This is what happens when something controversial like abortion is legalized via an unpopular court decision, and then politicized for 30 years by leftists and religious conservatives.
As a pro-choice person, I'm consistently appalled at how many other pro-choice people seem utterly unable to comprehend why some people really hate abortion and hate the federal government meddling in it in bullshit ways.
The current hysteria wasn't about abortion....but contraception/birth control being covered by employer-insurance, and religious affiliated employers wanting an exemption. That led to a broader demand for opting out based on 'any objection of conscience', by any employer.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It just so happened to coincide with Virginia's bill requiring trans-vaginal ultrasounds before any abortion. That's an internal (invasive) procedure that's not medically necessary, not recommended by the AMA, and likely not covered by insurance. Introduced by the same party who claims to want gov't out of private lives, out of patient-doctor relationships, and not meddle in personal moral beliefs.
The Republican governor had that language changed...
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, after the bill had already passed both houses and only needed his signature to become law. An amendment was introduced to explain the invasive procedure and require the woman's written consent...but that was voted down. McDonnell and the legislators knew full well what was in the bill, and exactly what trans-vaginal meant. Changing the language to require an external abdominal ultrasound, with a 24 hour waiting period, makes it slightly less offensive to womens' IQ and "moral compass", but it's still trying to discourage (or prevent) women from legalized, MD provided services.
Let's not conflate birth control, contraception, and hormonal treatments with surgical abortions. Just because some Catholics and politicians are doing that doesn't mean they're "right".
Except you lied about the current version of the bill requiring the other procedure. Changing the goalposts as usual.
Hope is the denial of reality
Bull. Show me where I lied. The language of the bill was only changed last night/today.
I.E. By the time you made the post, the bill no longer requires this procedure. And yet you made no allusion to the change.
Hope is the denial of reality
In other words, you accused me of "lying" in post #32 because you didn't bother to put it into context, as a reply to Dread's post.I.E. By the time you made the post, the bill no longer requires this procedure. And yet you made no allusion to the change.
The mere fact that such a bill was proposed, drafted, and approved by VA's (Republican dominated) legislature, needing only the governor's signature to become law....can't be "undone". If you don't want to actually debate/discuss the topic, or the abortion tangent that's fine. But calling me a "liar" without justification just means you owe me an apology.
Jesus frickin' Christ of ALL the words to choose you just had to choose "lying" what the HELL
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The "context" was that you intentionally left out important facts that significantly minimized the effect of what you wrote. That's called lying by omission.In other words, you accused me of "lying" in post #32 because you didn't bother to put it into context, as a reply to Dread's post.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, people who choose to use accurate language are the worst.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
That's like how the Democratic party claims to want to institute communism in the USA, but actually encourages its members to rape puppies and kill children, right?Introduced by the same party who claims to want gov't out of private lives, out of patient-doctor relationships, and not meddle in personal moral beliefs.
I know it's going to be difficult, but if you could try to stem the tide of mind-bogglingly ridiculous crap you post, that'd be just swell.
[EDIT: Oops, old browser tab. Point and request still stand, though.]
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
The first bill has been struck down (there are two similar proposals in VA). Hopefully the outrage will cause the second bill to be killed as well. This is what happens when you have people with no medical expertise proposing ludicrous bills with no research into the process (doctors already perform trans-vaginal ultrasounds on pregnant women to confirm pregnancy, but respect a woman's right to refuse it).
And politicians trying to legislate their set of religious beliefs onto women and physicians. It's seems they're trying to reverse reproductive rights recognized in previous decades, using all sorts of whacky proposals. Defining embryos as people and Plan B as abortifacients? Sounds like congress could use some science classes.
I didn't realize that Congress = Virginia or Mississippi legislature. Learn something new every day.
Hope is the denial of reality
How many more replies are you going to direct toward me, without actually addressing the topic? Does this mean you have no opinion of your own, but baiting and trolling is your way of making appearances?
Congressional activism (both state and federal levels) has increased dramatically since Republicans swept 2010. While most of them ran on platforms of JOBS, the economy, shrinking gummint and cutting taxes....some of their first proposals were aimed at issues like redefining rape, DOMA, DADT, de-funding Planned Parenthood, and conflating birth control with abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inth...endofyear.html
Hang on that link doesn't have anything to do with congress either
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Congressional can mean house or senate, state or federal.
No, Congressional means Congress.
Hope is the denial of reality
Get with the program, Loki. This is GGT. Words mean whatever the hell she wants them to mean.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
No, Congressional means Congress.
You're still picking a nit instead of commenting on the topic. Does that mean you support these proposals bycongressState House Representatives and State Senators, in over 30 states?
minx: it's our legislators (law makers) at both state and federal levels, mostly Republicans, who've gone wild in proposing laws surrounding sexuality/sex. DOMA, DADT, redefining rape, de-funding Planned Parenthood--as well as striking birth control coverage from the Affordable Care Act--are at the federal level; restrictions to legal abortions, de-funding local PP clinics, and abstinence-only sex-ed are at several state levels.
Apparently I'm not the only woman who's been appalled at this retro 1950 type of shenanigans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...50.html?ref=tw
That Albo guy (Republican Delegate to the Virginia State House of Representatives) comes off as a real jerk. I saw a longer version of his "speech" to the house, and he actually turned on a boom box with romantic music to set it up as a longer "joke". Laughter ensued from his fellow law makers. ha ha ha
No, it does not; certainly not in the US.
Hope is the denial of reality
I disagree. Interchanging 'congress' with 'legislators' is a common US colloquialism. It would take an act of congress to...xyz is something every American understands. Nobody expects that maxim to go any further, or say It would take an act by the State House of Representatives and Senators to...xyz. Don't be ridiculous.
Either post your opinion on the topic or stop trolling.
Either stop disfiguring the English language or stop posting.
Hope is the denial of reality
Good for you. Pity that "what words mean" isn't actually a matter of personal opinion, but rather a matter of basic literacy. So disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the meaning of the words or make you right, it really just makes you illiterate, at least as far as it accomplishes anything at all.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Frick and Frack, the tag team trolls with nothing to say about the topic.
Tomorrow is voting on the Blunt amendment (attached to a transportation bill):
Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill
By MICHAEL BARBARO and ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: February 29, 2012
Perhaps the question was poorly worded. Or perhaps it was a slip of a tired tongue.
MultimediaVideo
YouTube: Romney on the Blunt Amendment
Either way, Mitt Romney created a new tempest when he told an Ohio news station that he was opposed to a Senate amendment, favored by conservatives and under debate in Congress on Wednesday, that would allow employers and insurers to limit coverage of contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.
“I’m not for the bill,” Mr. Romney said, but then added, “the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”
Mr. Romney seemed to be further distancing himself from the hard-edged social conservatism of his chief Republican rival, Rick Santorum, who has argued that contraception is damaging to society.
But in an apparent misunderstanding, Mr. Romney instead roused the momentary ire of many social conservatives, who already doubt his commitment to their cause.
Mr. Romney and his aides quickly corrected his remarks, saying he strongly supports the Senate amendment, and had not properly understood the question. (The slip followed a series of off-key comments about his wife’s Cadillacs and friends who own Nascar teams.)
The episode began when Mr. Romney was asked about his view of the sweeping amendment, sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, that would permit employers and insurers to refuse to offer health coverage that violated their beliefs.
The bill has been championed by leading social conservatives, who describe President Obama’s effort to require religiously affiliated institutions, like hospitals or universities, to offer contraceptive coverage as an assault on religious liberty.
Mr. Obama’s supporters call it a vital step for women’s health and say that Mr. Blunt’s amendment is a dangerous intrusion between doctors and their patients.
Despite the initial confusion over the Blunt amendment, Mr. Romney’s original response offered a clear alternative to Mr. Santorum’s often-stated views on contraception.
Mr. Santorum, a conservative Roman Catholic who says he does not personally believe in using contraception, has repeatedly said that the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on the country.
In an interview in October, he promised, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.”
Mr. Romney has sought to portray himself in recent days as a more measured candidate than Mr. Santorum, declaring that he would not “light my hair on fire” to court conservatives.
His interview on ONN, an Ohio television station, set off a scramble among his staff members to quell an online storm. Mr. Romney immediately called in to a conservative Boston radio show and said, “Of course, I support the Blunt amendment.”
Referring to the ONN reporter who had interviewed him, Mr. Romney said, “I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical Christian group, expressed surprise that Mr. Romney, in his television interview, had not immediately jumped on what Mr. Perkins described as the “red-hot issue” related to contraception — the threat to religious freedom posed by the Obama mandate.
“When he talked about the issue as being a matter of contraception between husband and wife — that’s not what the issue today is about,” Mr. Perkins said. “Either he’s so focused on going after Santorum, or he’s been asleep for the last month.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us...l?ref=politics
Amendment defeated, or at least tabled. Why is this happening in 2012---where Christian groups and the FRC consider contraception a threat to religious freedom and a "red-hot issue"? There's already a religious exemption from the mandate, but they added "moral objection" too. Making it so vague and broad that employers could feasibly exclude coverage to homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators...or any person who offends their "morals", religious or not. There's a large group who considers vaccinations unneeded (or conspiratorial), and could deny employees that coverage. Some believe organ donations are immoral, Christian Scientists don't believe in blood transfusions, etc.
IMO the real debate should be about health insurance as healthcare, and connecting that insurance to employment/employers. Do we really want employers or the Insurance Industry to be in charge of our medical choices? Do we really want religious groups getting between patients and doctors? Do we really want a bunch of legislators practicing medicine without a license?
There's got to be a better way. How about offering Medicare for all, or a public option?
Do we really want the government in charge of our medical choices? I'd like to see how much you'd whine if we had government healthcare and the Republicans came to power and banned public provision of contraception and abortion.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ah, the old "whining" thing.
I'd expect our laws (government) to protect the rights I was born with. That includes medical care and self-control of my gonads. That includes my freeedom to be a sexual being, while choosing whether or not I want to procreate.
We already have pro-life religious-based interference in contraceptive and abortion legislation. The Hyde Amendment wasn't enough for their agenda, so attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood (on federal and state levels) became their way to subvert Title X, Griswold v Conn, and Roe v Wade.
The Vatican and Roman Catholic bishops, Southern Baptist Coalition, Family Research Council...or whoever else wants to use our laws and gov't to advance their religious agenda, while ignoring my individual rights, have bitten off more than they can chew. Our First Amendment is meant to protect freedom FROM religion as much as protecting freedom OF religion.
And don't kid yourself into thinking this is a women's rights issue alone. Men should pay attention, since they're the other half of this equation. Do you want your employer or insurance company to decide if your vasectomy is covered? How about hormonal treatment for male menopause or prostate maladies, or Viagra/Cialis for penile erectile dysfunction?
Do you want laws mandating you undergo a trans-urethral ultrasound before making any of these decisions with your doctor? Do you think physicians appreciate this kind of meddling into medicine?
GGT how often do we have to say it, Loki and sadly CC as well are just forum trolls not remotely interested in discussion, and solely dedicated to being "right/correct" in whatever situation they're in. They use red herrings, nitpick useless points that have no affect on the larger part of the discussion.
I agree that your statement was understandable, and I agree if CC and Loki are US citizens then they ought be familiar if they have any sort of political discussion with others in real life that loose terminiology often used, but stil understood which is the main point. Anything else is being nitpicky or petty fogging.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote