suspect from your postings that you want life to be determined from conception. Unless Roe is overturned or the entire of medical knowledge about human reproduction is thrown out that won’t happen. To conflate Roe with Dred Scott does not move me. If I were to give the cases any equivalence I would argue that to force all pregnancies to term would be to work an indentured servitude or slavery on women because the state finds the potential life of a fetus is of more value than the actual life of woman. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits that.
Elaine:
Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. Then a condom wouldn’t even be necessary.
My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking. No planned or unplanned pregnancies around these parts.
Just say no to copulation or coitus wont beat us.
“I also think sonograms should be a woman’s choice. It should not be forced on women through legislation.” StamfordLiberal
Oh I agree 1000%…and I agree with you on education starting waaaaaay before conception, before sexual activity is even better! …which is another reason the attack on Planned Parenthood is bizarre…it’s NOT about abortion at all…abortion is simply the fulcrum used to sway peoples emotions. Education decreases abortions, education empowers women, education is easier, less expensive, more effective…who and why keep young women in the dark?
rafflaw,
The Court in Roe determined that viability includes that assisted by artificial means. As those artificial means improve, the minimum period of gestation decreases. The holding in Casey is evidence of just that effect. The Court understood that viability has changed, and that changed the time when the state’s interest effected the woman’s rights.
“How are you defining “ilk”?”
I don’t know any people from Rafflaw or Rafferty, so I must be conforming to the currently accepted usage. I was not aware that the usage could be complimentary or not.
Bob,Esq.,
Well said.
———————————————————–
Wootsy’s still a Cat:
Education is key but it needs to start before conception, not after. Many parents don’t want the responsibility of teaching anything outside of abstinence; The Right throws a hissy fit at the mention of proper sex ed being taught in our schools; The Rabid Right wants to take birth control completely out of the equation. So, where does that leave us?
I also think sonograms should be a woman’s choice. It should not be forced on women through legislation.
Bob Esq.,
Doesn’t it strike you funny that the social compact didn’t interfere with the protection of unborn life until nearly 200 years after it was adopted? Wasn’t abortion after quickening illegal at common law? Doesn’t quickening mean “coming to life”? And wasn’t quickening the only available method of knowing that an unborn life existed?
I guess our social compact would need to have the word “created” better defined. (Can we please get past the definition of “natural-born citizen” first?) 🙂
Argumentum ad absurdum? No. ad nauseum. Yes.
“Your argument that advances in science that will eventually make a fertilized egg a ‘viable human’ ignores the boundaries set forth within the social compact.”
I don’t know where it will eventually end up. I have yet to accurately predict the future. 200 years ago, I doubt most would think abortion would eventually be legalized.
“Without the first trimester DMZ, so to speak, your policy necessitates the exercise of power over an individual’s right of self ownership and determination.”
Our scientific knowledge about unborn human life has greatly increased since Roe. I doubt the same judges could arrive at the same conclusion if they were to rely on currently established facts regarding fetal development.
Chan L.,
“I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.”
How about all you guys “getting educated” about how and when to use prophylactics? We wouldn’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies and abortions if you fellas took a little more responsibility!!!
😉
seriously….are people being paid to blog here?
“I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.”~Chan
———————–
I agree. The problem is that education is not the same as scare tactics and manipulation. Counseling needs be done respectfully and by properly trained medical personnel and $$$ support for ANY choice the mother makes…for care, the birth, the abortion, the FOLLOWUP needs to be made available. Education needs to be conducted in a way that ALL the possible choices are made known…so an informed CHOICE can be made by the mother. Enough with the divisive double standard crap.
BBB,
I think maybe you are misunderstanding me or I didn’t make myself clear. Roe v. Wade determined what viability means for the law. I am happy that doctors may be able to use pulmonary surfactants to aid in the breathing of pre-term fetuses or infants, but it doesn’t relate to what goal posts the Supreme Court put up in Roe v. Wade as amended by the Casey case. When the court moves the goal post then you will have something to crow about.
I saw that Gallup poll that you mention and their has been a change in the numbers, but a Pew Research poll still has the pro choice numbers ahead of the pro-life numbers. http://people-press.org/report/549/support-for-abortion-slips
According to the Supreme Court, your definition of life is not the law of the land. I care for everyone’s life, including the woman’s life. I try hard for someone of my “ilk”. How are you defining “ilk”? I don’t suppose it is complimentary.