Why the push to control womens productive freedoms?

[theeedude]

Inmates are running the GOP asylum. This Republican lady in Arizona who is pushing bill where women would have to reveal their use of birth control to their employer so he can determine if it's medically necessary and consistent with his religious beliefs before paying for it. When I heard it I just said, wow, these people WANT to lose elections, you go girl.

 

[Jhhnn]

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."

Heh. Screw-ups as compared to what? The self regulated banking sponsored & enabled by the Bush Admin, the inevitable banking crisis, bailout & the great recession? Over $1T down the ratholes of Afghanistan & Iraq?

Tell us some more about Obama's economic screw-ups...

 

[Munky]

Heh. Screw-ups as compared to what? The self regulated banking sponsored & enabled by the Bush Admin, the inevitable banking crisis, bailout & the great recession? Over $1T down the ratholes of Afghanistan & Iraq?

Tell us some more about Obama's economic screw-ups...

The "but Buuuush" tactic is getting old. Here's just a partial list of his screw-ups, from memory:
-He failed to create effective regulation that would stop the banks from holding the economy hostage
-He appointed the same Larry Summers who enabled the crisis under Greedspan as his economic adviser
-He appointed Timmy G who saw the crisis unfold while being the head of the NY Fed as his tres secretary
-He appointed Eric PlaceHolder to head the DOJ, who then made a name for himself selling guns to the Mexican drug cartel and whitewashing the bankster fraud with a slap-on-the-wrist settlement
-He continues American involvement in foreign wars, as well as continuing drunken deficit spending
-He wasted millions of tax dollars on kickbacks to his buddies at Solyndra under the "clean energy" scam

Do I need to go further? The people were promised hope and change, but in effect Obama is continuing the same practices Bush was criticized for.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Sorry bot those are par for the course. not screw-ups.

 

[Siddhartha]

The "but Buuuush" tactic is getting old. Here's just a partial list of his screw-ups, from memory:
-He failed to create effective regulation that would stop the banks from holding the economy hostage
-He appointed the same Larry Summers who enabled the crisis under Greedspan as his economic adviser
-He appointed Timmy G who saw the crisis unfold while being the head of the NY Fed as his tres secretary
-He appointed Eric PlaceHolder to head the DOJ, who then made a name for himself selling guns to the Mexican drug cartel and whitewashing the bankster fraud with a slap-on-the-wrist settlement
-He continues American involvement in foreign wars, as well as continuing drunken deficit spending
-He wasted millions of tax dollars on kickbacks to his buddies at Solyndra under the "clean energy" scam

Do I need to go further? The people were promised hope and change, but in effect Obama is continuing the same practices Bush was criticized for.

If your list of Mr Obama's "screw ups" is what is important why are the Republicans not talking about them instead of going after Planned Parenthood, Birth Control, etc?

Why are the Republicans pushing policies that any sane person would know will piss off a large voting block of women?

 

[Munky]

If your list of Mr Obama's "screw ups" is what is important why are the Republicans not talking about them instead of going after Planned Parenthood, Birth Control, etc?

People are talking about it, just not the usual mainstream talking heads and their short-memory audience.

Why are the Republicans pushing policies that any sane person would know will piss off a large voting block of women?

Because those women are making demands to what they're not entitled. Want something, but don't want to pay for it? Send an tear-jerker emotional appeal for sympathy, and wait for the usual bleeding heart libs to join the choir.

The dems are pushing the issue of state crossing the line on the separation of church and state. It's in their best interest to convince people that this is a "women's health" issue, as opposed to the former. It's also in their best interest to promise "free" handouts to anyone who feels entitled to one.

The repubs, being the fools they are, simply didn't see the ruse coming from a mile away.

 

[ericlp]

more of the same "my god can suck a bigger dick than your god" bullshit....All religions are hellbent on abortion $ so they will put up whatever road blocks they can to make sure that cash doesn't get to any woman that wants one.

There ideology is fucked up beyond belief. But nothing new here.

 

[Atreus21]

I'd like to point out that the whole "control of women's reproductive rights" thing came along when the gubmint mandated that Catholic organizations subsidize birth control against their convictions. Then when they said, "That's against our convictions," democrats said, "They're trying to control women's bodies!"

We could force mosques to serve bacon this way. "They're trying to outlaw bacon!"

 

[CycloWizard]

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

Get rid of Medicare - problem solved. I'm tired of being penalized for everyone else's poor decisions simply because it makes someone else feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[FerrelGeek]

election year bullshit.

It's sort of the next step if you want to prove your feminist credentials.

It works both ways.

 

[QuantumPion]

I'd like to point out that the whole "control of women's reproductive rights" thing came along when the gubmint mandated that Catholic organizations subsidize birth control against their convictions. Then when they said, "That's against our convictions," democrats said, "They're trying to control women's bodies!"

We could force mosques to serve bacon this way. "They're trying to outlaw bacon!"

I'd like to point out that this debate is not about "reproductive rights". The only country in the world that I am aware of that controls "reproductive rights", literally, the right to have children, is China. This whole issue was just a trojan horse to smear Republicans from the get-go.

 

[thraashman]

I'd like to point out that this debate is not about "reproductive rights". The only country in the world that I am aware of that controls "reproductive rights", literally, the right to have children, is China. This whole issue was just a trojan horse to smear Republicans from the get-go.

There's no need to smear Republicans. Their actions are a smear upon humanity. Republicans are just bad people who think of minorities, homosexuals, and women as less than human, clear and simple.

 

[thraashman]

I'd like to point out that the whole "control of women's reproductive rights" thing came along when the gubmint mandated that Catholic organizations subsidize birth control against their convictions. Then when they said, "That's against our convictions," democrats said, "They're trying to control women's bodies!"

We could force mosques to serve bacon this way. "They're trying to outlaw bacon!"

Or, if you'd rather tell the truth and be accurate, it'd be more like if a mosque funded a university or hospital and ruled that women on the premises had to cover their hair and face and the government said you can't make them do that.

 

[CycloWizard]

The fundamental problem here is that there is no right to force me to pay for your healthcare. That's a demand, not a right. Demands inherently conflict with rights. Either I have a right to my money or I don't. The minute someone else can claim my money for themselves is the minute I lost my right to property. Should my health insurance be compelled to cover weekly massages and a gym membership so I won't be fat and stressed? This nation lost sight of the concepts of rights, responsibilities, and demands many years ago and has been circling the drain ever since.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

That's why this is a political issue. It's not that your argument is completely wrong, it's that conservatives are ONLY applying that argument to reproductive health issues. Nobody is demanding that insurance (public or private) stop paying for emergency room visits if you hurt yourself skiing or by taking part in some other elective activity with inherent risks. It's only once sex enters the picture (and really, only sex for women) that Republicans are suddenly deeply concerned with their say in what you do.

And that's really the issue. It's not the tedious, condescending, lectures...it's that the tedious, condescending lectures only come out when it involves female reproductive issues.

 

[EXman]

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?

No it is because Obama likes to tell people what to do and further divide Americans into easier to catergorize blocks. And the 1st Amendment only applies to covering libs. And never to unborn children viable or not.

 

[Jhhnn]

The fundamental problem here is that there is no right to force me to pay for your healthcare. That's a demand, not a right. Demands inherently conflict with rights. Either I have a right to my money or I don't. The minute someone else can claim my money for themselves is the minute I lost my right to property. Should my health insurance be compelled to cover weekly massages and a gym membership so I won't be fat and stressed? This nation lost sight of the concepts of rights, responsibilities, and demands many years ago and has been circling the drain ever since.

Sigh. So you're taking an absolutist position against insurance? How quaint. If you're doing business with the govt, certain insurance requirements must be met. It's the same for many kinds of licensed activities. If you drive, you must, by law, have insurance. ( I know- you'll circle back around the the old saw of "States Rights")

All of those kinds of insurance cover benefits that each of us may never use, but they're included as part of the package, often by law.

If your argument about paying for other's mistakes held water at all, we'd see insurance providers objecting to the contraception provisions of the new law, but we don't, because they realize it will save them and us money when we look past the ends of our noses.

I realize that in Libertopia, hospitals would refuse to treat people who can't afford to pay, that child welfare would be of no concern, that the aged & infirm would be on their own to survive. But it'll never be that way in this country, so we have to make rational rather than emotional choices in the realm of the possible. Within that framework, contraception is cheaper than welfare, and shared risk is better than individual risk.

Regardless of the positions of delusional moralistic libertarian poseurs, the American people have decided that we take care of our own, of each other, rather than just ourselves, and that we all benefit from that in ways direct & indirect, whether you can comprehend it or not. If the world really worked the way you think it should, rather than the way it does, then there would be no need for govt to implement any number of requirements on citizens.

 

[Ausm]

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?

I personally think it is a BRILLIANT move by the Republicans!

 

[Ausm]

The fundamental problem here is that there is no right to force me to pay for your healthcare. That's a demand, not a right. Demands inherently conflict with rights. Either I have a right to my money or I don't. The minute someone else can claim my money for themselves is the minute I lost my right to property. Should my health insurance be compelled to cover weekly massages and a gym membership so I won't be fat and stressed? This nation lost sight of the concepts of rights, responsibilities, and demands many years ago and has been circling the drain ever since.

LMAO are you really this ignorant?? You make an awesome Republishepal!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The government doesn't have rights, only people have rights. The government has no right to do anything because it's not people...

wait...

 

[FerrelGeek]

That's why this is a political issue. It's not that your argument is completely wrong, it's that conservatives are ONLY applying that argument to reproductive health issues. Nobody is demanding that insurance (public or private) stop paying for emergency room visits if you hurt yourself skiing or by taking part in some other elective activity with inherent risks. It's only once sex enters the picture (and really, only sex for women) that Republicans are suddenly deeply concerned with their say in what you do.

And that's really the issue. It's not the tedious, condescending, lectures...it's that the tedious, condescending lectures only come out when it involves female reproductive issues.

And 'female reproductive issues' only come out when dems need to whip up their feminist base. This issues isn't about women's reproductive health at all. And your analogy was poor. The proper analogy would be to force subsidies for lift tickets for skiers or drop zone fees for skydivers. No one is saying, 'Oh honey, you got yourself all knocked up! Guess you have to pay everything out of pocket to cover prenatal care and delivery or go have your ilicit spawn in the street.'

As others have said, I can't stop what people do with their bodies wrt sex, nor do I care to - it's their business not mine. But don't ask me to pay for precautionary measures under the guise of 'women's health'. Besides, condoms are cheaper and in many places you can get them for free.

 

[FuzzyBee]

That's why this is a political issue. It's not that your argument is completely wrong, it's that conservatives are ONLY applying that argument to reproductive health issues. Nobody is demanding that insurance (public or private) stop paying for emergency room visits if you hurt yourself skiing or by taking part in some other elective activity with inherent risks. It's only once sex enters the picture (and really, only sex for women) that Republicans are suddenly deeply concerned with their say in what you do.

And that's really the issue. It's not the tedious, condescending, lectures...it's that the tedious, condescending lectures only come out when it involves female reproductive issues.

Huh? Perhaps you can name an organization/religion/whatever that is being denied the ability to not fund the insurance for emergency room visits for skiing, *which is fundamentally forbidden by their doctrine*.

Of course, it's much easier (and more effectively attempts to serve your obviously hateful purpose) to paint the concept with a very wide brush, isn't it?

 

[CycloWizard]

That's why this is a political issue. It's not that your argument is completely wrong, it's that conservatives are ONLY applying that argument to reproductive health issues. Nobody is demanding that insurance (public or private) stop paying for emergency room visits if you hurt yourself skiing or by taking part in some other elective activity with inherent risks. It's only once sex enters the picture (and really, only sex for women) that Republicans are suddenly deeply concerned with their say in what you do.

And that's really the issue. It's not the tedious, condescending, lectures...it's that the tedious, condescending lectures only come out when it involves female reproductive issues.

I buy insurance for my car in case I have an accident. Why should health insurance be different? I don't expect car insurance to cover the cost of gas, tires, and oil changes, but my health insurance now has to cover preventative maintenance 100%. You don't have to convince me that Republicans are idiots - we are in full agreement on that issue. They happen to get it right every once in a while, even if for the wrong reasons.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sigh. So you're taking an absolutist position against insurance? How quaint. If you're doing business with the govt, certain insurance requirements must be met. It's the same for many kinds of licensed activities. If you drive, you must, by law, have insurance. ( I know- you'll circle back around the the old saw of "States Rights")

All of those kinds of insurance cover benefits that each of us may never use, but they're included as part of the package, often by law.

If your argument about paying for other's mistakes held water at all, we'd see insurance providers objecting to the contraception provisions of the new law, but we don't, because they realize it will save them and us money when we look past the ends of our noses.

I realize that in Libertopia, hospitals would refuse to treat people who can't afford to pay, that child welfare would be of no concern, that the aged & infirm would be on their own to survive. But it'll never be that way in this country, so we have to make rational rather than emotional choices in the realm of the possible. Within that framework, contraception is cheaper than welfare, and shared risk is better than individual risk.

Regardless of the positions of delusional moralistic libertarian poseurs, the American people have decided that we take care of our own, of each other, rather than just ourselves, and that we all benefit from that in ways direct & indirect, whether you can comprehend it or not. If the world really worked the way you think it should, rather than the way it does, then there would be no need for govt to implement any number of requirements on citizens.

You're taking an absolutist position in direct opposition to logic. Your argument is that a law exists requiring insurance, therefore we must have laws mandating insurance. Your argument is a nonsense. Insurance should be about pooling risk, not about subsidizing one group at the expense of another. Your blessed government has forced it to become the latter. My statement is that the way it is now is rubbish, so why are we going to keep it that way? Your argument is that we must keep it that way because that's the way it is.

 

[CycloWizard]

LMAO are you really this ignorant?? You make an awesome Republishepal!

Maybe you can point out how the post you quoted could imply ignorance?