Why the push to control womens productive freedoms?

[Texashiker]

Is it just me, or has womens productive freedoms been in the news more then usual lately.

Everything from mandates that religious organizations provide access to birth control, to the catholic church fighting the mandates, to states trying to pass new laws on abortion.

Texas is in a show down with the federal government over funding a womens health program. Texas does not want government money going to organizations that provide abortions, so the federal government is going to cut the funding to Texas. That way no money will make it down to the local level for any reproductive services.

Is it because this is an election year and politicians want to cater to the religious right?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I think it has more do to with society paying for their 'screw ups'.


This is what it is to me.. I don't care at ALL what you do with your body as long as I don't have to pay for it. The wrench in this is that if we don't pay for their screwups we end up spending 10x that on unwanted offspring who aren't raised correctly.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It more fun and easier than forcing childhood immunizations?

 

[Saint Nick]

I have no idea, but I am right there with you. Not sure what politics have to do with personal choices. I think it should be up to a health insurance provider to decide what they provide vs. what they do not. If you do not like what they provide, then go to another health insurance provider.

I should also add, that it takes two to make a baby. And while the whole "child support" thing is another issue in itself, I think that the women are being singled out here.

I'm just going to stop there before I embarrass myself. I am with SpatiallyAware on this. Pretty much the point I was trying to get to. I don't care what you do with your body, but I don't want to pay for your kid if you have one and can't support it yourself

 

[micrometers]

election year bullshit.

It's sort of the next step if you want to prove your pro-life credentials. Also, Griswald vs Conneticut which legalized contraceptives is a legal stepping stone to Roe v Wade.

 

[Blackjack200]

I wish the ADA would come up with a new requirement that abortion facilities equip themselves with a special robotic arm that can lift disabled women directly out of their cars and into the baby-killing machines.

 

[werepossum]

I wish the ADA would come up with a new requirement that abortion facilities equip themselves with a special robotic arm that can lift disabled women directly out of their cars and into the baby-killing machines.

 

[RedString]

No reason, just taking away the focus away from more important political issues. Mr. Paul the only one in debates willing to say these things shouldn't even be on the table and we should focus on more important issues.

 

[blankslate]

I think it has more do to with society paying for their 'screw ups'.


This is what it is to me.. I don't care at ALL what you do with your body as long as I don't have to pay for it. The wrench in this is that if we don't pay for their screwups we end up spending 10x that on unwanted offspring who aren't raised correctly.

That's the thing it's not only for paying for screw-ups not unless you just somehow are dittohead who only listens to the drug-addled misogynist, you should know this.

Contraception when it works prevents screw-ups. Sometimes birth-control pills are used for legitimate health-care reasons.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's a logical contradiction to say that people are free to choose their own path through life, then demand that others subsidize that path. If you want me to pay for something, I need to have a say in how it is done. Similarly, if I'm not paying for it, then I have much less justification for input into your behaviors/activities. If you're free to make a bad decision, I must be free from paying for the negative outcomes of those decisions. This nation gives people great leeway in deciding how to behave but has a poor track record for holding people accountable for those decisions.

 

[sunzt]

It's a logical contradiction to say that people are free to choose their own path through life, then demand that others subsidize that path. If you want me to pay for something, I need to have a say in how it is done. Similarly, if I'm not paying for it, then I have much less justification for input into your behaviors/activities. If you're free to make a bad decision, I must be free from paying for the negative outcomes of those decisions. This nation gives people great leeway in deciding how to behave but has a poor track record for holding people accountable for those decisions.

So what about those who live unhealthy lives and have tons of medical problems (obesity, diabetes, preventable cancer) when they hit medicare?

 

[micrometers]

So what about those who live unhealthy lives and have tons of medical problems (obesity, diabetes, preventable cancer) when they hit medicare?

lol exactly. The truth is that most medical junk is from people's poor choices.

 

[dank69]

No reason, just taking away the focus away from more important political issues. Mr. Paul the only one in debates willing to say these things shouldn't even be on the table and we should focus on more important issues.

Dr. Paul

 

[Craig234]

It has to do with giving the large fundamentalist demographic a strong reason to want to vote Republican this year - to prefer Republicans and get out the vote.

It also serves to give them an issue that makes them not care about things like 'why did the Republicans run the economy into the biggest crash in 75 years again?'

 

[cubby1223]

Is it just me, or has womens productive freedoms been in the news more then usual lately.

Everything from mandates that religious organizations provide access to birth control, to the catholic church fighting the mandates, to states trying to pass new laws on abortion.

Texas is in a show down with the federal government over funding a womens health program. Texas does not want government money going to organizations that provide abortions, so the federal government is going to cut the funding to Texas. That way no money will make it down to the local level for any reproductive services.

Is it because this is an election year and politicians want to cater to the religious right?

Campaign issues go both ways. You better believe the progressives are trying as hard as they can to put anything they can in the news that they think will destroy the evil right.

Look at how you word your own statements. I do not equate abortions with women's health. In other words, if someone is against abortions, I do not label that person as against women's health. But activists do because they like the headlines.

 

[Fern]

Is it just me, or has womens productive freedoms been in the news more then usual lately.

No, it's not just you. It has clearly been in the news much more than usually.

Is it because this is an election year and politicians want to cater to the religious right?

IMO, yes it's in the news because it's election year.

But I don't believe it was brought up by the right to cater to RR.

IMO, the first big clue here is the Obama admin mandating Catholic churches provide BC in spite of reassuring church officials for approx 2 years that they would not. IMO, that was a politically calculated move to elevate and bring social issues to the fore. This has the great benefit of pushing economic news, high unemployment and bad housing market, and deficit/debt problems right off the stage.

The Repubs, again IMO, wanted to keep the spotlight on the economy and spending. Obama and the Dems have out maneuvered them here. But I think the Repubs stupidly played into this. The 1st amendment issue (Freedom of Religion) could not go unaddressed, but the Repubs allowed themselves to be drawn into the much larger argument of BC subsidized by HI etc.

The only Repub candidate who was running on social issues was Santorum. Clearly Romney wasn't, and aside from the 1st amendment issue I think the last thing Gingrich wanted was this sort of shift in the debate given his marital history. Gingrich is obviously more of a policy wonk (or thinks he is) and so this sort debate plays away from his strengths.

So, this is most definitely not about the RR, who aren't going to vote for Obama anyway. This whole debate is for consumption by the independent and moderate voters who will decide this election. It's also largely targeted at women, who helped greatly in electing Obama in '08 but who have moving away from him likely because of the economy.

Cliffs: Yes it's election year politics. But not about the RR.

Fern

 

[jackschmittusa]

Fern

"IMO, the first big clue here is the Obama admin mandating Catholic churches provide BC"

False! The churches were exempt from the beginning. The whole issue was about the corporations they run.

 

[blankslate]

IMO, the first big clue here is the Obama admin mandating Catholic churches provide BC in spite of reassuring church officials for approx 2 years that they would not. IMO, that was a politically calculated move to elevate and bring social issues to the fore. This has the great benefit of pushing economic news, high unemployment and bad housing market, and deficit/debt problems right off the stage.

This is why I'm questioning if President Obama really wanted to bring social issues to the forefront because right now with the exception of gasoline prices the economic news is fairly good if not as good as we need it to be.

Usually it's the person who is losing or not winning who would want to focus on anything other than the economy. Gas prices didn't quite start rising at that moment.

There is this to consider as well. After the initial row over this "controversy" a compromise was broached by the administration. It seemed to be a reasonable compromise but then there was still a "controversy." Lush Rimbaugh finally blew it up with his slander (or is it libel?) of the law student who wanted to testify about it on behalf of an acquaintance.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fern

"IMO, the first big clue here is the Obama admin mandating Catholic churches provide BC"

False! The churches were exempt from the beginning. The whole issue was about the corporations they run.

The truth.

It's all about Repubs frothing up the Fundie Fringe, because if those folks stay home, Repubs will get beaten rather badly. Of course, if they keep going the way they have, alienating women, they'll get beaten rather badly anyway.

They're jammed, hard, and thrashing about in desperation for "issues" they think will stick.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Because the repugs think they will win in 2012 by siding with Catholics.

 

[Fern]

Fern

"IMO, the first big clue here is the Obama admin mandating Catholic churches provide BC"

False! The churches were exempt from the beginning. The whole issue was about the corporations they run.

Seriously?

Go semantics when you've got nothing else. Must we really spell out the minor details such as "Catholic hospitals" etc.?

My point stands as is and is valid. No amount of ticky-tack type crap can change that.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Because the repugs think they will win in 2012 by siding with Catholics.

You mean the Catholic Hierarchy, right? It's not like Catholics don't practice birth control, or Fundies, either-

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html

If they're trying to do something other than pander to the fringe, they're woofing up the wrong tree...

I think they should be encouraged, really.

 

[preCRT]

Because GOP fundies hate sex & hate women.

 

[Siddhartha]

I read that Mr Santorum said that the Economy is not the issue in the election. Without the economy to campaign against the Republicans have gone back to the cultural wars.

 

[Munky]

Because there's no better way to get women to ignore all of Obama's economy screw-ups than to convince them that his opposition is waging a "war against women."