Nebraska: Allowing gender inequality one state at a time!
In addition to getting a sweetheart deal for his home state, Ben Nelson also got Harry Reid to offer more than the Casey abortion language in the manager’s amendment. In addition to providing stronger conscience protections for medical institutions and health workers opposed to abortion, and expanding adoption tax credits, the manager’s amendment segregates funds and gives states the option of excluding from their insurance exchanges any plans that cover abortion. In essence, that allows states to adopt the strict Stupak provisions without requiring that states do so.
I think there’s a bit of reverse psychology going on with respect to the issue of abortion. Let’s dispense with the term anti-abortion, shall we? Let’s call it what it really is: The movement to deny women the ability to decide for themselves whether to be parents as most persons endowed by their creators with unalienable rights have the right to do. With anti-abortion measures, women are not just subject to the state, they are forced to recognize a religious presence in their lives whether they have faith or not. Men do not need to recognize any faith. They are allowed complete freedom of conscience.
In fact, a crisis of conscience is only respected when women decide to end a pregnancy. If religious people decide to kill innocent civilians as the collateral damage in a proxy religious war halfway around the world, the rest of us still have to pay taxes for this endeavor regardless of our crisis of conscience. If fundamentalists insist on an eye for an eye with respect to convicted murderers, even if some of those people are victims of mistaken identity, those of us who oppose capital punishment of innocent people are not allowed to segregate our tax dollars from theirs when it comes time to purchase materials for a lethal injection. One would think that their god would have more consistency when it comes to life ending procedures but for some unfathomable reason, he only objects to women doing it when it affects their own personal lives. If that’s not the definition of inequality, I don’t know what is. In fact, if we’re going to continue to fight about Roe v.Wade for the duration of the Republic, let’s just get rid of it now and re-decide the case based on equality instead of privacy. Are women equal persons under the law? Do they have the unalienable right to decide for themselves if and when they will be parents? Bart Stupak, would you like to answer that question so the women of Michigan can know what they’re voting for in 2010?
This is at the bottom of Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak’s argument in favor of anti-abortion language in the proposed bills. They feel their priesthood status in their chosen Christian faith charges them with ordering everyone’s lives according to their worldview. Who appointed them their very narrow and specific, fundamentalist and authoritarian Judeo-Christian God’s authorities on earth? Apparently, the people of Nebraska and a district in Michigan did. I thought the Constitution guaranteed us no state religion but I guess the founders weren’t thinking about the extra specialness of Nebraska and a district in Michigan. Nebraska has a population density of 23 persons/square mile and decreasing. To put some perspective on that, New Jersey’s population density is 1,134 persons/square mile. Now, I know that we have a new Republican governor who could conceivably decide to impose his own conservative stamp on the health care reform act in NJ and take the Nebraska Compromise but if he does, he probably shouldn’t be surprised if women here send their friends around to break his knees. And then they’re going to be really angry at Congressional Democrats for making it possible for a handful of religious hardasses in Nebraska to control the equal and independent women living in the crowded suburbs of New Jersey.
Look ahead, Democrats. Do you really want to piss off more women in New Jersey? Remember what happened to Corzine.
It’s important that we separate abortion from health care reform if for no other reason than there are buggers inside Congress that are trying so damned hard to conflate the two. So, here’s the deal, guys. There is no deal. We don’t like this bill. You apologists for the Democratic party can rationalize it 6 ways to Sunday but there’s no denying that it doesn’t go far enough. It’s not the New Deal type legislation we desperately need and everyone knows it. It’s going to saddle a lot of people at the edge with another major expense they can’t afford to pay. It will rob Petra to pay Paula and even though Petra and Paula are friends, Petra gets relatively little out of this deal. We aren’t going to end up with a Canadian system, heck, we’re not even getting Germany or Switzerland. We’re getting a uniquely American system where the middle class and everyone under it is going to be forced to buy from virtual monopolies that will join the cable companies and telecomm giants and banks in screwing them out of every disposable dollar they have. It’s socialism for the insurance industry.
There were a multitude of permutations that would have succeeded in covering poor and sick people but the Democrats picked the one that is most likely to piss off their own constituents in the highest numbers. Congratulations, guys.
But this abortion thing? I gotta wonder why it wasn’t sufficient to stick the knife into health care reform without adding the agonizing poison. You should have never even entertained Stupak and Nelson no matter how much they howled and screamed. That’s going to come back to bite you. And no matter how much theater comes up on the floor of the Senate during debate in the next couple of days to try to remove the amendments and compromises, taking them out is not going to make this bill smell any sweeter. The jig is up. We see through the distraction.
Leave the Nebraska Compromise in and you’re massively screwed next year by all of those involuntary female converts to fundamentalist Christianity and Catholicism no matter where they live. An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.
Take it out and you’re still going to alienate all of the Democrats who now have your number. Either way, your failure to deliver a truly transformative health care reform bill is going to bite you in the ass.
Put the champagne flute down and sober up.
Update: The official talking points troll has arrived in the comments and has a message prepared in the best marketing, manipulative language the Democrats can buy. It’s obvious that it’s prepared because the commenter didn’t really bother to read the post. So, here is a summary for those of you too lazy to read the whole thing:
Here’s the bottom line:
If you don’t take the time to do it right, when will you have the time to do it over?
The answer is never. The Democrats are shooting their wad right now on an insufficient and fatally flawed bill because they are afraid they will lose their majorities in congress in 2010.
We want to decouple abortion from this bill, not because leaving in the restrictions are abominable but because it distracts from the badness of the bill.
And don’t tell me about how non-profits have to now take care of the abortion needs of women. American women are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for this country. They deserve to be treated like independent persons with dignity and respect, not like fucking second class citizens and beggars.
The equal rights issue is going to last waaaay past the resolution of this bill. Democrats should be a lot more careful about these things. They WILL pay for it.
Addendum: We need to dump Roe v. Wade. All it has ever done is empower the religious right and allows both parties to use it as a political football. It is time for the country to decide once and for all whether women are equal persons under the law entitled to equal pay, equal rights and the equal ability to decide if they are going to be parents. Dump the damn POS. Put the politicians of both parties on the hotseat and make them defend their primitive inequitable treatment of women. Repeat after me: “I will not support any politician who invokes Roe v. Wade in order to get my vote.”
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: Health Care Reform | Tagged: abortion, Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson, crisis of conscience, Health Care Reform, Nebraska Compromise |
The Confluence 
I’m confused.
evidently christian jihadists are more equal than muslim jihadists
Coathanger Ben represents the American version of the taliban
👿
Thank you RD for articulating this so well! Every one in the country needs to know exactly what all the compromises on this bill do.
I woke up this morning thinking how broken our government is now. It’s all about the power plays and power players and folks with money. I still can’t believe that I will be taxed, most likely, to force some poor person into an overpriced insurance plan and if they can’t afford it even then, they will be taxed also. And they sell out women for this?
People should be out in the streets about this … what does it say about senators that can so easily be bought off simply by giving their states huge amounts of booty.
Hey, not to worry. I’m sure that “prayer medicine” will be in the bill.
The NJ thing is very real. We now have a Republican governor. Hey, I voted for the good guy, not this Christie idiot. And he’s just the kind of asshole who this compromise appeals to.
It’ll happen down here in Louisiana too. Jindal is a full fledged member of the catholic taliban.
yeah, here in California, we have a Republican governor too; just this morning, continuing to quote Ronald Reagan and all of his wondrous accomplishments. The ride has been scary let me tell you. However, this HC bill, according to Ahnold is going to cost this already crippled state 3 billion.
Nah, Ahnold isn’t going to take the compromise. He’s not that kind of Republican. Unfortunately, Christie is.
Whether Ahnold takes the compromise or not, the extra costs are still there. Unless it’s Nebraska or Michigan of course.
Hell Aahhnuld wanted to unilaterally overturn the Prop 8 vote.
What a great post !! I must go share this now on fb.
Love this paragrah – In fact, a crisis of conscience ….
I wonder what all my friends from Choice are thinking now. I’m so sorry I was right about this dipsh*t.
Ain’t that the truth. I refer to stuidstupik as discrimination of women. It is a medical procedure that is refused coverage based on sex. Only women find them selves specifically singled out. What medical procedure is refused coverage for men? I think men should not have prostate surgery covered. Let them pay for it them selves. Sort of a quid pro quo. They can refuse to cover one female procedure, and in turn, one male procedure can be “un-covered”. Let the men face the consequences of cancer. I often said that in some ways having an unwanted pregnancy is as traumatic as cancer…except you have a chance of being cured from cancer. Each one is life altering. Some have better outcomes than others. Not to be flip, but there is a comparison that men don’t want to acknowledge.
No, we’re not. Sadly, when we were trying to get the ERA passed, some of the biggest obstructionists were women. Barbara Boxer trying to pretend that she and other women senators had saved us from Stupak in the Senate health bill? What a pathetic excuse for a woman, much less a senator.
She has lost my vote.
The democrats have totally lost the right to say we’re marginally better than the republicans on this one … all of those folks that say they’re pro choice need to take a hard look at what they are doing. The women in the senate most of all. I wish Hillary was still there in the senate. I really can’t believe she’d have let this happen.
Hillary probably saw the writing on the wall and took SoS. She would’ve been placed in the very uncomfortable position of going against Obama and getting bad press for it or feeling forced to support Obama’s domestic policies so she wouldn’t look bitter about losing the election to him. Can’t blame her for fleeing the Senate before the sh*t hit the fan under the leadership of the DINOcratic Party.
Cinie had a great post on Hillary “hiding in plain sight”. http://cinie.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/hillary-clinton-hiding-in-plain-sight/
I doubt Hillary’s popularity would be as high as it is now if she were still in the Senate. They’d still be higher than Obama’s but any Democrat associated with this administration is in danger of losing their popularity or their seat in office.
“In addition to providing stronger conscience protections for medical institutions and health workers…”
So I won’t lose my job if I refuse to provide care to Obots and insurance co CEOs? Since it’s against my religion to treat these scumbags.
“…but if he does, he probably shouldn’t be surprised if women here sent their friends around to break his knees. And then they’re going to be really angry at Congressional Democrats for making it possible for a handful of religious hardasses in Nebraska to control the equal and independent women living in the crowded suburbs of New Jersey.
Look ahead, Democrats. Do you really want to piss off more women in New Jersey? Remember what happened to Corzine.”
Thank you riverdaughter, may your brilliance never fade, (said as my morning tea spits through my nose).
The bill is everything she wanted.
Snow is voting against it, but not for that reason. She thinks it’s being passed in too much of a rush. I knew she would never vote for the bill, and Obama turned over the presidency to her to get her vote. What a loser he is.
Statement from Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter on the Senate bill:
They can KISS MY ASS with that mealy-mouthed cautious slithery statement.
What I want to hear is “We are adamantly opposed to any bill that further limits womens choice, and will vote against any bill that contains restrictions. PERIOD, end of discussion.”
Kiss my fucking ass, you COWARDS.
EXACTLY! Enough with this fucking nonsense. They don’t care how many statements any of you politicians make. But they will care if we had some politcians with fortitude staunchly opposing it and threatening to vote against it.
Can they please just swear in Martha Coakley now? We need some guts here!
Hooooo, noooooo! If I were Martha Coakley, I’d want to stay as far away from this as possible. She needs to come in clean.
Ahhh, the kabuki theater commences. I have no doubt that Louise Slaughter is sincere but this is EXACTLY what the leadership wanted- a distraction. Suddenly, taking the abortion provision out will be the most important thing and when it’s removed and everyone votes for the s^&* bill, there will be a celebration of victory for women.
Damn them all.
Where else we gonna go?
BTW, that was dripping with contempt and sarcasm.
I smell a turning point, SOD. Roe has been a stone around our necks. How much you wanna bet that the ERA stalled because of it? It’s been nothing but trouble. If we tell the pols we don’t want it anymore because we want REAL equality, what would happen?
That’s an experiment I’d like to see. And no, I don’t worry about young women’s access to abortion. They’re propping up this weak ruling to their own detriment. Let them really fight for their rights.
I agree that Roe is, and always has been, a weak foundation for choice.
I’m just having a hard time.
SOD, think of all of the women soldiers who have been killed or mutilated in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may be prohibited from front line combat but they are in actuality right in the line of fire. They are MPs and logistics specialists and helicopter pilots. They’ve been shot down, shot at and blown up.
I want every politician on record tell me that those women are not equal to men. We ask them to defend their country and they put their lives on the line.
Time to pay up.
No argument with you there RD.
We haven’t tried for unity for a long, long time. Whenever we do, it’s the womens’ studies people who step in and start philosophizing or the Red Tent Feminists who want to start some kind of separate but equal mother goddess cult and delude themselves into thinking that men envy theri uteruses. That kind of thinking is nonsense.
But you can get women together around equal pay, equal rights, independence, maturity, responsibility, fully engaged citizenship, defenders of America. People of all classes and socio-economic strata understand those concepts.
Okay, but we’re not going to fight for our rights. We’re going to smile and giggle and sign our rights away because we hear the bill might help some guy. I don’t know what, I’m afraid to imagine what it’s going to take to get women to wake up, but trading away something in the belief that somehow it will motivate some kind of uprising that will bring more in the long run? I had no doubt that women were going to rise up and reject Obama, his campaign, and the frat boyz of the Democratic Party. But they didn’t and now we’re in this mess. We vote against our own interests and it’s too speculative and scary to risk anything on the hope that we’ll just stop.
Nope. It will stay in. Bank on it. Because unlike what passes for “pro-choice” Democrats, the pro-lifers are not afraid to send the whole thing down in flames to stand by their position.
Stupak and Nelson won’t cave. The “Pro-choice” caucus will. They will sell women out rather than make the Messiah look weak and ineffectual. All hail the Holy Democrat Label, our highest guiding principle is the Power of the Party above all else. Watch.
I have to say that analysis is right on from where I’m sitting.
We’ll see. The NJ thing is hanging over their heads. I have no doubt that given the chance, Governor Christie will take the compromise.
See, the Nebraska compromise was Ok for the pro-choicers when it just applied to Nebraska and North Dakota and Montana. The reliably blue states were safe, or so they thought. But if you’ve got a new governor in NJ and it’s an state crippled by regressive property taxes and a population so angry and in revolt that they’d vote in a Republican and desert the Democrat because he was a do-nothing asshole, there’s a very good chance that the Republican is going to use that anti-tax sentiment to reward his more conservative supporters who hate abortions.
Ahhh, now it’s not just a handful of nutcases. Now, it’s a heavily populated state that is held hostage to the Democrats’ compromise. And they’re going to remember that.
You are applying sound logic. They will not do that and don’t really care much anymore about their voters. They got nowhere else to go, remember?
They like power or they wouldn’t spend so much money trying to attain it.
I agree but I think they believe people will vote for them anyway. Seems to be a Lightbringer effect of some kind.
We’ll see. Corzine was an Obama style Democrat and he was deposed. If NJ was willing to dump him in this environment, nothing would surprise me where the Lightbringer is concerned.
Give us Hillary in 2012.
Yeah. and remember, we’re dealing with Harry.
I think that’s a very accurate read. Democrat women are the biggest problem, IMO. When I read comments over at FDL these days (which has finally become a very anti-Dem, anti-Obama site among the readers), it’s the guys who are willing to walk away from the Dems entirely. The women are still moaning and groaning that they couldn’t possibly vote for a Repub, a Green, whatever.
We need to redefine the terms under which we accept a politician. We need to free ourselves from Roe. It is meaningless at this point.
We need to not be afraid to dump it. Once we are out from under it, we have the freedom to write our own terms.
Why the anti-abortion language is unconstitutional
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20091112.html
Great find, bb. Thanks.
Clinton / Riverdaughter 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/conrad-senate-health-care_n_398459.html
Just because this things expands coverage to 30 million doesn’t mean they can afford it. I just don’t understand the idea of forcing these folks into making a choice between a tax they can’t afford and an overpriced private insurance plan that may or may not cover what you need it to.
The only group that is going to see any benefit is the well off folks with pre-existing conditions that couldn’t keep their plans … but these folks can be insured if they get group plans so at least they have some choice of changing employers or having a spouse attempt to get coverage through a group plan.
I can’t see this really benefiting the poor at all. So how is the huge price tag justifying this?
Hey, there are 47 million uninsured.
Medical expenses if itemized, can currently be deducted. I’ve always had mine covered, so I don’t know. Was medical insurance a deduction? If so, has it been changed? I realize this doesn’t solve the out of pocket problem, or any of the other horribleness. I’m just trying to wrap my head around some of the angles. I think deductibles are.
medical expenses above 7.5% of income were deductible. that is raised to 10% in the senate bill, so even that is worse.
Not to mention, how many people who are going to use subsidies are likely to file a separate schedule for deductions with their tax return? Wealthier people are the ones most likely to use a tax preparer or Schedule A.
Yep, that never fails to be the case.
You can only deduct medical expenses after they exceed a certain percentage of your income. Forget exactly what that is — 7%? For most people that’s too high to be of much use. However, if you’re self-employed or run a business you can usually deduct all your medical expenses, unless you have a significant loss for the year. Then you can’t (just when it would be most useful, too).
I am self employed and I may be able to deduct expenses but the money I spend in premiums is not deductible… it is considered part of my salary not a medical expense. And it costs me $525 per month to cover myself and my son.
I have an accountant that prepares my taxes and she’s been a accountant that specializes in self-employed/small business people
If I hear “it will expand coverage” one more time, I’m going to explode. NoQuarter has a good discussion going on about the difficulties of finding doctors willing to treat Medicaid patients as it is. I’m also convinced that most people will not opt for the subsidized coverage rather than the fine, because, even with subsidies, they *still* can’t afford the insurance. Many would be hard pressed even to afford the fine.
With bundled services docs will get a single payment for all treatments of a specific ailment.
Do these payment methods also affect people on Medicare and VA programs?
I believe so for at least medicare. I linked the comparison chart on the prior thread.
The P4P and “bundling” also has a disproportionate effect upon healthcare providers not making much profit. Most of the P4P examples I’ve seen assumes the provider is responsible for making patients take their cholesterol or blood pressure medicine (which they likely can’t afford) or to eat right or to have colonoscopy screenings (when they can’t afford the $500 co-pay), etc.
Excellent point. I think they tried to steal this idea from Great Britain (and probably some other nations) who are using this concept. The problem is, in Great Britain, the co-pay for any drug is about $10.00 The concept only works when you have true universal health care and government-supervised drug prices. It doesn’t work when all you have is mandatory insurance with predatory pricing and uncontrolled drug prices.
I agree. and I don’t blame doctors who will work around the system in the way I described above. The only ones that make out on this are the insurance companie and the gov’t who will have to fork over less in uncompensated care subsidies.
Umm, uncontrolled pricing maybe. Predatory? I don’t think so. Of course, the US has elected to take on the responsibility for paying the R&D costs for the rest of the world while simultaneously walking awayf from out of control class action lawsuits, an insuffficient and politicized FDA and a anachronistic patent system. Couple that with Wall Street breathing down the neck for better than ever quarterly profits and you have a recipe for disaster in pharmaceuticals.
The industry has some severe problems and they managed to further destroy their image with a disastrous negotiations in private. But this bill doesn’t solve any of their problems. It just delays the inevitable for a little while longer. Not the way I would have gone but then I’m not one of the MBAs pursuing this strategy.
Perhaps you misread the last sentence. My intention was to say that the insurance company premiums are predatory. The drug prices in this country are uncontrolled. Every other country in the world, it seems, negotiates drug prices for its citizens except for the U.S.
I don’t honestly know what a fair price is for different drugs. I imagine that costs to bring a drug to market are high in the U.S. because the costs of meeting FDA requirements are high. (My knowledge of regulatory costs is in the area of chemicals for pest and disease control of plants–long and expensive process to get something approved and keep it approved.) What I object to is drug companies based in the U.S. who are shipping jobs offshore while expecting Americans to continue to foot the bill for subsidies in the rest of the world. I imagine we’re in agreement on that.
I imagine we are in agreement on that.
Drug prices are high in Italy, but they’re paid for by the Health Service.
The government actually does not negotiate drug prices down, simply because Big Pharma is their biggest source of kickbacks.
However there is an emphasis where poss on generics. What is not passed by the Health Service is stuff that is basically OTC-ointments, lints, bandages, mouthwashes, throat spray, aspirin etc.
There was a co-pay on prescription drugs for a few years but they removed it. Co-pays of $5 a time weren’t worth the bureaucracy.
Good! It’s fine with me if the bill fails in the Senate, and I agree with RD that it’s time to get rid of Roe v. Wade. I’ve thought that for a long time.
Either women are equal under the law or not. If not, we need a revolution! Great post, RD!!!
Oh, wonderful … the CBO made a mistake in its rushed analysis.
CBO Says Error Means Less Longer-Term Savings After 2019
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff
Dec. 20, 2009, 1:58 p.m.
Riiiiight. They’ve probably known about this for days now.
While the ideological manipulations of Stupak and Nelson are very frustrating, the comments regarding killing the bill over this abortion language fall to the same primitive level as that being promoted by these senators. Such thinking is ideology at the expense of the well being of the nation’s most vulnerable. The health care bill has many strong aspects to it that have not received sufficient media coverage and for which the bill should be supported. It is important to realize how few times a woman will have an abortion versus needing other forms of health care. I would rather have people able people to access health care with adequate insurance because of the reforms than have no reforms because of an argument over a funding barrier.
If non-profit organizations are able to focus more on providing abortion funding to women who can’t afford it because other aspects of health care are taken care of, we are most likely in a better situation than now. The ideological battle can be fought once there is a bill in place that is improving some lives.
Translation – “Now now ladies. calm down.
Yup.
The Talking Point has arrived.
Did you even bother to read the post? It doesn’t matter to us whether you leave the abortion language in or out. It’s still a bad bill.
Here’s the bottom line:
If you don’t take the time to do it right, when will you have the time to do it over?
The answer is never. The Democrats are shooting their wad right now on an insufficient and fatally flawed bill because they are afraid they will lose their majorities in congress in 2010.
We want to decouple abortion from this bill, not because leaving in the restrictions are abominable but because it distracts from the badness of the bill.
And don’t tell me about how non-profits have to now take care of the abortion needs of women. American women are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for this country. They deserve to be treated like independent persons with dignity and respect, not like fucking second class citizens and beggars.
The equal rights issue is going to last waaaay past the resolution of this bill. Democrats should be a lot more careful about these things. They WILL pay for it.
It is important to realize how few times a woman will have an abortion versus needing other forms of health care.
Maybe you should tell that to the guys who actually have the power to kill the bill.
Bart Stupak was willing to sacrifice health care reform over the issue. But we’re supposed not supposed to sink to his level, so he wins.
Act primitive – win.
Act civilized – lose.
Ooo! I like that. You could write a whole post with that concept.
“with adequate insurance”
Just what this POS isn’t.
Exactly. I took a gander today at some of the “cost controls” today, and I find them seriously lacking.
I would rather have people able people to access health care with adequate insurance
Define your idea of adequate insurance.
Even if you do have ‘adequate’ insurance, it doesn’t mean it’s cost effective. Third party payers muck up a market badly and exist to create situations to justify themselves. This may change their risk pool slightly which would make it more expensive for them, but it still doesn’t address their mark ups or their nonstandard plans, processes, and paperwork which are at the heart of their incredible costs.
The problem is that the crap insurance that many people will be forced to buy has such high deductibles that people will still not get care. That is what happens here in MA. And ins. co’s can refuse and cap care.
“Primitive?” There is a lot more wrong with this bill than the abortion language. And I disagree with you about ideology being automatically a bad thing.
What you are actually saying is that you would rather force poor people to buy health insurance they can’t afford and which won’t provide the care they need anyway than fight for good health care reform. And you would rather have women treated as second class citizens than stand up for the right of all.
Gee ladies, since you go to the doctor more often than you vote in elections, repealing women’s suffrage is a small price to pay for a really shitty bill mislabeled health care reform.
Yes, exactly.
That’s a great argument. There are many positive aspects of the bill that haven’t received media coverage–such as what? How odd that you missed this chance to discuss them in detail and fell back on vague platitudes and traditional Democratic guilt tripping.
If fundamentalists insist on an eye for an eye with respect to convicted murderers, even if some of those people are victims of mistaken identity, those of us who oppose capital punishment of innocent people are not allowed to segregate our tax dollars from theirs when it comes time to purchase materials for a lethal injection.
Hell, I don’t even want guilty people executed. But my tax dollars pay for it any way.
I could make an exception for someone like Tim McVeigh. There was no doubt that he did it, the crime was beyond reprehensible and he did it for cold blooded ideological reasons. I’d restrict it to US citizens though and only in extreme circumstances like the Oklahoma City bombing. People like that deserve to be obliterated.
I understand that. My parents told me of a man who threw his kids off a cliff in southern CA just so he wouldn’t have to pay child support. I say the needle is too good for him. Throw him off the cliff too. (yes, I am not consistent).
Either that, or lock him up forever in a room with pictures of his children’s broken bodies all around him so that he gets to look at that for the rest of his miserable life.
If he didn’t care about children’s lives before he pushed them off the cliff, it’s unlikely that pictures of their broken bodies will have any effect on him afterwards. Some people are incapable of empathizing with other people.
Those people need to have all control stripped from their lives. They need to be strictly regimented every minute of the day and never allowed to make a single decision on their own for the rest of their days on earth.
I frankly would like my war rebates please. I think that would be from the Vietnam war forward for me.
Yes please and soon.
As pithy and to the point as ever. This is not an equal rights bill. Not for women, nor for the poor, the disabled, or any other second class citizen. It’s an insurance bill- for insurers.
It’s bothered me for a while that even if women had been treated more fairly in this bill, it would be subject to the whims of the next patriarchal wingnut and party that comes to power.
This can never be really right until the ERA is passed and laws developed around it. In the mean time, we are still scrambling and fighting for bits.
Purportedly, all new medicaid patients till at least 2017 will be federally subsidized under this law. What does that even mean, in terms of reporting, for example, without all the rules spelled out? Drug and alcohol, separation from state funding. Children of abuse. young people who want to go to doctors without their parents consent? It will certainly cut down on cross state shopping. What would be the point?
They are going to lose, and they didn’’t have to.
“A U.S. Army general in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could be court-martialed.
The new policy, outlined last month by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo and released Friday by the Army, would apply to both female soldiers who become pregnant on the battlefield and the male soldiers who impregnate them.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010544207_apuspregnantsoldiers.html
I’m a tad cynical about how often this policy will be applied to male soldiers.
At least he is recognizing that it takes two to tango. I’ll give him that much. But yeah, skepticism is called for.
How’s he going to define “battlefield?” Or is this a legal recognition at long last that women are in fact combat soldiers, regardless of what the regs say?
No time to go through all the comments but, RD, where have you BEEN? I have missed these fantastic posts and I think more are needed.
My only concern is that there aren’t enough angry women out there who even understand what is being done to them by bills like this.
Working on a very hot project that required a lot of sustained attention and trying to raise a gifted 13 year old.
I can’t decide which was more time consuming and to be honest, I can’t devote a lot of time to this right now.
Thanks, RD- another great post.
I was thinking the other day how this bill is simply a continuation of the sexism and misogyny we encountered during the election of ’08.
It’s the final grinding women into the ground once they’ve got them under their boot.
It’ supposed to be a bill for all – but instead it picks and segregates – I do believe it may very well not be constitutional.
The “I’m just a victim of circumstance and need an abortion” attitude is archaic and boring and a bold face lie. Every 1st grader knows what “protection” is. Protect your right to “not become a parent” prior to sex.
We pay for the military to fight our enemy – if you don’t like that, why don’t you sport a burka and be done with it.
We usually try to “murder” only the most vile of criminals with the death penalty.
Please stop the mantra that shredding your unborn baby is the equivalent with war and punishment. It just doesn’t measure up.
Have your abortion if you want it, just pay for it yourself.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Carol, are women equal persons with men?
Your comment suggests that they are not.
Note: There is no, “Yes, but…” answer to this question. They are equal or they are not. They have a right to make their own decisions regarding health care and parenthood as men or they do not.
Which is it?
As a single parent you are well aware the word parent has nothing to do with producing a child.
You have to move the conversation to “responsibility” vs. a quick fix because of “irresponsibility”.
I have never known a person that had an abortion that was not changed from the experience – an overwhelming sense of quilt.
I can’t judge a person that is pregnant for wanting an abortion for rape or the health of the baby or mother. But, the irresponsibility of a person in this day and age to create a baby and then determine to terminate it is up for “critical judgment” in my opinion. Now, some would say a fetus is not a baby – well, have you seen a sonogram? It has all of the parts and bells and whistles. It is not self-sustainable outside of the womb for a while, but neither was my father for the last 5+ years of his life. And, not once did I decide to shred him into a waste container. My niece just had a 3lb. baby at 7 months, and it is perfect now.
I haven’t thought about abortion really in the last 20+ years because it didn’t affect me. But, it is pretty clear to me that the rights of women and children should be both be protected. Your actions may set you up to be an incubator for a while, but you should not be able to terminate that life – and, it is life.
And, no, I am not some religious fanatic. I am approaching this logically. I say it’s time for reponsibility.
CAROL HAKA 👿
👿
Carol, I wasn’t a single parent when I got pregnant for either of my children.
You are right. It is life.
However, I take a completely different and just as logical POV as you do from the example of nature itself.
Consider the bear. A female bear will abort a fetus when the environment is not conducive to raising young. Conversely, without medical assistance, that human incubator is very susceptible to dying during childbirth.
But that’s hardly the question I am asking you. The question is, are men and women equal? Do they both right to determine for themselves whether or not to be parents? Accidents do happen, Carol. Women who take birth control and St. John’s Wort can become unintentionally pregnant. A pregnancy can affect your employment. Pregnant women can’t work in laboratory environments. they have to take 9 months off even if they’re in the midst of groundbreaking work. They have to leave the work to their assistants. I’ve seen it happen. It can impact the careers of even the willing incubators.
In this employment environment, it’s hard to take time off for maternity leave. You might never get it back. That can affect the rest of your children if you have any.
If you’re a woman in the military, yu are fighting for a country that doesn’t respect your right to make your own life changing decisions, Carol. How can you ever expect to see a female president in your lifetime if you can’t get respect for your own person?
Where does it stop, Carol?
BTW, I happen to agree with you in every respect as to the responsibility coming first. But how do I know who screwed up and who was the victim of errant biology and drug interactions? How do YOU make that decision?
When it comes right down to it, women shouldn’t have fewer rights than men let alone bears.
“Do they both right to determine for themselves whether or not to be parents? ”
I don’t know. If the woman chooses to have the child but the man wanted her to have an abortion, does the man have the equal right to choose not to be a parent and to not have to give child support? It seems to me no, that they don’t have equality.
They have the equality to make choices about their own bodies as it relates to being a parent.
Carol, I actually agree with you that at some point that fetus is a life.
But my question to you is: Name one other instance where an adult human being is forced by law, against their will, to gie over the use of their body to another human being – even if that other person is their own child.
There isn;t one. We do not force a father to be strapped down and give up a kidney, or bone marrow, or blood if his kid needs it. We don’t do that even if the child will certainly die as a result. You want to know WHY we don’t do that? Because it is a fundamental tenet of liberty that you own your own physical body, and no one has a right to any part of it without your consent.
So we may look at those situations and say “I think that father OUGHT to do it. I find it reprehensible and immoral that he won’t.” But no one EVER suggests that the State ought to force him to do so.
Women deserve the same kind of treatment. You don’t have to be pro-abortion, or think that that fetus is not a life, in order to be pro-choice.
“There isn;t one. We do not force a father to be strapped down and give up a kidney, or bone marrow, or blood if his kid needs it. We don’t do that even if the child will certainly die as a result. You want to know WHY we don’t do that? Because it is a fundamental tenet of liberty that you own your own physical body, and no one has a right to any part of it without your consent.”
Consent is definitely important, and that would certainly seem to excuse abortion in the case of rape, but surely when people consent to have sex there’s some idea that a child might result.
The law forces people to deal with recognizable consequences of their voluntary actions all the time, even if they didn’t consent to the eventual result. Should fathers be immune from child support if they did not consent to the woman bearing the child?
Again, how does that differ from someone who engages in any other risky behavior and as a result incurs a medical condition in need of attention?
“Again, how does that differ from someone who engages in any other risky behavior and as a result incurs a medical condition in need of attention?”
Many of those activities result in higher premiums. Smoking, for example.
Are you seriously arguing for people to pay higher premiums because they choose to have sex? I wouldn’t, but unless you do, that’s how it differs. The analogy doesn’t hold.
“Again, how does that differ from someone who engages in any other risky behavior and as a result incurs a medical condition in need of attention?”
They pay for it in higher premiums, at least currently. I certainly wouldn’t argue for higher premiums for people who choose to have sex, but that *is* how it differs. The higher expected costs are paid for in higher premiums.
I realize that the current health care bill is going to eliminate the idea of charging people higher premiums, so that twentysomethings can subsidize those in their fifties.
(It sounds nice, with the idea that people will be subsidized when they’re older, but the big losers are people who die young, who live in the subsidizing part but not in the subsidized part. The thing about old people is that they were young and healthy once. Not all young people grow to be old, though, so it’s not equal.)
No, moron. The bill allows insurance co’s to charge older people up to 3 times as much as younger people.
Your assertion that people who engage in risky behavior (driving a car, skiing, sky-diving, hunting, mountain climbing, crossing the street, stepping into a bathtub, walking down stairs, etc.) are charged higher premiums is patently false.
Y’all remember the hired bloggers for a certain campaign!?! Me thinks there is some thing familiar about this ‘John’ and his tactics.
He seems to be of the opinion that only younger people make things work (happen) and lord knows us Ole Folks don’t do a darn thing by his calculations and he wants to make glue of us all.
Well Carol, if you decide to get in a car and by chance get in an accident, I don’t want to pay for your medical care either because you knew the risks when you got in that car. Fix your broken bones if you wish, just pay for it yourself.
Are POOR women equal to middle class women?
At what socio economic level is it ok to deprive a woman of her right?
Oh. why bother talking to someone who is obviously hunky dory with subjugating herself to men. There are some people who aren’t worth the wasted effort. That nonsense in her comment tells me all I need to know.
Next.
Because these people do not think their way through this argument. They romanticize the fetus and forget that not one restriction that put in place is going to save one single unborn baby from getting terminated. Meanwhile, they set a precedent. If abortion is not Ok for religious reasons, is birth control Ok? When is it intrusive? And why do they think they have a right to do this to the rest of us? What makes religious people more equal?
“And why do they think they have a right to do this to the rest of us? What makes religious people more equal?”
The same reason that people think that they can pass this health care bill and make otherse pay for what they want. The bill made everything political.
What makes religious people less equal, that they can’t vote? Do you that Martin Luther King, Jr. should have shut up, because he was religiously motivated? Some Southern segregationists thought so, and insisted that it violated church and state when religious groups got involved in the civil rights battle.
You will note that Carol doesn’t have an answer for the question I asked her. That’s because there isn’t a good answer. There is only cognitive dissonance. The question is unresolvable for religious women with liberal tendencies. You can not embrace both a fundamentalist christian dogma and be fair and equal. It is impossible.
Carol knows this. That’s why she can’t answer the question.
They never do have an answer. Because it’s not based in fact. It’s based in myth.
Well, then, SOD, we should get all lawmakers to weigh in on the question. Because it is a question with a simple yes or no answer. There is no such thing as a little bit unequal.
I agree.
Actually, someone who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be subjugated themselves to a male. Not I.
And the “racist” comment was really clever.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Interesting that she suddenly showed up here now. She didn’t like it when RD wrote about feeling some empathy for African Americans when Obama was elected, but that doesn’t stop her from stealing RD’s “haka” meme either. That is very telling.
Actually, I didn’t like it when Obama was congratulated for stealing the election.
It has nothing to do with the African Americans – they along with everyone else have my deepest sympathy that such a corrupt, pathetic pos is in the WH.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Since when are all abortions limited to single females, by the way? Where does “protection” come into play for the couple who wanted a child and find out in the 7th month of pregnancy that the fetus is irretrievably deformed and will probably die within a year of being born–*after* horrendously expensive medical treatments during that time? Apparently, with you it’s all about penalizing women financially for having sex.
That’s the republican welfare mother theory she’s using.
Sorry, not a racist or a republican. Stop the name calling – it’s sooooooooo “O’bamaish”.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Oh…it hurts it hurts.
You’re under the assumption that sex is always a mutual consensus.
Carol, how many unborn babies are you going to save by depriving women of their ability to get a safe abortion? Are you EVER going to stop women from getting abortions?
How much money are you going to segregate from my tax dollars going to Iraq and Afghanistan? Because I REALLY don’t want to pay for that, Carol. I don’t want to pay for that more than you don’t want to pay for an abortion. Why does your conscience trump mine, Carol?
I don’t want to pay for the CIA to torture people all over the world. I don’t want my tax money given to the banksters. I don’t want to pay for the shadow government. There are lots of things I don’t want to contribute to, but I don’t get that choice. The only people get a choice are religious fanatics and fetus fetishists.
“I don’t want to pay for the CIA to torture people all over the world. I don’t want my tax money given to the banksters. I don’t want to pay for the shadow government. There are lots of things I don’t want to contribute to, but I don’t get that choice.”
Absolutely right. You should have that choice.
So why do two wrongs make a right? Do all the torturers get a break now because you want abortions paid for?
“The only people get a choice are religious fanatics and fetus fetishists.”
The only people who get a choice are people who can win politically and get a majority. That’s what happens with a big powerful government. Majority wins. Perhaps we should have a smaller government.
If governments pays for health care, health care decisions will be politicized. Want health care to only be between you and your doctor, not the taxpayer and the government? Don’t invite them in.
“How much money are you going to segregate from my tax dollars going to Iraq and Afghanistan? Because I REALLY don’t want to pay for that, Carol. I don’t want to pay for that more than you don’t want to pay for an abortion. Why does your conscience trump mine, Carol?”
It doesn’t. We should be involved in war. I don’t think you should pay. You’re absolutely right here.
So why do two wrongs make a right?
*shouldn’t* be involved, sorry
Carol, does your conscience also say that you must withhold funding for the treatment of women with sepsis caused by incomplete, cheap and illegal abortions? Just curious. When does a woman gel for you as a person deserving of competent health care? Should she be charged extra for the antibiotics and the cleaning out of her pus filled uterus? What about a hysterectomy?
I am assuming you would be willing to pay for that extra, expensive and presumably completely unnecessary treatment.
I was actually writing a response while you went off on a tangent.
As far as the car wreck, well, I don’t equate sex as an accident. I personally never accidentally had sex.
Put on the Burka and be done with it if you don’t want to stop the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are there and can’t leave. And remember, our Hillary voted for the wars also and never took it back.
I didn’t say you couldn’t have an abortion. I’m just no longer willing to hamstring my opinion as to who holds office in the future with the one issue of abortion. There are many more important issues to resolve.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Again, you’re under the assumption that sex is always a mutual consensus.
It is unless it’s rape.
Bingo. And why shouldn’t we waste our tax dollars on that teen girl who was raped? No, I guess we should waste our tax dollars on viagra for the rapist?
“And why shouldn’t we waste our tax dollars on that teen girl who was raped? No, I guess we should waste our tax dollars on viagra for the rapist?”
So we cover abortion in cases of rape. What does that have to do with the cases where it was consensual?
Sorry, Carol, but the issue of my equality in this country is the most important one I know of to me.
You’re misinformed.
I said I still believe it is a baby. If someone already self-sustaining can’t live with the thought of a “rape” baby or a mal-formed baby in them, well, I can’t judge that.
My nephew married a girl that was raped at 12 and kept the baby. It took a lot of courage that I would have not had at the time or maybe never. But, that child is 10 now, and we love him dearly. She is the one with the conscience of gold. Not me.
Biological behavior is curbed daily and should be an easy fix for a responsible person with all of the “prevention” available today.
And, stop with the racist remarks. It is unbecoming of you.
CAROL HAKA 👿
It’s historical fact. Just because it doesn’t fit your glorified version of who you are is of no consequence to me.
And your “personal” tales of courage are not relevant to what RD’s post is about.
I’m not the 12 year old that was raped.
CAROL HAKA 👿
What kind of sick family encourages a 12 year old to become a mother? That’s not one I’d want to be any part of. There’s no conscience in it at all. BTW, Carol, in my mother’s religion, that 12 year old would have been disfellowshipped if she had been baptised. I don’t think the elders would have acknowledged her rape especially if she hadn’t screamed or if there was no one around to hear it or there weren’t witnesses. For all they know, she was wearing a tight sweater and deserved it for being insufficiently modest. In other words, she was a willing participant unless there was proof otherwise. Her age wouldn’t have been any proof against her ability to consent. In my mother’s religion, that 12 year old would have been officially ostracized from her religious community for the duration of her pregnancy and probably for a few years after that.
Her mother was a drugged out creep that offered her daughter up to her boyfriends. Sorry, it had nothing to do with religion.
SOD – I wasn’t aware that we were discussing you personally.
CAROL HAKA 👿
I don’t know what you teach your children, but I have taught my son to be responsible. Have all the sex he wants, but it better be protected from disease and unwanted pregnancies.
Oh, I see. Your son can have all the sex he wants. That’s ok. My daughter’s behavior, however, is subject to *your* approval.
Actually, you don’t get to make the rules for my daughters. They are their own persons. My instructions to them have always been to wait until they are ready to have sex and then use precautions. Sex is a beautiful thing for both genders and is a lot more satisfying when there isn’t some third party regulating it.
What my daughters do isn’t your business. It isn’t even MY business.
Here’s the thing, Carol. You never answered the question and you have revealed attitudes that I find objectionable and morally reprehensible. I’m not going to accuse you of racism but I will say that you are lacking in compassion or fairness towards women and if you were running for office, I wouldn’t vote for you because your values are not consistent with mine.
I said she was repeating racially driven memes.
yeah, I know, but it came close.
Not really. One comes from a place of contempt for the “other.” The other comes from accepting doctrine without understanding its basis. (that doctrine being the republican “personal responsibility” doctrine.)
“I wouldn’t vote for you because your values are not consistent with mine.”
Wow, look who’s making political decisions on the basis of morality now? Why are only religiously-inspired moral values different?
The right to determine how to live your life including to be a parent is fundamental.
You still haven’t answered the question.
Are men and women equal?
Quit putting up a smokescreen about the war and answer the question.
Are we equal to men? Do we deserve to be treated the same way under the law?
No we are not equal under the law and will probably never be.
Now, tell me how you intend to equalize men and women with the medical procedure of abortion?
CAROL HAKA 👿
I would prefer to help women make better choices prior to unprotected sex than promote a remedy.
The war has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with the war. Why are you combining the two?
Ahhhh, I gave you an out. Equal under the law.
But are we equal, Carol? Because we can always change the law. If enough women would give up on controlling the bodies and minds of other women, it could be done.
So, are we equal to men in the absolute sense of the word?
“If enough women would give up on controlling the bodies and minds of other women, it could be done.”
Yes, if they would give up on the idea of government health care, so that they didn’t have to control the body and minds of other people and force them to spend money on other people, it could be done. We could leave everyone alone, not control anyone, and let people get abortions if they wanted.
“So, are we equal to men in the absolute sense of the word?”
Absolute equality would mean that men and women would have exactly the same power to terminate a pregnancy. I don’t see how that would work, biologically. Even if you argue (understandably) that the woman has special rights because the man doesn’t get pregnant or have to give birth, the issue of child support means that the situation is never equal. It’s generally unbalanced in favor of someone.
Disagree. Equality means men and women both have the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies.
I actually kind kind of respect you for admitting the “life” argument is bs actual dead babies littering Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t bother you at all. It’s just about sex, control, and punishment. I wish everyone could be so honest.
The frontpagers and commenters around here are generally not “hamstringing our opinion to who holds office based on the one issue of abortion” –we’re actually debunking the “have to vote for a Democrats to protect our abortion rights” argument, since the reality is that push come to shove Democrats do nothing of the sort. This isn’t about “personal responsibility” — it’s about a two-party system that herds a lot of women’s votes on the issue of abortion, keeping us from voting on other issues. Imagine if a lot of us were collectively voting our economic interests/values instead of wasting our times with these a-holes on both sides of the aisle, who neither defend abortion rights nor overturn Roe v. Wade.
The equation isn’t between sex and a car accident. Sex isn’t the accident–the unwanted pregnancy is.
The question being asked is should we as a society refuse to use any public funds to pay for the consequences of any risky activity. Skydiving? Helicopter skiing? Bungee jumping? Nascar racing? Or do we single out women and only women for the unwanted/accidental consequences of sexual activity?
On the personhood issue, I’ve always said that either the fetus is a person OR the pregnant woman is a person. You can’t have it both ways–otherwise you create an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the fetus “person” and the woman “person.”
As far as I’m concerned, the living, breathing, sentient, independent, autonomous moral agent wins every time.
Oh, and count me in as another pro-abortion (screw the mealy-mouthed ‘pro-choice’ language) woman who thinks it’s time for Roe v. Wade to go. It was poorly decided from the get-go and it’s been used for over 35 years to hold us hostage.
It’s about “sex”and women who get pregnant and do not wish to be incubators are “irresponsible”
Well put. People do stupid things like jump off roofs for fun should they have to pay if they get a concussion? No. What if they land on an onlooker and accidentally kill them? Would the hospital single them out and refuse them care unless they pay?
What about fat people? What about diabetics who manipulate their bloodsugar so they can consume whatever they want? Should we have to foot the bill for extra insulin and pumps? Can’t we restrict them to a few bolus injections a day? Because if we don’t, wouldn’t we just be encouraging gluttony?
“People do stupid things like jump off roofs for fun should they have to pay if they get a concussion?”
Yes.
“What if they land on an onlooker and accidentally kill them? Would the hospital single them out and refuse them care unless they pay?”
What if they landed on an onlooker and both were critically injured? If the hospital were short-staffed and could only save one, would you save the one who jumped and landed on the onlooker, or the one who was jumped on first? Or would you try to ignore any idea of fault?
“You can’t have it both ways–otherwise you create an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the fetus “person” and the woman “person.” ”
Why not? Doesn’t life sometimes have irreconcilable conflict of interests? You can think that the mother’s rights win every time, but I don’t see why you have to deny the existance of conflicts of interest between two people. Sometimes we do face choices where one person lives and another dies. How do hospitals resolve waiting lists for organ transplants, for example? There are generally many possible rulesets, and under some proposed changes, some will die so that others may live.
“The question being asked is should we as a society refuse to use any public funds to pay for the consequences of any risky activity. Skydiving? Helicopter skiing? Bungee jumping? Nascar racing? Or do we single out women and only women for the unwanted/accidental consequences of sexual activity?”
All of the former cause people to have to pay higher insurance rates, or buy special insurance. It’s ridiculous to pretend that people who engage in those activities don’t have to pay some extra cost. There aren’t special public funds to ensure that smokers don’t pay higher insurance rates. They pay higher insurance.
They’re covered under the insurance because they pay higher premiums to account for it. I certainly don’t want insurance to charge higher premiums to people who choose to have sex, but unless you do that, your analogy doesn’t work.
If you have a point why don’t you just state it clearly and concisely?
Since we are trekking down the path toward “moral legislation”, let’s get rid of divorce as well. Just because people make “mistakes” should not enter into the argument. You make your bed, you lie in it. If this statement represents women who choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy then it should go further and insist that couples stay together for the rest of their miserable lives since it says so in the bible. Right?
Since most of the crap coming out of the mouths of pro lifers emanates from that source,then let’s not stop there and put an end to divorce as well. Let’s just substitute the bible for the Constitution and be done with it.
Let’s put Trinity Broadcast Network in place of C-Span and call it a day. We are heading that way as it is. As for me, I am signing myself up as a “dating duenna” who will accompany teens on a date by offering counseling from the backseat should they feel tempted. Because without that “guidance” no teen will venture into having unprotected sex.
No abortions, no divorce, no teen dating. Problem solved.
That wouldn’t work. It’s okay to consign a woman to death or ruined health or a lifetime of misery because of a mistake–but what if the man wants the divorce? Unless–no divorce, but church provided annulment for any Kennedy–I mean, man, who asks?
Kerry got an anullment from the church after he had several grown children. Now I guess they are illegitimate.
I heard one of the grounds for annulment is “magical thinking”. It’s like the Catholic Church hasn’t bothered to update its handbook in 1600 years. Is a major revision just not in the budget?
Unfortunately, the Church is in a similar position as the Democratic Party. They went through a period of liberalization with Vatican II, John XXIII, liberation theology, etc. In an internal struggle, it might have continued, but the forces of reaction, lead by John Paul II the PR Pope, decided to relentlessly purge everyone who didn’t hew to their reactionary agenda (while of course preserving pedophiles, but don’t get me started). With this continuing all-powerful top down power grab, a major revision will probably wait at least 1600 more years.
magical thinking” is apparently also the basis for making decisions.
I’m Jewish. No Bible thumping here or just the old testament.
And, it is not ‘legislating morality’. It is the termination of a life. Once again, it may not be self-sustaining for the moment, but it is life.
People can deal with that as they please. Abortion is legal.
CAROL HAKA 👿
“If this statement represents women who choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy then it should go further and insist that couples stay together for the rest of their miserable lives since it says so in the bible. Right?”
If the statements about “choice” about wanting to be a parent hold, then it should go further and insist that men who don’t want to be fathers should have the right to refuse to be a parent and not have to pay for child support. Right?
If a guy doesn’t want to be a father he needs to keep his sperm out of vaginas.
“If a guy doesn’t want to be a father he needs to keep his sperm out of vaginas.”
And if the woman tells him before sex that she’ll definitely have an abortion, and she changes her mind, should he be liable for child support? Courts have held so.
If he put his sperm into her vagina then he’s liable for support if a child emerges as a result.
Yes, he should be liable to pay child support.
A woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, and that includes changing her mind. If a guy cannot handle that, then he shouldn’t be getting a woman pregnant.
All people, men and women have bodily autonomy. If a man doesn’t want to be a father then it is his job to keep his sperm to himself. He has several options: abstinence, condom, vasectomy, etc. He has a choice, as does a woman, to become informed, to know the risks and chose the option that works best for him. If that option is leaving the decision up to the woman, then that is his choice and he will have to live with whatever decision she makes.
I said abortion should be legal. I also said, I believe we should work harder to change the attitude about unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy.
If as you say you believe a fetus is a life, how do you terminate it with a clear conscience because it becomes a matter of inconvenience?
We are going to be stuck again with Obama if we continue to be stuck on distractions from what the Dems are really up to.
I hope the health care bill is going nowhere and will be over turned for the most part after the next election if anything goes through.
It doesn’t take spending trillions of dollars to insure everyone and reduce costs. Ask Hillary. She was going for competition and tax credits and opening the congressional plan for others. Everything else is just a payoff.
CAROL HAKA 👿
How do you presume to interfere with someone elses conscience? For many religions and cultures around the world, abortion does not wrack the conscience the way it does with puritanical Americans. You may value the life of an embryo; other cultures and religions do not. I’m sure they are all aware that they are killing something. They simply evaluate their decision differently than you do. Perhaps they weigh the life of the incubator more highly than you do. Maybe they take other children into consideration. Maybe they consider that life to be an untimely gift and they give it back or defer it until another, better time.
Who’s to say your value system is more moral or better than theirs?
If people don’t like abortions, they shouldn’t get one.
How many ways can I say “abortion” is legal and up to the individual needing one.
Have it, just pay for it if it is purely an elective procedure.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Carol, these restrictions were proposed to affect women and ONLY women.
Again, I ask you: Are men and women equal?
If yes, you can’t agree to the amendment or compromise because they make women subject to religious restrictions that are not imposed on men and those restrictions remove the right of women to determine when or if they will be parents.
The purpose of the Stupak amendment is to make it extremely difficult for women of all classes and economic levels to get a specific procedure covered. This will affect women who need to get abortions for health reasons as well, which tend to be the most expensive kinds of abortions. They won’t be covered. This is intentional.
The amendments and compromises cause the cost of healthcare to be more expensive for women and only women.
So, are women equal to men or aren’t they?
“Again, I ask you: Are men and women equal?”
Are men allowed to “terminate” a pregnancy if the woman wants to have the child, and disclaim their child support responsibilities? If not, then I don’t see how it would be equal.
Perhaps it can’t be equal. Perhaps biology means that no matter what rules we adopt, someone gets the short end of the stick. But I don’t see how you’re arquing for equality.
Yes it can.
Men have a right to decide about their own bodies. Women have a right to decide about theirs.
“We are going to be stuck again with Obama if we continue to be stuck on distractions from what the Dems are really up to.”
For the sake of an argument, what does the GOP offer that is any different? Except for the fact that they are pretty much up front in their quest to deny equal rights, there does not seem to be much difference in either approach. Neither side offers an alternative.
You cannot be suggesting that the GOP is a party of purity?
I have never voted for a party.
CAROL HAKA 👿
Abortion is “legal” only as of now. But in many states there has been a formation of the religious zealots to either ban or reduce the availability for women to exercise that tenuous right. We don’t need worry over Roe v Wade when the state legislatures are actively voting into law these restrictions on their own.
If I am not mistaken, Oklahoma may be one state that will be producing the names online in March of those women who have chosen to terminate. Is this fair? Is this not in itself a violation of HIPPA? Is it also not an egregious violation of the right to privacy?
It is a medical procedure that should be covered as much as any other medical procedure and should only be determined by the woman and doctor not by a bunch of looney religious zealots who have no place in the decision.
As a woman I demand to be treated equally and if this means that my medical procedure should be included in this equality then the argument is moot. Otherwise it is just an exercise in religious incantations that have no place in the public or the privacy of patient/doctorrelationship.
They have started this crusade using public funding as the vanguard of the eventual overruling of a woman’s right to choose from the sector. It won’t be long before this goes into full effect.
‘
.
Why do you think that it is based in religion whether or not you believe women should have abortions?
I say it is based on science – it is either a life or not a life. I say it is a life – plain and simple. The only decision then is do you terminate that life for any reason or not. It’s that simple.
If you don’t believe it is a life because it is not yet self-sustaining, then we have to look at all life in the same way. I am not self-sustaining without synthroid. I guess I’m curtains – off to the glue factory.
I’m done. Have fun.
CAROL HAKA 👿
“It is a medical procedure that should be covered as much as any other medical procedure and should only be determined by the woman and doctor not by a bunch of looney religious zealots who have no place in the decision.”
So if people want to cover female genital mutilation because it’s a “medical procedure,” then the government has to, and you’re not allowed to bring any of your morals into the discussion and not want to fund it?
You do realize that you are posting comments on a dead thread, don’t you?
Why don’t we just let poor people and old people die in the streets? After all it’s their fault they got poor and old. They should have planned better. I say we’d all be better off if we went back to the way things were in the 14th Century.
Actually that’s exactly where we’re headed anyway–soon most of us will be serfs.
Female genital mutilation is not a medical procedure. It is a violation of human rights.
So is trying to control another person’s body through taking away her choice about being a parent.
yup
Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill, by Jane Hamsher
1.Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not
2.If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
3.Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums
4.Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
5.Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays
6.Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
7.Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others
8.Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9.No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years
10.The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
Background information on each point:
There are scores of elective procedures that will be paid for with government subsidies if the health care proposal under consideration becomes law. In fact, such procedures are paid for now under Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care and VA benefits. Why exclude abortion services because some people object on moral/religious grounds?
The embryo/fetus as “a life” is meaningless. Is it a “person” or not? If not, then its removal from the woman’s body is her decision and a routine medical procedure, no different from a man’s vasectomy or treatment for erectile disfunction. Every time we romanticize the unborn “baby,”placing its importance above that of the woman whose body it inhabits, we take away the woman’s autonomy and full moral agency. In other words, we rob her of her humanity.
I don’t like the discussions and arguments over abortions. They have always occurred and always will. It should be the most, and I mean most private decision a woman and/or man will ever make. It literally becomes the rest of your life, a defining moment one way or another. Nobody has the right to judge that decision. The issue then becomes for it to be available in the safest, easiest way possible as with any healthcare procedure. The Insurance Reform legislation should not be intertwined with abortion at all. There shouldn’t be any language of “abortion” in any bill before Congress, only a woman’s health and well being. The Insurance bill is wrong, its bad and must be defeated. I’m joining the Teaparty folks on this one. Call me a Teabagger. Its simply robbing us again for corporate profit. What can we do now to derail this bill, then clean house in Congress?
[…] Go read Riverdaughter: Let’s dispense with the term anti-abortion, shall we? Let’s call it what it really is: The movement to deny women the ability to decide for themselves to be parents as most persons endowed by their creators with unalienable rights have the right to do. With anti-abortion measures, women are not just subject to the state, they are forced to recognize a religious presence in their lives whether they have faith or not. Men do not need to recognize any faith. They are allowed complete freedom of conscience. […]