They don’t call um the American Taliban fo nuttin.
The anti-contraception shit that’s been coming up is starting to scare me. As an American citizen I deserve the right to decide when I want a child and an employer shouldn’t be able to fire me because they don’t believe I should be on the Pill (as they can do in Arizona now). When I do become sexually active I should have the right to take whatever measures I choose to prevent pregnancy while still being able to pay the rent and feed myself. And yet, as time goes on, I become more and more terrified that those things will be taken away from me. Seeing legislation like what Maddow talked about in that video makes me think that any woman who supports the Republican party in this is woefully ignorant about what the feminist movement has done for women in America. We fought for our right to enter the workplace and get an education and decide when to have children and how many children to have… I don’t want to go back to the kitchen. I want my career. And I want my birth control, god damn it.
That third cartoon cuts both ways, you know. It’s silly to dismiss that there’s a war on religion, Christmas or jobs while claiming this war on women is totally legit.
@randomneuralfirings - Technically, that’s the second cartoon. Also, there aren’t laws being passed to keep people from practicing religion or celebrating Christmas. Last I checked Christmas was still a national holiday.
It’s a scary time to be a woman in America. We’re being compared to livestock, called sluts, and basically being told that we don’t have the right to any power or control over our own bodies. We’re reverting back to a 60 year old mentality about sex and a “woman’s place”, and it makes me sick. I have every right to decide when or if I would like to have children and my views on that topic should not restrict my access to employment, or affordable healthcare.
there is absolutely a war on women being waged by the right. 100s of legislative proposals from ways to stop birth control to ending a much needed option millions of women take advantage of to get tested for breast and cervical cancer. it’s sick. the last cartoon is brilliant.
When referring to the term “War on ___” , it signifies an intent to eliminate those things. So what exactly is the “War on Women”? And why is it that WOMEN find the “War on Women” to be ridiculous? I hate to agree with Palin (but will readily admit when I do, as I even have on my blog)…but she is right…this is a strawman attack. Its not necessarily the case that a “War on Abortion” equals “War on Women”. (So logically, all republican or anti-abortion women actually hate women? Come on). And frankly, even if I were pro-abortion, I’d find the “War on Women” slogan to be gimmicky, deceitful, and embarrassing. Btw, I’m not entirely anti-abortion (though I lean that way for philosophical reasons)….I have mixed feelings on the subject really….but this “War on Women” nonsense is retarded.@Lost_In_Reverie - ”It’s a scary time to be a woman in America.” You can’t be serious. SCARY time to be a women in America? How scary is it? An odd statement considering its the absolute best time in American history to be a woman. What time in American history was it less scary?
@wizexel22 - [When referring to the term "War on ___" , it signifies an intent to eliminate those things.]According to whom? When we go to war with nations, we don’t seek to wipe them out.[And why is it that WOMEN find the "War on Women" to be ridiculous?]SOME women. And a reminder, SOME Japanese felt that the internment camps set up during WWII were justified.[Its not necessarily the case that a "War on Abortion" equals "War on Women".]It’s also the fact that women make less than men for the same job, are being denied access to birth control, have laws controlling domestic violence being reduced, and are having pregnancy benefits cut.
@wizexel22 - Just because there are points in history, or countries around the world where it is worse to be a woman doesn’t mean that it is a party here. Women are being discriminated against, degraded, and there is no question about the fact that there are serious attempts to strip us of our rights via legislation. Because of Amendment One in North Carolina, protection for women who, for example, are the victims of domestic abuse, but are not married, is no longer valid. In Wisconsin, the Equal Pay Law was repealed, making it harder for women to fight discrimination in the workplace. (It’s common knowledge that we still don’t make as much as men do). And that’s before we even get into the main issue on the table these days… women’s health. Because of Rick Perry’s vendetta against Planned Parenthood in Texas, the state lost ALL of its funding for women’s health programs. In Arizona, there is legislation being pushed through by Republicans that states that if I am on the birth control pill and cannot prove that I am using it for a health issue instead of for contraception, my employer is legally allowed to fire me. Further more, employers who do not have any religious affiliation would be allowed to deny insurance coverage for the pill. Oh, did I mention that it’s already perfectly legal for a doctor to lie to a woman about the results of prenatal tests in order to prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? That’s right, if a doctor has information about the health of a women’s fetus, and they think it might cause the woman to abort the baby, they can just keep that information to themselves. Not to mention the variety of rules and regulations across the nation making obtaining an abortion (which, you know, you have a legal right to do) incredibly difficult, if not impossible for some women. From 24 hour waiting periods, to parental consent and notification laws, to the locations of providers, to legislation seeking to shorten the window in which you may obtain an abortion, the entire process can be downright dangerous. (If you think I’m exaggerating, think of what could happen to a victim of rape, incest, or abuse if she had to notify her parents, or sneak away from her abuser to drive across state lines on more than one occasion in order to obtain an abortion.)But let’s take a step back from abortion for a moment, and focus on something more cheerful – motherhood. Are you a mother? If you are, you’d be better off in pretty much any European country than here in America. Hell, you’d be better off in ANY developed nation! Here in the US, we have the highest risk of maternal death of any industrialized nation, and we also have the worst maternity rights. Did you know that in this country, a woman is not legally guaranteed maternity leave? And that’s just all the things that are, you know, LEGAL issues. That’s saying nothing of the pundits and politicians running around calling us sluts, comparing us to livestock, and saying we should be forced to carry our stillborn babies. I’m sorry, do you still think I’m overreacting?
@Lost_In_Reverie - brilliant comment and true. standing ovation here. seriously
@wizexel22 - The more of your comments I read the more I find you to be an absolute idiot. I can’t imagine how you treat the women around you.
@wizexel22 - I agree, a group of people opposed to birth control and abortions does not equate to a group of people opposed to women. However, I haven’t been following the politics as of late. Are there really people who’re slamming women in particular as opposed to just promoting their religious views about birth and children? As a woman I don’t find the proposed laws particularly tasteful, but also don’t feel personally worked up about them. Maybe I’m just overly apathetic though. …Also, who tells their boss that they’re on birth control? *puzzled* Does that even come up in regular work conversation?
I’m not scared to be a woman in the US. And I’m not scared of republicans. They screw just as poorly as the democrats. Dems just wrap it in a more shocking package.
I agree that the republican party is garbage and their desire to control sexuality is both frustrating and immoral. But “war on women” to me, is laughable. It’s like that chick who claimed that being forced to get a pre-abortion ultrasound is rape. I can disagree with the unnecessary procedure without calling it rape, just like I can disagree with the psychotic fixation that republicans have with human sexuality without calling it a “war on women”.Regardless, I don’t understand the anti-abortion and anti-contraception crowds.
I am in favor of you doing whatever you need to do in order to distract everyone from the 8%+ unemployment and record deficits.
@TheTheologiansCafe - Don’t forget the never ending deficit. We print money, goddamnit, we don’t have to think about managing it!
@TheTheologiansCafe - I’m in favor in making my own damn decisions, both about my body and my finances. Don’t act as though the economy is an excuse to dictate which women are “allowed” access to birth control.
@nerdyveggiegirl - My friend, I have never dictated anything related to your birth control. I live in the U.S. You are actually allowed to go get birth control tonight if you want in the U.S.
This could just as easily be called a “war against capitalism” or a “war against freedom of religion”. If a Catholic school is forced to hand out birth control pills to their staff, that is the government controlling a religious institution. If employers are forced to hire women *just because* they are women, that is the government controlling the “free” market. Furthermore–if employers are *forced* to pay for a women’s birth control pills, how is that fair? How is the employer at all responsible for preventing a women’s pregnancy, if, in fact, she doesn’t need them for an immediate health-related need? That is something that we shouldn’t be holding to the government to control, let alone our employers. I think that is the root of “being able to fire a woman if she can’t prove she’s using birth control for a health issue”. It’s the fact that an employer doesn’t necessarily want to be responsible for paying for YOUR pregnancy prevention, NOT that you can’t use them on your dime. The matter concerning abortion–that is not a matter even concerning the rights of women, no matter how it’s painted by more liberal thinkers. I know many republicans who are fine with contraception and prevention, and so, are fine with women controlling their rate of pregnancy–but casually ending a human life, for whatever reason outside criminal sentencing, has serious philosophical implications. There is reason to be worried more for that sort of thinking, its effect against humanity as a whole, than the right trying to “control a woman”. Has the human life become something disposable as it is most pragmatically beneficial? Has human life lost its inherent value? No longer does being a human being demand the recognition of value. (I don’t know if you recall the famous line from Network, “I’m a human being, ***dammit! My life has value!”)The push for abortion to be accepted later and later into the pregnancy, to the point of killing a newborn infant even it has no health problems whatsoever, is seriously being discussed by bioethicists “as we speak”. Their argument is that to kill an infant because it is an inconvenience is perfectly acceptable because it is the same level of “person” as a fetus. Their logic is–”If it’s fine for a fetus, why isn’t it fine for an infant?” Their line of reasoning further implying that personhood is what determines whether or not we can end a human’s life for convenience’s sake. What is their definition of personhood? That is the especially frightening part of it, at least to me–frightening not just for women, but for men, for the children and elderly..for all humans. There is *no* definitive definition of personhood in their eyes–some say it begins at three years, others as twelve. But they all agree, that it truly begins when the human life can be beneficial to the rest of society–only then is it a person, and worthy of protection.Do you know what this means? Haven’t you heard this line echoed anywhere? These people are literally arguing that those who are useless–the retarded, the physically disabled, the elderly, the sick–are not worth protecting.I am usually cautious of slippery-slope arguments–I don’t necessarily believe that just because one step is taken, that many others will follow. It *could* just stop at infants. But this very same pattern could be observed in America with Margaret Sanger, and finally in Germany (America was actually funding German eugenics research centers through the 30s, obviously before we were involved in the war), when Hitler slowly filtered the ideas of eugenics through the populace, slowly. First, he did it through advocating the “merciful” killings of retarded infants–and then gradually, the “merciful” killings of retarded people of all ages, and then the elderly.Do I think Obama is comparable Hitler? Not by a long shot. But do I think this admittedly very extreme liberal attitude toward the value of human life is creepily similar to the morality-numbing practices accepted in some horrendous situations, one practice accepted after another. Do I think retarded people will be killed because some bioethicists are touting the idea of post-birth “abortions” of the retarded or perfectly healthy? Not immediately, no.But, still. It makes me afraid.As a woman, and as a woman who believes in the equality and value of women in society alongside men–I have never seen abortion as an issue of oppression over women. Rather, I have seen it as the protection, and thus, the elevation of the value of human life–for women, for men, for all.
@AmorVomnia7 - Perhaps some of those who oppose the Republicans simply like to fight dumb with dumb? Like fighting fire with fire, just a whole lot less enlightening.
@TheTheologiansCafe - We’re simply reacting to the Repukelikkkan crap. So, if anyone’s distracting from that, it’s your peeps. Moron.
@SasGal - I was once told that when Republicans screw you they only do it from behind but when Democrats screw you they may look you in the eye and give you a reach around.
@nerdyveggiegirl - Don’t make me pay for your damn birth control.
It’s astonishing to me that there are people who feel that women are “imagining” all of these attacks. Seriously? Am I imagining the two times the government almost shut down because republicans wanted to defund planned parenthood and title x completely? Funding that provides low income women, much like myself, with pap smears, breast exams and yearly check ups that I and many other women would not receive if it were not for those programs and those places. THEN they try to redefine rape and many states cut funding for already struggling domestic violence centers that provide help and information to people who have been physically abused. THEN they try to force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds before they seek abortions, whether they are wanted or not, even though it’s not medically necessary.. After all of that and more, these jerks have the fucking balls to come on here, and all over America, to say that I should be happy I live here because Women all over the world have it worse than I do? Maybe I don’t want that to happen to me and other women in this country. Are my rights and opinions less valid because of the shit going on elsewhere in the world when I live in a country that is SUPPOSED to be better than that because we have “rights”? I’m not imagining this. The entire fucking country is not “imagining” this. Then some of them have the audacity to say “I’m not sexist. I don’t hate women.” When that’s really the only explanation that makes sense here.
@soccerdadforlife - Do you even understand how all of that works? It’s apparent to me, with that line, you certainly don’t.
@soccerdadforlife - why not. she’ll have to pay for your Viagra and your psychiatrist recommended anger management classes
I saw a segment about this on The Daily Show, I believe. Who do these republicans think they’re fooling? Except, perhaps, other republicans? All these laws being passed make me SICK. There are so many, how can you even choose the worst one that’s been passed?? I think the one in Virginia is one of the worst…the one where you have to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound or whatever. How disgusting. I hate republicans because of things like this. It’s a woman’s choice, and the government (ahem, republicans), really need to take their fingers out of our vaginas. I agree that abortion needs to be regulated (for example, rules need to be in place as to when it’s too late to have an abortion, like at the point where it harms the health of the woman etc), but not like this.It definitely is a war on women….and I can’t BELIEVE that even the female republicans like Sarah Palin agree that it’s NOT a war on women and our rights O.o
@Jenny_Wren - Catholic schools are not being forced to hand out contraception to their staff. That issue has been settled to the satisfaction of Catholic leaders. That a woman’s health concerns can be considered a war on capitalism says something about what some people consider to be capitalism.
@TheSutraDude - When the ability to get pregnant is labeled as a life-threatening sickness necessary for the government to get involved, I will probably change my mind.
@Jenny_Wren - some birth control pills are prescribed not for pregnancy but medicinally as is Viagra which IS covered by insurance companies. cervical cysts is one of the conditions birth control pills are prescribed for.
@TheSutraDude - Medicine that is needed for an immediate health need–(read: to treat a sickness), is a worthy investment.
I don’t care for almost any Republican in office. But a War on Women? *facepalm*
@Jenny_Wren - yes it is but think about it. Viagra for men is covered. men get women pregnant. birth control for women who don’t want to become pregnant often for economic reasons should not be covered? it reeks of the mentality that for a man to have sex with a woman is a notch in his belt. for a woman? she’s a slut as the mouthpiece of the republican party Rush Limbaugh so eloquently pointed out about the female Duke University student after she told Congress the story of her fellow student who has cysts but could not afford the pills because they were not covered by insurance. and save me the trouble of coming back here by not telling me Rush Limbaugh is not the mouthpiece of the republican party. he was keynote speaker 2 years ago at the annual GOP convention and republicans who say something that disagrees with him get on his show and apologize, saying that’s not really what they meant.
@firetyger - don’t facepalm so quickly. literally hundreds of state and federal legislative proposals against women’s rights, health, economic stability proposed by the republican party, many passed in red states. recently a woman’s right to have legal recourse for being paid less than a man for doing the same job was overturned under Wisconsin tea party governor Scott Walker. Walker signed the repeal secrecy but of course people found out.
@Jenny_Wren - Ahhh, first of all, kudos on proving Godwin’s Law. But early in your comment, you mention that a Catholic institution being forced to hand out birth control to its staff is an example of government controlling religion. Here’s the problem: there’s a lot of dangerous-sounding language used in that description, and some inaccuracies as well. They’re not being forced to hand out birth control; they’re being required to provide health insurance coverage that covers birth control to staff members who may or may not be Catholic, and who may or may not share the beliefs of the Catholic establishment. Furthermore, failure to do so isn’t the fault of the Catholic institutions, but the insurers who are to be required to include birth control in their coverage. Thus, this isn’t truly about the employers, Catholic or otherwise, but the insurance companies.As for abortion, the government has never funded, nor required insurance companies to cover abortions through any manner of legislation. This is just a scare tactic. Abortions are almost always expensive, and paid for out-of-pocket. Whether or not they are wrong is something that is hotly debated, and while I actually agree with you and feel that abortion is deplorable, I can guarantee that even the most staunch defenders of abortion rights are not “pro-abortion”. No one in their right mind is. Abortion, at best, sucks, and at worst, is morally reprehensible. But this being America, and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment being what it is, we *cannot* legislate the religious beliefs of one group of people into law without trampling the Constitutional rights of anyone who does not share those beliefs.
@TheSutraDude - I can’t speak for Republicans, but personally, I really don’t think it makes a woman any better or worse than a man who has sex if she wants to have sex, too. There is the difficult matter that a man can’t control if he’s unable to have an erection–but a woman can control whether or not she has sex, and thus, becomes pregnant. One can’t control their condition, the other can.To be completely honest, though–I am only answering this because it seems universal healthcare is inevitable at this point. I do not believe that is the best way to care for the poor, or go about liberating people.
@Jenny_Wren - It says that as an internet thread gets longer, the likelihood increases that someone will make an argument by comparison with Hitler. It’s also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.
@TrekkieECH - I actually really agree with your last statement–that we shouldn’t legislate biblical morality over the masses in a religious fashion.But I don’t think the value of human life is something exclusive to religion. It matters in politics. The way a country views the value of a single human says everything about whether or not it is a good country.
@Jenny_Wren - i’m glad you brought that up because the target consumers for Viagra are men who are in and over the age group of women who have gone through menopause and can no longer become pregnant, not naturally anyway. there are also serious possible side effects in taking Viagra, one being heart attacks which of course costs other insured a lot to subsidize. on a humorous note there is a show called Scrubs, a comedy about a hospital. i’m not so fond of it but i caught an episode a while back. a patient had shown up in the ER because he took Viagra and had an erection for 6 hours. in the hospital cafeteria a female doctor said to the doctors with whom she was having lunch, “I wonder what it’s like to have an erection for 6 hours.” a guy at the next table blurted out, “I’ll let you know in 20 minutes.” haha
@Jenny_Wren - That’s a fair point. I used to be in high school debate, and I actually won a few Lincoln-Douglas style debates (a.k.a. debating one set of values versus another) by arguing the value of human life. It’s a tremendously important consideration. But I think, and this is just my impression, that the major complication arises because there is more than one human life under consideration here, and by outlawing abortion, women who seek abortion illegally through others or by self-action are endangering themselves in the act of doing so. It’s arguable that fewer people may consider abortion if it is illegal, but those who would seek it regardless are still human lives that are no less worthy of protection by the government. It’s a pragmatic, rather than moral solution, granted, but it’s an incredibly complicated issue. It’s hard to find a solution without *someone* having to compromise.
And to extend the point, in the United States, I think we tend to prefer our government to do the compromising, rather than its citizens, lol.
@Jenny_Wren - So basically you think Viagra should be widely available so men (who themselves may or may not want children) can continue having sex – with women, who you feel shouldn’t have widely available access to birth control because they can choose to close their legs and not have sex if they don’t want babies? Are we going to require the men requesting Viagra to sign legal contracts stating they want it in order to impregnate their wives? Maybe we should have a policy where the woman has to track her ovulation cycle and only prescribe Viagra around those times? You say you don’t hold the typical double standard about sex, but you’re statement about Viagra/birth control completely upholds that double standard.
@TheTheologiansCafe - You do realize it’s the REPUBLICANS who are passing all these laws, right?
@Melissa___Dawn - It’s not a double standard. The standard for medication that I think is fair, if it must be covered by healthcare, is medicine for any existing sickness or health condition. I am not singling ED out–but, it is a “condition”. The ability to be pregnant is *not* a condition. That’s the trouble I have. I personally think women can and should use contraceptives, so I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the government preventing women’s pregnancies, just because they *could* get pregnant. Frankly, that’s not the government’s job. The ability to be pregnant is not a sickness.
@Melissa___Dawn - Just because a man who physically could not have sex is given medicine so that he is now physically able to have sex doesn’t mean we should be paying for his contraceptives. Whether or not he impregnates a woman is *his* choice, and thus, not the responsibility of the state. Same with women.
@Jenny_Wren - So you’re honestly stating that a 60 year old man should have his Viagra covered, but a 30 year old woman should not have her birth control pills covered? Fully recognizing that her pregnancy would be MUCH more expensive, and likely to be covered?
@SasGal - I’m of the opinion that the Democrats fuck us just a little bit less than the Republicans do. And in the system we have, that’s about the best I’m willing to hope for at the national level.
@Jenny_Wren - Do some research into the side effects/complications of pregnancy. If we are willing to pay for medication to lower cholesterol to prevent heart attacks/strokes, or medications to lower blood pressure to prevent the same conditions or kidney failure in diabetics, then arguably taking birth control is a preventive measure to real medical conditions, not just pregnancy. I don’t see how you can defend the position that if a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she should just not have sex, then turn right around and say that all men should have the ability to have sex whenever they want and if they have ED then by-golly we’ll pay for the Viagra so they can go out and accidentally get a woman pregnant. If women who don’t want to get pregnant should just not have sex, then men who want Viagra to treat ED should have to prove they are trying to get a woman pregnant, otherwise they can deal with just not having sex too. What about women with conditions where a pregnancy would be high-risk? Wouldn’t that be preventive of some possibly major medical complications? Should it be covered in that instance? What about the many, many women who suffer severe cramping, severe acne, or PMDD? Oral contraceptives help with all of those conditions. I once had cramping from my menstrual cycle that was so severe and disabling that I went to the ER thinking it had to be something else – it wasn’t, and they gave me a morphine IV to take the pain away.
@Melissa___Dawn - [If women who don't want to get pregnant should just not have sex, then men who want Viagra to treat ED should have to prove they are trying to get a woman pregnant, otherwise they can deal with just not having sex too.]Amen to that. Why isn’t that in the new Arizona law?
@GodlessLiberal - Did I ask you to pay for my Viagra? No.@Saridactyl - Don’t you think that it’s maybe a tiny bit hypocritical that you lot are whining about a war on women, tho no women are actually being killed, when you lot are actually murdering millions of babies every year, tearing them limb from limb? You lot have a war going ON THE HUMAN RACE!
Though chose his words carefully and I found the comment interesting does anyone notice that Theologian Cafe’s comment is longer than almost any of his actual blog posts? :D love ya Dan! I’m really enjoying reading the comments in general,btw; you’ve really got people talking! :)
@GodlessLiberal - No, I fully intended to cal Rachel Maddow a cartoon. And last I checked, it was also still perfectly legal to be a woman.
@Jenny_Wren - On what basis should morality be legislated then? Hindu morality? Sharia? Atheist ethics?
@GodlessLiberal - We consider rape to be a horrendous crime. Ask the women what they’d prefer, to have the ultrasound or to be beaten up by a group of doctors. The majority would choose the ultrasound, making this form of “rape” more desirable than an assault. This is how we trivialize rape, and yet it’s being done as if the purpose of it is to not trivialize rape.It’s an unnecessary and invasive procedure that is worth getting pissed off about. It shouldn’t have to be considered rape in order to be taken serious however. The purpose of calling it “rape” is to get the townspeople to bust out their pitchforks and call for someones head. Same thing with “the war on ____”.The actual issues, for the most part I’m in agreement with. I just don’t particularly care for the hysterics.
@GodlessLiberal - Yes, because the ability for a woman to become pregnant is not at all comparable to a disease or physical impairment. If you didn’t see–I told one commenter that it is still the man’s responsibility to cover his own contraceptives. Just like the woman should cover her own contraceptives. And a man should take responsibility if he impregnated a woman–just like a woman should take responsibility if she is pregnant. I am not letting either gender “off the hook” in the case of pregnancy. But, as a told another commenter, still–I think that universal healthcare is a bad idea, and it creates poverty more than it liberates the poor. Especially in the long run. I am speaking as a libertarian who would have it very different from the way it is now–and is trying to keep the government as much as possible out of the private, everyday life of the people if they aren’t protecting the people themselves.
@Melissa___Dawn - You should go read my answers to all the other comments saying the same things as you. It will answer your questions.
@soccerdadforlife - That’s not a response to what I said. What I said was, if you’re going around saying that you don’t want to pay for another woman’s birth control, you don’t understand how insurance companies work. Birth control IS expensive, but other medications are expensive too.. This is why it should be covered by insurance companies, like viagra is for you. You said in a previous comment that you didn’t “ask” for insurance companies to pay for your viagra.. it’s because you didn’t HAVE to. What’s so wrong with an insurance company paying for birth control? In the long run it SAVES them money. It cuts out hospital stay costs, prenatal care costs and yes, believe it or not, welfare costs.If you want to respond, at least respond to something I actually said.@soccerdadforlife - I’M murdering babes? What the fuck? See this is the shit I’m talking about. I did no once mention abortion, did I? Yet I’M murdering babies? What about women who cannot afford to get cervical cancer screenings or breast exams who end up having cancer and cannot get early detection, which leads to late treatment and they die? That DOES happen, you know. You know, I’m sensing a pattern, you aren’t responding to anything I’m actually saying. You’re pulling shit out of your ass the same way you claim women are doing.I didn’t start this shit, republicans did when they brought it all up out of nowhere.
@GodlessLiberal - It’s more the principle of the matter, as well. I’m not talking about cases in which a woman needs birth control pills to correct a hormonal imbalance, or POCS, or something. I’m talking about people demanding that the government pay for their lifestyle for them. It’s just as wrong for a man to say, “Well, I think the government should be responsible for my preventing a woman to be pregnant!” No. You can control your actions. The government is not responsible for whatever lifestyle you are choosing (and yes, this is in application to gay marriage and the government getting involved in marriage, too). The government is not responsible for protecting us from ourselves. To give the government that much power in our lives, is asking for deep trouble down the line.And, as far as the state paying for a pregnancy–honestly? that is more an “immediate” medical need than NOT being pregnant. But I would rather that the state not pay for my pregnancy at all. Personally, I would rather that it went back to the day where government and medical care was far more local–and there were village doctors performing all the tasks needed for the village, taking whatever pay they could give. Or, when churches provided for women who couldn’t pay for their pregnancy themselves. I do know churches who do that, still.I wish things were a lot more independent.
This is another example of how liberals and atheists make up a bunch of stupid stuff, argue against the stupidity and then declare themselves the winner. Only an idiot could lose such an argument. But then again only an idiot would make something stupider than himself just so he could feel smart.
@Jenny_Wren - Maybe from planned parenthood, but the closest planned parenthood to me is 3 hours away. Unfortunately, I cannot go to a clinic because it goes by my parents income (because I can’t find a job) and they make “too much” money. So my prescription is about $60 a month because I don’t have insurance, if I did, I could get the generic brand for $20. Not too mention the $200 a year I have to pay just to go to a doctor to renew my prescription. It’s really not THAT easy.also, I’m not sure why you decided to comment that, considering my whole argument (and all of my comments) is against people who think planned parenthood should be shut down, title x funding should be eliminated and insurance companies shouldn’t pay for birth control when get birth control THAT cheap depends on one or all three of those things.
@Saridactyl - I think planned parenthood was reporting the price. It wasn’t through them that it was that cheap, it was just a statistic from their site.
@Saridactyl - ”If you want to respond, at least respond to something I actually said.” Whatever. Try to learn how to communicate clearly.”What’s so wrong with an insurance company paying for birth control? In the long run it SAVES them money. It cuts out hospital stay costs, prenatal care costs and yes, believe it or not, welfare costs.”What’s so wrong with you paying for it yourself instead of fobbing it off on the taxpayers?And let’s take your argument a step further. In order to decrease health care costs to society, let’s make birth control mandatory. “It cuts out hospital stay costs, prenatal care costs and yes, believe it or not, welfare costs.” And it also cuts out college costs and all the costs of raising kids. Just think how much money we could instead spend on our own pleasures. Then, when we run out of money and nobody’s left to pay for our old age, we just call the Kevorkian Squad and off ourselves. In 100 years, people will wonder where we went.”I’M murdering babes?” Quit inserting words in my mouth. It’s your side (the leftists) that’s doing it. I said “you lot” not “you.” Work on your reading skills.”What about women who cannot afford to get cervical cancer screenings or breast exams who end up having cancer and cannot get early detection, which leads to late treatment and they die?” And what about men who can’t get prostate screenings and early detection, so it leads to late treatment and they die? Life isn’t fair, sweetheart.And oral contraceptives can lead to migraines, early heart problems, stroke, and some cancers, so it might cause a net increase in health care costs. You can’t just pick and choose which medical costs to pay attention to.”I didn’t start this shit, republicans did when they brought it all up out of nowhere.” Correction, the dems did when they brought Sandra Fluke (a non-expert) in to testify before a committee that had nothing to do with contraceptives or health care. Try to get your facts straight.
@Jenny_Wren - You rejected biblical morality as a basis, so if you have no other basis, then you have no justification for passing any laws. Quit dancing.
@soccerdadforlife - I can’t have a philosophical basis? So, Plato and Artistotle, both (at best) deists, their ideas on politics and the Good hold no bearing because it’s not based on biblical good?And, I like dancing too much to quite dancing. I’m no Southern Baptist . I’m especially particular to the mambo and the charleston.
@Jenny_Wren - Ok, so are you saying that the basis everyone should use is deist? And why do you pick on a biblical basis for morality? It seems arbitrary.
@soccerdadforlife - Ah, but a philosophical basis can be held to by both deists and Christians, you see. So it’s not a “deist” philosophy.
@Jenny_Wren - So how is your philosophical basis superior to a biblical basis? Please answer my other questions.
@Jenny_Wren - @soccerdadforlife - Here, a clarification might help everyone involved: “How is your philosophical basis superior to Soccerdadforlife’s basis? NO U”
@QuantumStorm - How does that clarify anything? And what is my basis?
@Jenny_Wren -[ "And, as far as the state paying for a pregnancy--honestly? that is more an "immediate" medical need than NOT being pregnant. But I would rather that the state not pay for my pregnancy at all."] This. If pregnancy isn’t considered a medical condition/sickness then insurance companies should not be providing prenatal, labor and delivery, postnatal care to women. You state that’s how you feel, but I don’t see any groups advocating for insurance companies to stop covering pregnancies. Nicotine and bicycling are both causes of ED – should we require disclosure of smoking and bicycling and deny Viagra to those who brought it on themselves through lifestyle choices?
@Saridactyl - [facepalm] I actually don’t care about contraception if I don’t have to pay for it through taxes. I just felt like pushing buttons, but you don’t want to play anymore.
@GodlessLiberal - “According to whom? When we go to war with nations, we don’t seek to wipe them out.”It should be pretty clear, “war” here is not being used in the literal sense.“SOME women. And a reminder, SOME Japanese felt that the internment camps set up during WWII were justified.”Its nice that “some” can be used to represent any % of a population. (SOME people have blonde hair. SOME people believe the world is flat.) What do you think the %s are for women that find the “war on women” ridiculous? And you didn’t answer if you think all female republicans and women against abortion all hate women?@Lost_In_Reverie - I never said it was a party… but you said it was “scary”….which was my point of contention. I actually am sympathetic to many of your points, but at the same time, I think you often paint the picture with too broad a brush. The domestic violence laws are complicated….and they aren’t just a simple case of assault or battery….and lets be honest, in reality, these laws are actually less male friendly. The image you paint here is that men can now hit their girlfriends as long as they aren’t married? That’s ridiculous. If I had a roommate and his (male) friend slept on the couch one night and we got in an argument and I punched him in the face….I can go to jail for it. And also, keep in mind, this isn’t particularly an attack on women. Its often ignored that many studies show men are more often the victims of domestic abuse and the legal system in can be very anti-male when it comes to issues of domestic violence.The same broadness applies to your examples of unequal pay and Planned Parenthood. Do you think if the government stopped funding PP, PP would dissolve? Do you know what % government funding for PP represents….and how much “profit” PP actually makes? Its aburd to think if the government pulled their funding….suddenly PP would disappear and low income women suddenly would have no access to health care. As for the unequal pay….yes unfortunately, it seems to be common “knowledge” that women make 77% of what men make…and yet it is uncommon to know that this statistic is (intentionally) misleading and based on total income regardless of position and hours worked. All studies that normalize and control for these factors end up with men being paid 2-4% higher for the same jobs. (Some of which may be attributed to negotiating initial income). As far as the Wisconsin issue, again I think its misleading to think this is an “anti-women” law. The Equal Pay Law was ONE additional avenue with which to sue for discrimination (there are several other avenues still available). And also concerning maternal death rate….again, this is a stretch to think this is a result of anti-women laws…and again, you’re simply not providing any context here. America has by FAR the best acute MEDICAL CARE in the world (again, not healthcare, but medical care). In spite of this, we have tons of health issues…maternal death rate being one of them….that are due to a vast number of various factors. (Of course, healthcare being one of them…but the point is, there are many factors involved here.)I can appreciate a lot of your thoughts and points on the issue…and I’m not apathetic to them and I don’t mean to trivialize those issues in any way. But I’m saying not all the issues are necessarily anti-women (they affect males as well) and there are a whole host of legal issues in America that I can bring up that are also very anti-male as well. So looking at the bigger picture, I still don’t understand what the “War on Women” is exactly (outside of the framework of the abortion issue) and why it’s “scary” to be a woman in America. @RazielV - “The more of your comments I read the more I find you to be an absolute idiot. I can’t imagine how you treat the women around you.”Well, I guess I can’t retaliate and call you an idiot….since I don’t know who you are. You might very well be a genius. In fact, you must be one since you seem to be able to know how I treat women and what type of person and character I have from reading a comment post on Xanga. Congrats on being so smart.@Ooglick - I agree. Outside of the framework of the abortion issue, I just don’t see the “War on Women”. Sure there are issues and laws that might not favor women….just as there are laws and issues that don’t favor men (and there’s a lot of those as well). As I said above, I’m not apathetic to the plight of women in America…but when it comes to the “War on Women” slogan, let’s just call it what it is….a political gimmick. (And I’m not a Republican btw). @AmorVomnia7 - “just like I can disagree with the psychotic fixation that republicans have with human sexuality without calling it a “war on women”"Thank you. I’m not sure what we’d agree on various issues…but you see the “War on Women” for what it is….a political gimmick. (not a bad political move…though a deceitful one)… that will likely pick up a few extra votes from people who watch too much MTV. @GodlessLiberal - “That transvaginal ultrasound is inserted deeply into the vagina whether the woman wants it or not. Sounds pretty rapey to me.”A transvaginal ultrasound is to rape as a surgical procedure is to assault with a deadly weapon. I suppose in 10 years when you get a prostate exam, you will proceed to punch your doctor in the face for sexually assaulting you? @Jenny_Wren - “The matter concerning abortion–that is not a matter even concerning the rights of women, no matter how it’s painted by more liberal thinkers. I know many republicans who are fine with contraception and prevention, and so, are fine with women controlling their rate of pregnancy–but casually ending a human life, for whatever reason outside criminal sentencing, has serious philosophical implications. There is reason to be worried more for that sort of thinking, its effect against humanity as a whole, than the right trying to “control a woman”….”As a woman, and as a woman who believes in the equality and value of women in society alongside men–I have never seen abortion as an issue of oppression over women. Rather, I have seen it as the protection, and thus, the elevation of the value of human life–for women, for men, for all.”I can appreciate your point of view. I’m actually not a Republican, but tend to be on the socially conservative side, and I like Obama. =) But I like to view issues independently and formulate my theories and ideas without necessarily starting from a belief system. The entire point of my post was to highlight the gimmicky nature of the slogan “War on Women”….specifically I find it ridiculous outside of the framework of the abortion issue. I try not to get into the actual abortion issue too much…but I like that you highlighted that there are philosophical implications to abortion as they pertain to our ideas of justice and morality.
Blah, blah, blah. Slaves cannot have abortions. The free hooker population has to be oppressed, and we are going through a ritual sacrifice.
@wizexel22 - I was referring to a transvaginal ultrasound in the case of a woman being raped and needing an abortion. Then she has 5 inches of medical implementation shoved into her vagina against her will as she’s trying to get over a horrible experience. You compare it to a colonoscopy. The difference is that a colonoscopy is a medically beneficial procedure, where as a TV ultrasound is just a way to shame women out of getting an abortion.
@wizexel22 - its a scary time to be in america period.
Fantastic work guys im a fan of your website.top pharmacies
I have got the superb information from these blogs finally.source
Thank you so much you have given the great blogs site by which we can get more advantage.Gino problemy
Comments (89)
They don’t call um the American Taliban fo nuttin.
The anti-contraception shit that’s been coming up is starting to scare me. As an American citizen I deserve the right to decide when I want a child and an employer shouldn’t be able to fire me because they don’t believe I should be on the Pill (as they can do in Arizona now). When I do become sexually active I should have the right to take whatever measures I choose to prevent pregnancy while still being able to pay the rent and feed myself. And yet, as time goes on, I become more and more terrified that those things will be taken away from me. Seeing legislation like what Maddow talked about in that video makes me think that any woman who supports the Republican party in this is woefully ignorant about what the feminist movement has done for women in America. We fought for our right to enter the workplace and get an education and decide when to have children and how many children to have… I don’t want to go back to the kitchen. I want my career. And I want my birth control, god damn it.
That third cartoon cuts both ways, you know. It’s silly to dismiss that there’s a war on religion, Christmas or jobs while claiming this war on women is totally legit.
@randomneuralfirings - Technically, that’s the second cartoon. Also, there aren’t laws being passed to keep people from practicing religion or celebrating Christmas. Last I checked Christmas was still a national holiday.
It’s a scary time to be a woman in America. We’re being compared to livestock, called sluts, and basically being told that we don’t have the right to any power or control over our own bodies. We’re reverting back to a 60 year old mentality about sex and a “woman’s place”, and it makes me sick. I have every right to decide when or if I would like to have children and my views on that topic should not restrict my access to employment, or affordable healthcare.
there is absolutely a war on women being waged by the right. 100s of legislative proposals from ways to stop birth control to ending a much needed option millions of women take advantage of to get tested for breast and cervical cancer. it’s sick. the last cartoon is brilliant.
When referring to the term “War on ___” , it signifies an intent to eliminate those things. So what exactly is the “War on Women”? And why is it that WOMEN find the “War on Women” to be ridiculous? I hate to agree with Palin (but will readily admit when I do, as I even have on my blog)…but she is right…this is a strawman attack. Its not necessarily the case that a “War on Abortion” equals “War on Women”. (So logically, all republican or anti-abortion women actually hate women? Come on). And frankly, even if I were pro-abortion, I’d find the “War on Women” slogan to be gimmicky, deceitful, and embarrassing. Btw, I’m not entirely anti-abortion (though I lean that way for philosophical reasons)….I have mixed feelings on the subject really….but this “War on Women” nonsense is retarded.@Lost_In_Reverie - ”It’s a scary time to be a woman in America.” You can’t be serious. SCARY time to be a women in America? How scary is it? An odd statement considering its the absolute best time in American history to be a woman. What time in American history was it less scary?
@wizexel22 - [When referring to the term "War on ___" , it signifies an intent to eliminate those things.]According to whom? When we go to war with nations, we don’t seek to wipe them out.[And why is it that WOMEN find the "War on Women" to be ridiculous?]SOME women. And a reminder, SOME Japanese felt that the internment camps set up during WWII were justified.[Its not necessarily the case that a "War on Abortion" equals "War on Women".]It’s also the fact that women make less than men for the same job, are being denied access to birth control, have laws controlling domestic violence being reduced, and are having pregnancy benefits cut.
@wizexel22 - Just because there are points in history, or countries around the world where it is worse to be a woman doesn’t mean that it is a party here. Women are being discriminated against, degraded, and there is no question about the fact that there are serious attempts to strip us of our rights via legislation. Because of Amendment One in North Carolina, protection for women who, for example, are the victims of domestic abuse, but are not married, is no longer valid. In Wisconsin, the Equal Pay Law was repealed, making it harder for women to fight discrimination in the workplace. (It’s common knowledge that we still don’t make as much as men do). And that’s before we even get into the main issue on the table these days… women’s health. Because of Rick Perry’s vendetta against Planned Parenthood in Texas, the state lost ALL of its funding for women’s health programs. In Arizona, there is legislation being pushed through by Republicans that states that if I am on the birth control pill and cannot prove that I am using it for a health issue instead of for contraception, my employer is legally allowed to fire me. Further more, employers who do not have any religious affiliation would be allowed to deny insurance coverage for the pill. Oh, did I mention that it’s already perfectly legal for a doctor to lie to a woman about the results of prenatal tests in order to prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? That’s right, if a doctor has information about the health of a women’s fetus, and they think it might cause the woman to abort the baby, they can just keep that information to themselves. Not to mention the variety of rules and regulations across the nation making obtaining an abortion (which, you know, you have a legal right to do) incredibly difficult, if not impossible for some women. From 24 hour waiting periods, to parental consent and notification laws, to the locations of providers, to legislation seeking to shorten the window in which you may obtain an abortion, the entire process can be downright dangerous. (If you think I’m exaggerating, think of what could happen to a victim of rape, incest, or abuse if she had to notify her parents, or sneak away from her abuser to drive across state lines on more than one occasion in order to obtain an abortion.)But let’s take a step back from abortion for a moment, and focus on something more cheerful – motherhood. Are you a mother? If you are, you’d be better off in pretty much any European country than here in America. Hell, you’d be better off in ANY developed nation! Here in the US, we have the highest risk of maternal death of any industrialized nation, and we also have the worst maternity rights. Did you know that in this country, a woman is not legally guaranteed maternity leave? And that’s just all the things that are, you know, LEGAL issues. That’s saying nothing of the pundits and politicians running around calling us sluts, comparing us to livestock, and saying we should be forced to carry our stillborn babies. I’m sorry, do you still think I’m overreacting?
@Lost_In_Reverie - brilliant comment and true. standing ovation here. seriously
@wizexel22 - The more of your comments I read the more I find you to be an absolute idiot. I can’t imagine how you treat the women around you.
@wizexel22 - I agree, a group of people opposed to birth control and abortions does not equate to a group of people opposed to women. However, I haven’t been following the politics as of late. Are there really people who’re slamming women in particular as opposed to just promoting their religious views about birth and children? As a woman I don’t find the proposed laws particularly tasteful, but also don’t feel personally worked up about them. Maybe I’m just overly apathetic though. …Also, who tells their boss that they’re on birth control? *puzzled* Does that even come up in regular work conversation?
I’m not scared to be a woman in the US. And I’m not scared of republicans. They screw just as poorly as the democrats. Dems just wrap it in a more shocking package.
I agree that the republican party is garbage and their desire to control sexuality is both frustrating and immoral. But “war on women” to me, is laughable. It’s like that chick who claimed that being forced to get a pre-abortion ultrasound is rape. I can disagree with the unnecessary procedure without calling it rape, just like I can disagree with the psychotic fixation that republicans have with human sexuality without calling it a “war on women”.Regardless, I don’t understand the anti-abortion and anti-contraception crowds.
I am in favor of you doing whatever you need to do in order to distract everyone from the 8%+ unemployment and record deficits.
@TheTheologiansCafe - Don’t forget the never ending deficit. We print money, goddamnit, we don’t have to think about managing it!
@TheTheologiansCafe - I’m in favor in making my own damn decisions, both about my body and my finances. Don’t act as though the economy is an excuse to dictate which women are “allowed” access to birth control.
@nerdyveggiegirl - My friend, I have never dictated anything related to your birth control. I live in the U.S. You are actually allowed to go get birth control tonight if you want in the U.S.
This could just as easily be called a “war against capitalism” or a “war against freedom of religion”. If a Catholic school is forced to hand out birth control pills to their staff, that is the government controlling a religious institution. If employers are forced to hire women *just because* they are women, that is the government controlling the “free” market. Furthermore–if employers are *forced* to pay for a women’s birth control pills, how is that fair? How is the employer at all responsible for preventing a women’s pregnancy, if, in fact, she doesn’t need them for an immediate health-related need? That is something that we shouldn’t be holding to the government to control, let alone our employers. I think that is the root of “being able to fire a woman if she can’t prove she’s using birth control for a health issue”. It’s the fact that an employer doesn’t necessarily want to be responsible for paying for YOUR pregnancy prevention, NOT that you can’t use them on your dime. The matter concerning abortion–that is not a matter even concerning the rights of women, no matter how it’s painted by more liberal thinkers. I know many republicans who are fine with contraception and prevention, and so, are fine with women controlling their rate of pregnancy–but casually ending a human life, for whatever reason outside criminal sentencing, has serious philosophical implications. There is reason to be worried more for that sort of thinking, its effect against humanity as a whole, than the right trying to “control a woman”. Has the human life become something disposable as it is most pragmatically beneficial? Has human life lost its inherent value? No longer does being a human being demand the recognition of value. (I don’t know if you recall the famous line from Network, “I’m a human being, ***dammit! My life has value!”)The push for abortion to be accepted later and later into the pregnancy, to the point of killing a newborn infant even it has no health problems whatsoever, is seriously being discussed by bioethicists “as we speak”. Their argument is that to kill an infant because it is an inconvenience is perfectly acceptable because it is the same level of “person” as a fetus. Their logic is–”If it’s fine for a fetus, why isn’t it fine for an infant?” Their line of reasoning further implying that personhood is what determines whether or not we can end a human’s life for convenience’s sake. What is their definition of personhood? That is the especially frightening part of it, at least to me–frightening not just for women, but for men, for the children and elderly..for all humans. There is *no* definitive definition of personhood in their eyes–some say it begins at three years, others as twelve. But they all agree, that it truly begins when the human life can be beneficial to the rest of society–only then is it a person, and worthy of protection.Do you know what this means? Haven’t you heard this line echoed anywhere? These people are literally arguing that those who are useless–the retarded, the physically disabled, the elderly, the sick–are not worth protecting.I am usually cautious of slippery-slope arguments–I don’t necessarily believe that just because one step is taken, that many others will follow. It *could* just stop at infants. But this very same pattern could be observed in America with Margaret Sanger, and finally in Germany (America was actually funding German eugenics research centers through the 30s, obviously before we were involved in the war), when Hitler slowly filtered the ideas of eugenics through the populace, slowly. First, he did it through advocating the “merciful” killings of retarded infants–and then gradually, the “merciful” killings of retarded people of all ages, and then the elderly.Do I think Obama is comparable Hitler? Not by a long shot. But do I think this admittedly very extreme liberal attitude toward the value of human life is creepily similar to the morality-numbing practices accepted in some horrendous situations, one practice accepted after another. Do I think retarded people will be killed because some bioethicists are touting the idea of post-birth “abortions” of the retarded or perfectly healthy? Not immediately, no.But, still. It makes me afraid.As a woman, and as a woman who believes in the equality and value of women in society alongside men–I have never seen abortion as an issue of oppression over women. Rather, I have seen it as the protection, and thus, the elevation of the value of human life–for women, for men, for all.
@AmorVomnia7 - Perhaps some of those who oppose the Republicans simply like to fight dumb with dumb? Like fighting fire with fire, just a whole lot less enlightening.
@AmorVomnia7 - [It's like that chick who claimed that being forced to get a pre-abortion ultrasound is rape.]That transvaginal ultrasound is inserted deeply into the vagina whether the woman wants it or not. Sounds pretty rapey to me.
@TheTheologiansCafe - We’re simply reacting to the Repukelikkkan crap. So, if anyone’s distracting from that, it’s your peeps. Moron.
@SasGal - I was once told that when Republicans screw you they only do it from behind but when Democrats screw you they may look you in the eye and give you a reach around.
@Lost_In_Reverie - holy shit. I want to leave America.
@nerdyveggiegirl - Don’t make me pay for your damn birth control.
It’s astonishing to me that there are people who feel that women are “imagining” all of these attacks. Seriously? Am I imagining the two times the government almost shut down because republicans wanted to defund planned parenthood and title x completely? Funding that provides low income women, much like myself, with pap smears, breast exams and yearly check ups that I and many other women would not receive if it were not for those programs and those places. THEN they try to redefine rape and many states cut funding for already struggling domestic violence centers that provide help and information to people who have been physically abused. THEN they try to force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds before they seek abortions, whether they are wanted or not, even though it’s not medically necessary.. After all of that and more, these jerks have the fucking balls to come on here, and all over America, to say that I should be happy I live here because Women all over the world have it worse than I do? Maybe I don’t want that to happen to me and other women in this country. Are my rights and opinions less valid because of the shit going on elsewhere in the world when I live in a country that is SUPPOSED to be better than that because we have “rights”? I’m not imagining this. The entire fucking country is not “imagining” this. Then some of them have the audacity to say “I’m not sexist. I don’t hate women.” When that’s really the only explanation that makes sense here.
@soccerdadforlife - Do you even understand how all of that works? It’s apparent to me, with that line, you certainly don’t.
I SEE NIPPLES.The trunk is erotic as well.
@soccerdadforlife - Then don’t make me pay for your damn Viagra.
@soccerdadforlife - why not. she’ll have to pay for your Viagra and your psychiatrist recommended anger management classes
I saw a segment about this on The Daily Show, I believe. Who do these republicans think they’re fooling? Except, perhaps, other republicans? All these laws being passed make me SICK. There are so many, how can you even choose the worst one that’s been passed?? I think the one in Virginia is one of the worst…the one where you have to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound or whatever. How disgusting. I hate republicans because of things like this. It’s a woman’s choice, and the government (ahem, republicans), really need to take their fingers out of our vaginas. I agree that abortion needs to be regulated (for example, rules need to be in place as to when it’s too late to have an abortion, like at the point where it harms the health of the woman etc), but not like this.It definitely is a war on women….and I can’t BELIEVE that even the female republicans like Sarah Palin agree that it’s NOT a war on women and our rights O.o
@Jenny_Wren - Catholic schools are not being forced to hand out contraception to their staff. That issue has been settled to the satisfaction of Catholic leaders. That a woman’s health concerns can be considered a war on capitalism says something about what some people consider to be capitalism.
@TheSutraDude - When the ability to get pregnant is labeled as a life-threatening sickness necessary for the government to get involved, I will probably change my mind.
@Lost_In_Reverie – wow very true. nice blog.
@Jenny_Wren - some birth control pills are prescribed not for pregnancy but medicinally as is Viagra which IS covered by insurance companies. cervical cysts is one of the conditions birth control pills are prescribed for.
@TheSutraDude - Medicine that is needed for an immediate health need–(read: to treat a sickness), is a worthy investment.
I don’t care for almost any Republican in office. But a War on Women? *facepalm*
@Jenny_Wren - yes it is but think about it. Viagra for men is covered. men get women pregnant. birth control for women who don’t want to become pregnant often for economic reasons should not be covered? it reeks of the mentality that for a man to have sex with a woman is a notch in his belt. for a woman? she’s a slut as the mouthpiece of the republican party Rush Limbaugh so eloquently pointed out about the female Duke University student after she told Congress the story of her fellow student who has cysts but could not afford the pills because they were not covered by insurance. and save me the trouble of coming back here by not telling me Rush Limbaugh is not the mouthpiece of the republican party. he was keynote speaker 2 years ago at the annual GOP convention and republicans who say something that disagrees with him get on his show and apologize, saying that’s not really what they meant.
@firetyger - don’t facepalm so quickly. literally hundreds of state and federal legislative proposals against women’s rights, health, economic stability proposed by the republican party, many passed in red states. recently a woman’s right to have legal recourse for being paid less than a man for doing the same job was overturned under Wisconsin tea party governor Scott Walker. Walker signed the repeal secrecy but of course people found out.
@Jenny_Wren - Ahhh, first of all, kudos on proving Godwin’s Law. But early in your comment, you mention that a Catholic institution being forced to hand out birth control to its staff is an example of government controlling religion. Here’s the problem: there’s a lot of dangerous-sounding language used in that description, and some inaccuracies as well. They’re not being forced to hand out birth control; they’re being required to provide health insurance coverage that covers birth control to staff members who may or may not be Catholic, and who may or may not share the beliefs of the Catholic establishment. Furthermore, failure to do so isn’t the fault of the Catholic institutions, but the insurers who are to be required to include birth control in their coverage. Thus, this isn’t truly about the employers, Catholic or otherwise, but the insurance companies.As for abortion, the government has never funded, nor required insurance companies to cover abortions through any manner of legislation. This is just a scare tactic. Abortions are almost always expensive, and paid for out-of-pocket. Whether or not they are wrong is something that is hotly debated, and while I actually agree with you and feel that abortion is deplorable, I can guarantee that even the most staunch defenders of abortion rights are not “pro-abortion”. No one in their right mind is. Abortion, at best, sucks, and at worst, is morally reprehensible. But this being America, and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment being what it is, we *cannot* legislate the religious beliefs of one group of people into law without trampling the Constitutional rights of anyone who does not share those beliefs.
@TheSutraDude - I can’t speak for Republicans, but personally, I really don’t think it makes a woman any better or worse than a man who has sex if she wants to have sex, too. There is the difficult matter that a man can’t control if he’s unable to have an erection–but a woman can control whether or not she has sex, and thus, becomes pregnant. One can’t control their condition, the other can.To be completely honest, though–I am only answering this because it seems universal healthcare is inevitable at this point. I do not believe that is the best way to care for the poor, or go about liberating people.
@TrekkieECH - What is Godwin’s law?
@Jenny_Wren - It says that as an internet thread gets longer, the likelihood increases that someone will make an argument by comparison with Hitler. It’s also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.
@TrekkieECH - I actually really agree with your last statement–that we shouldn’t legislate biblical morality over the masses in a religious fashion.But I don’t think the value of human life is something exclusive to religion. It matters in politics. The way a country views the value of a single human says everything about whether or not it is a good country.
@TrekkieECH - I totally proved him right, then.
@Jenny_Wren - i’m glad you brought that up because the target consumers for Viagra are men who are in and over the age group of women who have gone through menopause and can no longer become pregnant, not naturally anyway. there are also serious possible side effects in taking Viagra, one being heart attacks which of course costs other insured a lot to subsidize. on a humorous note there is a show called Scrubs, a comedy about a hospital. i’m not so fond of it but i caught an episode a while back. a patient had shown up in the ER because he took Viagra and had an erection for 6 hours. in the hospital cafeteria a female doctor said to the doctors with whom she was having lunch, “I wonder what it’s like to have an erection for 6 hours.” a guy at the next table blurted out, “I’ll let you know in 20 minutes.” haha
@Jenny_Wren - That’s a fair point. I used to be in high school debate, and I actually won a few Lincoln-Douglas style debates (a.k.a. debating one set of values versus another) by arguing the value of human life. It’s a tremendously important consideration. But I think, and this is just my impression, that the major complication arises because there is more than one human life under consideration here, and by outlawing abortion, women who seek abortion illegally through others or by self-action are endangering themselves in the act of doing so. It’s arguable that fewer people may consider abortion if it is illegal, but those who would seek it regardless are still human lives that are no less worthy of protection by the government. It’s a pragmatic, rather than moral solution, granted, but it’s an incredibly complicated issue. It’s hard to find a solution without *someone* having to compromise.
And to extend the point, in the United States, I think we tend to prefer our government to do the compromising, rather than its citizens, lol.
@Jenny_Wren - So basically you think Viagra should be widely available so men (who themselves may or may not want children) can continue having sex – with women, who you feel shouldn’t have widely available access to birth control because they can choose to close their legs and not have sex if they don’t want babies? Are we going to require the men requesting Viagra to sign legal contracts stating they want it in order to impregnate their wives? Maybe we should have a policy where the woman has to track her ovulation cycle and only prescribe Viagra around those times? You say you don’t hold the typical double standard about sex, but you’re statement about Viagra/birth control completely upholds that double standard.
@TheTheologiansCafe - You do realize it’s the REPUBLICANS who are passing all these laws, right?
@Melissa___Dawn - It’s not a double standard. The standard for medication that I think is fair, if it must be covered by healthcare, is medicine for any existing sickness or health condition. I am not singling ED out–but, it is a “condition”. The ability to be pregnant is *not* a condition. That’s the trouble I have. I personally think women can and should use contraceptives, so I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the government preventing women’s pregnancies, just because they *could* get pregnant. Frankly, that’s not the government’s job. The ability to be pregnant is not a sickness.
@Melissa___Dawn - Just because a man who physically could not have sex is given medicine so that he is now physically able to have sex doesn’t mean we should be paying for his contraceptives. Whether or not he impregnates a woman is *his* choice, and thus, not the responsibility of the state. Same with women.
@Jenny_Wren - So you’re honestly stating that a 60 year old man should have his Viagra covered, but a 30 year old woman should not have her birth control pills covered? Fully recognizing that her pregnancy would be MUCH more expensive, and likely to be covered?
@SasGal - I’m of the opinion that the Democrats fuck us just a little bit less than the Republicans do. And in the system we have, that’s about the best I’m willing to hope for at the national level.
@Jenny_Wren - Do some research into the side effects/complications of pregnancy. If we are willing to pay for medication to lower cholesterol to prevent heart attacks/strokes, or medications to lower blood pressure to prevent the same conditions or kidney failure in diabetics, then arguably taking birth control is a preventive measure to real medical conditions, not just pregnancy. I don’t see how you can defend the position that if a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she should just not have sex, then turn right around and say that all men should have the ability to have sex whenever they want and if they have ED then by-golly we’ll pay for the Viagra so they can go out and accidentally get a woman pregnant. If women who don’t want to get pregnant should just not have sex, then men who want Viagra to treat ED should have to prove they are trying to get a woman pregnant, otherwise they can deal with just not having sex too. What about women with conditions where a pregnancy would be high-risk? Wouldn’t that be preventive of some possibly major medical complications? Should it be covered in that instance? What about the many, many women who suffer severe cramping, severe acne, or PMDD? Oral contraceptives help with all of those conditions. I once had cramping from my menstrual cycle that was so severe and disabling that I went to the ER thinking it had to be something else – it wasn’t, and they gave me a morphine IV to take the pain away.
@Melissa___Dawn - [If women who don't want to get pregnant should just not have sex, then men who want Viagra to treat ED should have to prove they are trying to get a woman pregnant, otherwise they can deal with just not having sex too.]Amen to that. Why isn’t that in the new Arizona law?
@GodlessLiberal - Did I ask you to pay for my Viagra? No.@Saridactyl - Don’t you think that it’s maybe a tiny bit hypocritical that you lot are whining about a war on women, tho no women are actually being killed, when you lot are actually murdering millions of babies every year, tearing them limb from limb? You lot have a war going ON THE HUMAN RACE!
Though chose his words carefully and I found the comment interesting does anyone notice that Theologian Cafe’s comment is longer than almost any of his actual blog posts? :D love ya Dan! I’m really enjoying reading the comments in general,btw; you’ve really got people talking! :)
@GodlessLiberal - No, I fully intended to cal Rachel Maddow a cartoon. And last I checked, it was also still perfectly legal to be a woman.
@Saridactyl - It’s apparent to me that you don’t understand anything about contraception, its costs, or what your own side says about it. According to Sandra Fluke, contraception costs women thousands of dollars per year. http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2
@Jenny_Wren - On what basis should morality be legislated then? Hindu morality? Sharia? Atheist ethics?
@GodlessLiberal - We consider rape to be a horrendous crime. Ask the women what they’d prefer, to have the ultrasound or to be beaten up by a group of doctors. The majority would choose the ultrasound, making this form of “rape” more desirable than an assault. This is how we trivialize rape, and yet it’s being done as if the purpose of it is to not trivialize rape.It’s an unnecessary and invasive procedure that is worth getting pissed off about. It shouldn’t have to be considered rape in order to be taken serious however. The purpose of calling it “rape” is to get the townspeople to bust out their pitchforks and call for someones head. Same thing with “the war on ____”.The actual issues, for the most part I’m in agreement with. I just don’t particularly care for the hysterics.
@GodlessLiberal - Yes, because the ability for a woman to become pregnant is not at all comparable to a disease or physical impairment. If you didn’t see–I told one commenter that it is still the man’s responsibility to cover his own contraceptives. Just like the woman should cover her own contraceptives. And a man should take responsibility if he impregnated a woman–just like a woman should take responsibility if she is pregnant. I am not letting either gender “off the hook” in the case of pregnancy. But, as a told another commenter, still–I think that universal healthcare is a bad idea, and it creates poverty more than it liberates the poor. Especially in the long run. I am speaking as a libertarian who would have it very different from the way it is now–and is trying to keep the government as much as possible out of the private, everyday life of the people if they aren’t protecting the people themselves.
@Melissa___Dawn - You should go read my answers to all the other comments saying the same things as you. It will answer your questions.
@soccerdadforlife - That’s not a response to what I said. What I said was, if you’re going around saying that you don’t want to pay for another woman’s birth control, you don’t understand how insurance companies work. Birth control IS expensive, but other medications are expensive too.. This is why it should be covered by insurance companies, like viagra is for you. You said in a previous comment that you didn’t “ask” for insurance companies to pay for your viagra.. it’s because you didn’t HAVE to. What’s so wrong with an insurance company paying for birth control? In the long run it SAVES them money. It cuts out hospital stay costs, prenatal care costs and yes, believe it or not, welfare costs.If you want to respond, at least respond to something I actually said.@soccerdadforlife - I’M murdering babes? What the fuck? See this is the shit I’m talking about. I did no once mention abortion, did I? Yet I’M murdering babies? What about women who cannot afford to get cervical cancer screenings or breast exams who end up having cancer and cannot get early detection, which leads to late treatment and they die? That DOES happen, you know. You know, I’m sensing a pattern, you aren’t responding to anything I’m actually saying. You’re pulling shit out of your ass the same way you claim women are doing.I didn’t start this shit, republicans did when they brought it all up out of nowhere.
@soccerdadforlife - You tell me.
@Saridactyl - Actually, you get can birth control for as little as 15 dollars a month. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm
@GodlessLiberal - It’s more the principle of the matter, as well. I’m not talking about cases in which a woman needs birth control pills to correct a hormonal imbalance, or POCS, or something. I’m talking about people demanding that the government pay for their lifestyle for them. It’s just as wrong for a man to say, “Well, I think the government should be responsible for my preventing a woman to be pregnant!” No. You can control your actions. The government is not responsible for whatever lifestyle you are choosing (and yes, this is in application to gay marriage and the government getting involved in marriage, too). The government is not responsible for protecting us from ourselves. To give the government that much power in our lives, is asking for deep trouble down the line.And, as far as the state paying for a pregnancy–honestly? that is more an “immediate” medical need than NOT being pregnant. But I would rather that the state not pay for my pregnancy at all. Personally, I would rather that it went back to the day where government and medical care was far more local–and there were village doctors performing all the tasks needed for the village, taking whatever pay they could give. Or, when churches provided for women who couldn’t pay for their pregnancy themselves. I do know churches who do that, still.I wish things were a lot more independent.
This is another example of how liberals and atheists make up a bunch of stupid stuff, argue against the stupidity and then declare themselves the winner. Only an idiot could lose such an argument. But then again only an idiot would make something stupider than himself just so he could feel smart.
@Jenny_Wren - Maybe from planned parenthood, but the closest planned parenthood to me is 3 hours away. Unfortunately, I cannot go to a clinic because it goes by my parents income (because I can’t find a job) and they make “too much” money. So my prescription is about $60 a month because I don’t have insurance, if I did, I could get the generic brand for $20. Not too mention the $200 a year I have to pay just to go to a doctor to renew my prescription. It’s really not THAT easy.also, I’m not sure why you decided to comment that, considering my whole argument (and all of my comments) is against people who think planned parenthood should be shut down, title x funding should be eliminated and insurance companies shouldn’t pay for birth control when get birth control THAT cheap depends on one or all three of those things.
@Saridactyl - I think planned parenthood was reporting the price. It wasn’t through them that it was that cheap, it was just a statistic from their site.
@Saridactyl - ”If you want to respond, at least respond to something I actually said.” Whatever. Try to learn how to communicate clearly.”What’s so wrong with an insurance company paying for birth control? In the long run it SAVES them money. It cuts out hospital stay costs, prenatal care costs and yes, believe it or not, welfare costs.”What’s so wrong with you paying for it yourself instead of fobbing it off on the taxpayers?And let’s take your argument a step further. In order to decrease health care costs to society, let’s make birth control mandatory. “It cuts out hospital stay costs, prenatal care costs and yes, believe it or not, welfare costs.” And it also cuts out college costs and all the costs of raising kids. Just think how much money we could instead spend on our own pleasures. Then, when we run out of money and nobody’s left to pay for our old age, we just call the Kevorkian Squad and off ourselves. In 100 years, people will wonder where we went.”I’M murdering babes?” Quit inserting words in my mouth. It’s your side (the leftists) that’s doing it. I said “you lot” not “you.” Work on your reading skills.”What about women who cannot afford to get cervical cancer screenings or breast exams who end up having cancer and cannot get early detection, which leads to late treatment and they die?” And what about men who can’t get prostate screenings and early detection, so it leads to late treatment and they die? Life isn’t fair, sweetheart.And oral contraceptives can lead to migraines, early heart problems, stroke, and some cancers, so it might cause a net increase in health care costs. You can’t just pick and choose which medical costs to pay attention to.”I didn’t start this shit, republicans did when they brought it all up out of nowhere.” Correction, the dems did when they brought Sandra Fluke (a non-expert) in to testify before a committee that had nothing to do with contraceptives or health care. Try to get your facts straight.
@Jenny_Wren - You rejected biblical morality as a basis, so if you have no other basis, then you have no justification for passing any laws. Quit dancing.
@soccerdadforlife - I can’t have a philosophical basis? So, Plato and Artistotle, both (at best) deists, their ideas on politics and the Good hold no bearing because it’s not based on biblical good?And, I like dancing too much to quite dancing. I’m no Southern Baptist
. I’m especially particular to the mambo and the charleston.
@Jenny_Wren - Ok, so are you saying that the basis everyone should use is deist? And why do you pick on a biblical basis for morality? It seems arbitrary.
@soccerdadforlife - Ah, but a philosophical basis can be held to by both deists and Christians, you see. So it’s not a “deist” philosophy.
@soccerdadforlife - I have my facts straight. Thanks.
@Jenny_Wren - So how is your philosophical basis superior to a biblical basis? Please answer my other questions.
@Jenny_Wren - @soccerdadforlife - Here, a clarification might help everyone involved: “How is your philosophical basis superior to Soccerdadforlife’s basis? NO U”
@QuantumStorm - How does that clarify anything? And what is my basis?
@Jenny_Wren -[ "And, as far as the state paying for a pregnancy--honestly? that is more an "immediate" medical need than NOT being pregnant. But I would rather that the state not pay for my pregnancy at all."] This. If pregnancy isn’t considered a medical condition/sickness then insurance companies should not be providing prenatal, labor and delivery, postnatal care to women. You state that’s how you feel, but I don’t see any groups advocating for insurance companies to stop covering pregnancies. Nicotine and bicycling are both causes of ED – should we require disclosure of smoking and bicycling and deny Viagra to those who brought it on themselves through lifestyle choices?
@Saridactyl - [facepalm] I actually don’t care about contraception if I don’t have to pay for it through taxes. I just felt like pushing buttons, but you don’t want to play anymore.
@GodlessLiberal - “According to whom? When we go to war with nations, we don’t seek to wipe them out.”It should be pretty clear, “war” here is not being used in the literal sense.“SOME women. And a reminder, SOME Japanese felt that the internment camps set up during WWII were justified.”Its nice that “some” can be used to represent any % of a population. (SOME people have blonde hair. SOME people believe the world is flat.) What do you think the %s are for women that find the “war on women” ridiculous? And you didn’t answer if you think all female republicans and women against abortion all hate women?@Lost_In_Reverie - I never said it was a party… but you said it was “scary”….which was my point of contention. I actually am sympathetic to many of your points, but at the same time, I think you often paint the picture with too broad a brush. The domestic violence laws are complicated….and they aren’t just a simple case of assault or battery….and lets be honest, in reality, these laws are actually less male friendly. The image you paint here is that men can now hit their girlfriends as long as they aren’t married? That’s ridiculous. If I had a roommate and his (male) friend slept on the couch one night and we got in an argument and I punched him in the face….I can go to jail for it. And also, keep in mind, this isn’t particularly an attack on women. Its often ignored that many studies show men are more often the victims of domestic abuse and the legal system in can be very anti-male when it comes to issues of domestic violence.The same broadness applies to your examples of unequal pay and Planned Parenthood. Do you think if the government stopped funding PP, PP would dissolve? Do you know what % government funding for PP represents….and how much “profit” PP actually makes? Its aburd to think if the government pulled their funding….suddenly PP would disappear and low income women suddenly would have no access to health care. As for the unequal pay….yes unfortunately, it seems to be common “knowledge” that women make 77% of what men make…and yet it is uncommon to know that this statistic is (intentionally) misleading and based on total income regardless of position and hours worked. All studies that normalize and control for these factors end up with men being paid 2-4% higher for the same jobs. (Some of which may be attributed to negotiating initial income). As far as the Wisconsin issue, again I think its misleading to think this is an “anti-women” law. The Equal Pay Law was ONE additional avenue with which to sue for discrimination (there are several other avenues still available). And also concerning maternal death rate….again, this is a stretch to think this is a result of anti-women laws…and again, you’re simply not providing any context here. America has by FAR the best acute MEDICAL CARE in the world (again, not healthcare, but medical care). In spite of this, we have tons of health issues…maternal death rate being one of them….that are due to a vast number of various factors. (Of course, healthcare being one of them…but the point is, there are many factors involved here.)I can appreciate a lot of your thoughts and points on the issue…and I’m not apathetic to them and I don’t mean to trivialize those issues in any way. But I’m saying not all the issues are necessarily anti-women (they affect males as well) and there are a whole host of legal issues in America that I can bring up that are also very anti-male as well. So looking at the bigger picture, I still don’t understand what the “War on Women” is exactly (outside of the framework of the abortion issue) and why it’s “scary” to be a woman in America. @RazielV - “The more of your comments I read the more I find you to be an absolute idiot. I can’t imagine how you treat the women around you.”Well, I guess I can’t retaliate and call you an idiot….since I don’t know who you are. You might very well be a genius. In fact, you must be one since you seem to be able to know how I treat women and what type of person and character I have from reading a comment post on Xanga. Congrats on being so smart.@Ooglick - I agree. Outside of the framework of the abortion issue, I just don’t see the “War on Women”. Sure there are issues and laws that might not favor women….just as there are laws and issues that don’t favor men (and there’s a lot of those as well). As I said above, I’m not apathetic to the plight of women in America…but when it comes to the “War on Women” slogan, let’s just call it what it is….a political gimmick. (And I’m not a Republican btw). @AmorVomnia7 - “just like I can disagree with the psychotic fixation that republicans have with human sexuality without calling it a “war on women”"Thank you. I’m not sure what we’d agree on various issues…but you see the “War on Women” for what it is….a political gimmick. (not a bad political move…though a deceitful one)… that will likely pick up a few extra votes from people who watch too much MTV. @GodlessLiberal - “That transvaginal ultrasound is inserted deeply into the vagina whether the woman wants it or not. Sounds pretty rapey to me.”A transvaginal ultrasound is to rape as a surgical procedure is to assault with a deadly weapon. I suppose in 10 years when you get a prostate exam, you will proceed to punch your doctor in the face for sexually assaulting you? @Jenny_Wren - “The matter concerning abortion–that is not a matter even concerning the rights of women, no matter how it’s painted by more liberal thinkers. I know many republicans who are fine with contraception and prevention, and so, are fine with women controlling their rate of pregnancy–but casually ending a human life, for whatever reason outside criminal sentencing, has serious philosophical implications. There is reason to be worried more for that sort of thinking, its effect against humanity as a whole, than the right trying to “control a woman”….”As a woman, and as a woman who believes in the equality and value of women in society alongside men–I have never seen abortion as an issue of oppression over women. Rather, I have seen it as the protection, and thus, the elevation of the value of human life–for women, for men, for all.”I can appreciate your point of view. I’m actually not a Republican, but tend to be on the socially conservative side, and I like Obama. =) But I like to view issues independently and formulate my theories and ideas without necessarily starting from a belief system. The entire point of my post was to highlight the gimmicky nature of the slogan “War on Women”….specifically I find it ridiculous outside of the framework of the abortion issue. I try not to get into the actual abortion issue too much…but I like that you highlighted that there are philosophical implications to abortion as they pertain to our ideas of justice and morality.
Blah, blah, blah. Slaves cannot have abortions. The free hooker population has to be oppressed, and we are going through a ritual sacrifice.
@wizexel22 - I was referring to a transvaginal ultrasound in the case of a woman being raped and needing an abortion. Then she has 5 inches of medical implementation shoved into her vagina against her will as she’s trying to get over a horrible experience. You compare it to a colonoscopy. The difference is that a colonoscopy is a medically beneficial procedure, where as a TV ultrasound is just a way to shame women out of getting an abortion.
@wizexel22 - its a scary time to be in america period.
Fantastic work guys im a fan of your website.top pharmacies
I have got the superb information from these blogs finally.source
Thank you so much you have given the great blogs site by which we can get more advantage.Gino problemy