The democrats really need to think about their rhetoric before they publicly announce it.
This "war on women" garbage that Obama and the democrats are trying to push, just doesn't add up.
First off, women are significantly more likely than men to identify as Democrats, and this gap is evident across all ages, from 18 to 85, and within all major racial, ethnic, and marital-status segments of society.
If democrats were more pro-women than republicans, how did Obama win the nomination over Hillary Clinton?
Also, how do the dems think they are going to paint Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney as women-haters or engaging a "war on women", when:
Mitt and Ann Romney just celebrated their 43rd wedding anniversary. Are we expected to believe that Romney only respects his wife, but is waging war on all other women?
Rick and Karen Santorum have been married for 21 years and have seven children. Does Rick only respect his sons?
They need to come up with something else, because even liberal women aren't buying this one.
Also, remember Obama wasn't exactly kind to Hillary Clinton, was he?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 155
Are you accusing me of being stupid enough to think that all women share the same attitude about anything at all? Clearly, you, yourself, are one of those exceptions.
You are supporting those who are waging war on the progress women have enjoyed over the last 100 years.
Planned Parenthood is one of the best things ever to happen for women. You should bless them in your prayers.
I've got news for you, a, "sir;" the words out, and it "ain't gonna fly."
We'll have none of it.
REALLY? It is embarassing for most women.
You might also note that pregnancy and birth are rather dangerous for women. For some women, a matter of life and death. You would restrict their choices to a huge risk of death or no sex until after they are sure they are sterile due to age? What real man would marry such a woman? Yet you would demand that their health insurance not cover paying to protect their lives and allow them to marry.
Do you see any reason why health insurance should cover prescriptions to help men get and maintain an erection? Is there any GOP platform plank to eliminate that from health insurance on moral grounds?
I find your position to be inconsistent and offensive to women.
LAUGHS!!!
What in Hell are you talking about???
Here's a new idea, Larry: Not only is my choice to use birth control or not, my business, as is my age, it's also MY responsibility, you know like as in to PAY for it myself?
Young women like Sandra Fluke obviously never learned that if you want to play, you have to pay. Someone should have told her that it is okay to just say NO and to keep the legs closed sometimes.
Your protection from fire and crime is also your responsibility, right? So you should not expect the local government to provide you with that protection unless you buy it. Thus, poor people should not expect police or fire protection from the state. Only those who pay should be able to call on those services. That is your position, right? Because you are saying that women who cannot pay must be celibate even if they are married or risk pregnancy. If I recall correctly you are opposed to abortion as well. I would guess that you do not want to be taxed for childcare for those poor women either. You don't want to be taxed to feed, house, clothe, heal, or educate those children, right?
Well if you deny those poor women contraceptives and the rest of your wishes are granted in law, there will be lots of children suffering and starving. Isn't it more humane and less expensive to provide contraceptives to all women upon request? Because women will have sex relations (rape, temptation, religious law) and they will become pregnant as a result if they lack contraception and some will die due to those unwanted pregnancies.
The consequences of the policies you support are pretty terrible.
First off the Catholic Church is trying to outlaw contraceptives. One of the Republican candidates for President is a staunch Catholic.
The tax money that you and I pay to the governments in whose jurisdiction we live spend our money on all sorts of things we would rather they not. The health bill is the MORAL equivalent of tax in its requirements.
Paying for contraceptives is not paying for sexual pleasure. I am told that many people find certain types of contraceptive takes away from pleasure in sex.
Your argument could be, "if you don't want to pay for medical bills don't get sick or injured." Sex relations are a normal and expected part of life for the great majority of our population. Women who have unwanted pregnancies are a problem for the society as a whole. Pregnancies have consequences as you may have noticed. It is to the benefit of society at large (that includes you and me) to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The whole fluke was a set up from the get-go because Obama tried to violate the Catholic Church's freedom of religion, he tried to force them to go against their core beliefs. This was NEVER about birth control or trying to take it away.
Take it away? It even sounds ridiculous.
This fiasco blew up in their faces like every other stunt they've pulled. The only people they've convinced are those who are his ardent supporters anyway.
Taking my taxes to pay for girls to have sex whenever they get the urge is NOT the same thing as my taxes going to the police and fire departments, that help people when they need it.
Fluke having sex 3 times a day helps no one.
Hey, I know...how about you keep your legs closed sometimes. I know that concept is foreign to Sandra Fluke-types. I mean if liberals believe this "war on women" is real, then they have to believe that Fluke is the most sex-crazed woman on the planet, right? And they shouldn't have complained when Limbaugh said a word out loud that the majority of people in the country were thinking, when it came to Fluke.
I assume you are familiar with Catholic doctrine on contraception. Are you also aware that contraceptives were illegal in many countries in 1900?
You can't have it both ways. Obama won't win this one. He's gone up against the Catholic Church and they won't comply.
I assume you are familiar with who Margaret Sanger is and the reason she started the quest for birth control.
I don't care if women use contraception as long as they pay for it themselves.
Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing I have written has advocated taking the rights of any human being.
Remember that I'm the guy who says that the Constitution and the Law do not protect us from oppression. That includes oppression by government of all sorts of things, both human beings and organizations.
The Catholic Church should not be ably to deny anyone their rights. That is my contention. I think that Church should have to "play by the same rules" that other organizations do.
I do believe that the Catholic Church and some politicians would take contraception rights from women.
I have heard all sorts of things about Margaret Sanger. I also know something about Lincoln's ideas about blacks. The freeing of the slaves was a good thing. The starting of Planned Parenthood was a good thing. I don't care what the beliefs or objectives were in either case because the result was a good thing. I judge actions and consequences. I am no God. I cannot see what's in people's hearts.
Do you really want lots of unwanted children added to our population?
"the free exercise thereof".
I can't even imagine how there could be any unwanted children. Margaret Sanger wanted to wipe out minority children and feeble-minded children. She was heartless. Read up about her and you'll find out what she was all about.
But I don't say the Catholic Church should go against their core beliefs because the Catholic Church is not a person. It's an organization. It has no beliefs. The members of the Catholic Church have core beliefs. They are not required to go against their core beliefs. They are not required to use contraceptives even if their insurance would cover such.
There is no attempt by anyone to take away the freedom of religion of Catholics. They may freely exercise their religion so long as that exercise does not deny anyone else their rights.
-----------
I am sorry to hear that you cannot imagine how there could be unwanted children. There are millions of them in case you had not noticed. There are many thousands in the U.S. Have you heard of foster children? Have you heard of orphanages? Have you heard of children taken from their homes due to abuse and neglect by their parents? Have you heard of people opposed to having their tax money used to feed and house poor children. Oh, there are lots of unwanted children.
I don't care about Margaret Sanger. She's long dead. What's your hangup with somebody who died many years ago?
I doubt the Pope, the Bishops and Cardinals, and anyone else connected with the Catholic Church who wrote letters to this administration telling them they will not comply, are wrong about the contraception mandate. The government cannot force the Catholic Church to go against their core belief that birth control is a sin. He overstepped and messed with the largest denomination of Christians in the US. He won't get his way on this one. He'll be back up against the SC again if he tries.
The Catholic Church has dogma but the Church is not a person so it cannot believe anything. The Church prohibits the use of contraceptives. The only means of birth control it approves is abstinence.
The Church is not a person except to the SCOTUS, I suppose. The Church does not have to pay for contraceptives, they only have to pay for insurance. Insurance may pay for contraceptives but the insurance company is not the Catholic Church.
I see you either did not read or did not understand my previous comment.
Not all mothers are what we would like.
If the members are the Church then the Church practices contraception in an overwhelming proportion of cases, even in Italy. So to practice contraception yet balk at paying for others to practice contraception is hypocrisy.
The Church also has many and diverse beliefs on most matters of theology if the members are the Church. For example some believe women should be allowed to be priests and that the clergy should be allowed to marry.
Margaret Sanger is irrelevant to the points at issue. Thus I suggested that we omit reference to her.
I cited Lincoln to point out that the founder's beliefs are irrelevant scores of years after the fact. Lincoln is irrelevant to whether we are better off with the slaves freed.
Larry "Tell that to the women harmed by removal of their rights to run their own lives."
We would LIKE them to run their own lives and quit living off the system. Nobody, nobody has told them they can't get birth control or have abortions. Who removed their rights? They are free to run their own lives. They can buy birth control, or have the man in their life do so, They can have all the abortions they want. No one has messed with their life.
You and the Government are messing with my life however, when you take my freedom away and tell me I have to pay for it.
Just curious, the government pays for their abortions; Just like I heard from a # of sources that they payed for breast enhancement For girls in the service. I didn't owe that to them either.
The freedom to use my own money is partly taken from me to pay for these things and I don't want to pay. The Democrats are downing me.
Larry; "The Catholic Church should not be ably to deny anyone their rights. That is my contention."
1. I'm glad we go by a constitution and not what others think. 2. The C.Church doesn't deny anyone the right to commit murder or use birth control, or sleep around or disobey they're parents. They teach what they believe God said in the Bible. People are free to do what they want. Also, they shouldn't have to participate in that which they've deemed sin. That's constitutional.
The government running much of my private business is unconstitutional.
I'll tell you the truth. I think men hide behind women and keep telling them they deserve wonderful things because they are cowardly. Nothing else explains it. They even say, "It's her body ... she gets to kill my child if she wants to." Which is a cowardly deed of the highest degree.
They should be in the courts fighting for the life of their child. I'm thinking if enough men cared enough to fight for their children there are thoughts and ways that attorneys could fight with new reasoning's. But the men won't try so . . . ?
Larry, it just makes me mad for men to hide behind women. You didn't pay for any of my decisions on birth control and I didn't pay for your wife. Why all of a sudden the men are in tears because I don't want to pay for other women's decisions.
Families are struggling to make it out there. Older folks are struggling to make it. We resent the fact that you all can't say no to unreasonable requests of women. We rest of us are trying to do the right thing and want the women to take care of themselves.
Then why should men's insurance provided by the same institution pay for drugs to help men have sex? There is no medical reason why they have to have those drugs for their health. There are medical reasons why some contraceptives are helpful for women's health. Sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose.
The Catholic Church has had considerable influence on the laws of nations. Some of those laws have prohibited contraceptives. That is the Church using government to impose restrictions on the public.
If it's his child, then he should be held responsible for its care and upbringing. If it's his child, transfer it to his body and let him run the risks of pregnancy. If it's his child and it does damage to the body of the mother, let him be responsible for paying for damages. When he bears the same risks I'll give him the same decision making authority.
You pay for other people's decisions all the time. Your insurance rates are higher because some people choose to drink alcohol, to eat too much sugar, to drive while talking on the phone. Your taxes pay for things you don't like because Congress made decisions you could not control.
In this case, you are refusing to pay for something which benefits you and yours and which reduces your costs in other areas of life. And yet you complain.
Some contraceptives have other health consequences besides preventing pregnancy. Should health insurance cover those uses?
I don't think you really mean that sex is an unimportant part of life and marriage even when the possibility of pregnancy is eliminated. Of course, you might surprise me.
Yaaaaa. I'm glad you answered :)
Larry "Then why should men's insurance provided by the same institution pay for drugs to help men have sex?"
What institution? The government pays for it? That's another whole story. I'd have to research it a little. If his body is malfunctioning I think it should be on the insurance policy. On the other hand, at least he couldn't get anybody pregnant and make me pay for her abortion so he isn't bothered by his son.
I think medicaid, medicare and other programs should pay for for men and women's birth control due to many on welfare are energetic in their entertainment and I would rather pay for pills than abortions. If women were malfunctioning sexually I would expect insurance and Medical programs to cover that.
Larry "Some of those laws have prohibited contraceptives. That is the Church using government to impose restrictions on the public."
What do you mean? How is the Church imposing restrictions on gov't?
You mean the gov't wants to butt into the church business and decide how their contract should read for anyone they wish to employ.
Shame on gov.t.
Then if I were a young woman with an appetite for variety I would not work for the Catholic Conglomerate. "
Larry "f it's his child, then he should be held responsible for its care and upbringing. If it's his child, transfer it to his body and let him run the risks of pregnancy. If it's his child and it does damage to the body of the mother, let him be responsible for paying for damages. When he bears the same risks I'll give him the same decision making authority."
That doesn't get it Larry. That's like the insurance company saying they're going to limit sexual service to only penises. In the human world that would be out of the question the same as your example. If men wanted to protect his child nobody would ask him to carry it.
Larry "You pay for other people's decisions all the time. Your insurance rates are higher because some people choose to drink alcohol, to eat too much sugar, to drive while talking on the phone. Your taxes pay for things you don't like because Congress made decisions you could not control."
Of course. What does any of that do about a man trying to protect his child? We make rules to try to control what we can and live with the others. But if we tried to say "It will now take the signature of Mother AND Father to , kill their unborn child, I believe almost every Democratic man in America would rise with a roar and try to force the decision back over to the woman.
Larry "In this case, you are refusing to pay for something which benefits you and yours and which reduces your costs in other areas of life. And yet you complain."
I don't kill kids to save myself money. Even somebody else's.
The institution was the hospital or other establishment which is reluctant to pay for insurance that covers contraceptives. I don't know the names of those institutions.
By the Church "using government" I refer to the Catholic Church, using its great influence with governments, to arrange to have laws against contraception. I assume you will not attempt to make the case that the Catholic Church has no influence with governments.
But it isn't the man's body that is at risk of pregnancies. Therefore he has no right (it seems to me) to make demands on the mother concerning that pregnancy.
What does it have to do with human rights if a man can demand that a woman risk death and serious injury.
Glome, no offense taken. You are right I was talking about preventing pregnancy.
I will defend the right of every religion to retain their freedom of belief.
Larry "I assume you will not attempt to make the case that the Catholic Church has no influence with governments."
Well Larry, every single one of us has the power over the government to force them to give us freedom of religion.
How is it taking unfair advantage of the government? should be the question. It isn't. Those are natural rules of the Church that no President has ever tried to force on a Church. It is not something the C Church is doing new. It is a change in government by the President and the Democrats.
The other change is the President and the Democrats poking into other private lives and forcing us to pay for the desires of other people.
We had a lot of children and never asked others to pay for it. Now the Democrats have decided women are too ??? simple minded or cute :) to have to manage their own lives. That was the stupidest decision you men ever made. Although you now have support of a lot of the selfish women because they know they can control you. And that is not something they respect in a man.
And now you are telling women conservatives are having a war with women because most of us refuse to pay for their abortions. And the Catholic Church won't pay for birth control unless it is given for reason other than birth control because they evaluated birth control when the means became available and determined that was a decision God should make in the marriage and now the Democratic men would rather go against the constitution than make those helpless women pay for their own pills.
GAG! I'm sorry but I am disgusted with men that sell out to make the women happy whether it means killing their own child or making non constitutional demands or treating others unfairly just to make the women happy.
Larry "using its great influence with governments, to arrange to have laws against contraception. I assume you will not attempt to make the case that the Catholic Church has no influence with governments."
The Church arranged for who to have laws against contraception? The state? How so?
Larry "But it isn't the man's body that is at risk of pregnancies. Therefore he has no right (it seems to me) to make demands on the mother concerning that pregnancy."
No right to prevent the killing of his own child? That was one of the most outrageous laws ever made by the government. Taking the Father's child away from him and allowing the woman to kill it without giving him any say. Quit pitying the women because she doesn't like the cards that have been dealt out to mankind. She needs to be man enough to live up to her responsibility to share ownership. She needs to take preventative care if she doesn't want a real child to be conceived when she has sex. Their big girls now. The life of the child and the man's shared ownership have been thrown out the window just so you all can pamper the women. Their thrilled with the fact that the men have voluntarily given up all rights to their child.
Larry, we are at risk for death in a thousand situations in life. Why do you think men owe women the right to kill their child just so the women doesn't get hurt? Please!! It's only because you are saying "My lady, you are more important than any child I may have caused to be conceived and I, therefore, give up all rights to my little boy. Kill him if you choose."
Larry, I know that it seems like I'm making this sound as bad as possible. Actually, it is exactly the truth and you guys have just never thought it out. I am hoping my harsh speech will jangle something in your brains to say, "Hey, what child that God gives have I given up my power over? And for what reason?
What you all have done is unthinkable. & I think, if you ever really took in the truth you'd be sick.
I think you giving up rights to your child to the woman was done in an effort to be fair. But you've believed a lie.
The Catholic Church is rich and it has lots of influence with large blocks of voters. Look at the history of the Church. Has it influenced governments? Has it influenced the laws of those governments? Has the Catholic Church influenced governments in the U.S.?
If your answer to these questions is "NO." then I drop the subject. If "Yes." then the heads of the Church do have influence over laws that all of us live with including laws related to contraception.
---------------
I contend that it is not "his own child." People are not property. To contend that they are is to approve slavery.
Is the fetus a result of the man's sperm? Yes. But that gives the man no property rights. Does the man have the right to lock up a woman in a cage, force feed her food of his choosing, deliver the child on a date selected by astrologers by an operation because it's "his child"? No he does not. Because his rights may not deny her rights. His rights do not trump her rights.
It's her body, her health, her mind, and her choice. Otherwise, it's slavery.
-----------------
I will pity those I choose to pity.
-------------------
You have a strange idea of pampering if you thing abortion is pampering.
-------------------
A fetus is not a child. It is not a person. It has no mind. It has no self concept. It is not yet a being.
---------------
You are trying to make it sound as bad as possible. That I don't mind. What I mind is your selecting misleading (lying) words.
Also, I am agnostic so I would never claim that children (pregnancies) are gifts of God. I would never sacrifice someone else in the name of God. I would never tell someone else what they must do with their body and justify that by an appeal to religion.
Also, shouldn't you be telling women who are in no position to have a child, that they should learn that there are only certain times of the month, in most cases, when a woman can become pregnant.
Should women always say YES to a man's request for sex, even when it is at those times of the month when a woman is more likely to become pregnant?
Shouldn't they have control of their bodies at that point and just say no?
Abortions of convenience are performed more often than abortions from a rape or from incest, or for when the mother is at risk.
Planned Parenthood performed 360-000 abortions, and that's just one place where abortions are performed.
I think teaching young women how to respect themselves and their bodies and that they have the right to say NO if they feel SO strongly about not wanting to bring a child into the world.
Some statements are opinions. Some are facts.
To respond to your points.
Point 1: "shouldn't you be telling women who are in no position to have a child, that they should learn that there are only certain times of the month, in most cases, when a woman can become pregnant."
That's the "rhythm method" which has a high failure rate even when practiced by those well suited psychologically to apply it.
Point 2: "Should women always say YES to a man's request for sex, even when it is at those times of the month when a woman is more likely to become pregnant?"
A woman should say YES to a man's request for sex when it is A) appropriate and B) when she also wants sex. A woman should always be able to say NO for any reason at all.
Point 3) "Shouldn't they have control of their bodies at that point and just say no?"
We are dealing with the real world here. What should be is not always what is. Only a tiny fraction of human beings are able to resist temptation again and again with no lapses. It is completely unreasonable to expect (predict) that human beings will do that. It simply won't happen. It's foolish to make policy on the expectation or the demand that people will be able to practice the rhythm method successfully.
Point 4) "Abortions of convenience are performed more often than abortions from a rape or from incest, or for when the mother is at risk."
There is nothing "convenient" about an abortion. There's nothing casual about an abortion. Women don't have abortions because they enjoy them.
Point 5) "I think teaching young women how to respect themselves and their bodies and that they have the right to say NO if they feel SO strongly about not wanting to bring a child into the world."
You can teach them that. I hope we do. I have certainly taught my daughter that she always has the right to refuse sex of any kind from simple touching of hands to any other contact. But that's hardly enough, is it. Men don't necessarily accept "No!" for an answer. There are many means used, some coercive, some drugs, some deceptive, and so forth. Married women are subject to psychological and physical abuse not to mention other forms of coercion. That's just the way it is. It may be against the law. It may be condemned from the pulpit. But it's happening every day.
And after a woman becomes pregnant when she does not want to be pregnant or when she is not able to properly care for a child or when it threatens her health (and giving birth is dangerous) you would say to her, "You no longer are in control of your body." "You must do this thing, like it or not and no matter the consequences."
It is MY OPINION that it should be her decision and her decision alone as to whether to have an abortion.
Larry "It is MY OPINION that it should be her decision and her decision alone as to whether to have an abortion."
I just read through your last comment to me and then your comment to Roryann
The truth is, nothing I said changed the mind of the baby's Dads probably. They're going to continue to cowtow to women and that's their choice. It's too harsh a discossion for me to discuss if no minds have chnged. I'm done :)But thanks for putting up with me so that I had a chance to say it all.
Will see you on a different subject :)
You are a polite and articulate guest on my threads. I welcome you to present your positions (and information that I might learn) on any threads of mine.
But the main thing is that the "War on Women" just sounds so great if you are a Democrat. They have been trying so hard for so long to convince their base that Republicans hate women and women's rights that (to paraphrase Lenin) it's a case where they said it enough that eventually it was believed to be true. It's mind boggling how the MSM and Democratic party leaders can put out any charge and a substantial part of their rank and file will accept it without question, because they've been told over and over and over for decades that REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL so any bad charge against them must be true!
Does anyone have to tell me that they are not smart? The race is almost over, yet there is not a winner in the Republican primaries. The Three Stooges are at it again...
Instead of saving resources, money and getting ready to fight the real opposition, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich are still in the race, damaging themselves every day they open their mouths...
Evil no, not smart is a better qualification.
Obama campaign will not even have to dig up dirt. All they have to do is to use the dirt that the Republican candidates used against each other. A big advantage this situation will present is that what was once dirt, will be just a point made and bought by one of their own...
Anybody realizes how many jobs would have been created using the money wasted in those campaigns???
"Anybody realizes how many jobs would have been created using the money wasted in those campaigns???"
My goodness, Crin! I'm so impressed with such an original thought. You must be one o' dem smart, deep thinkin' libs.
As far as who the candidate will be, when one is determined, he'll be the one we vote for. Anybody but Obama. The only people believing these supposed 'wars' is the liberal base anyway.
I can't wait to see what they come up with next.
Another great point, Roryann. If anyone a'tall is paying any attention, Married Women and Christians vote overwhelmingly repube; while unMarried Women, looking for the 'dole,' vote Leftist.
Speaks volumes...
Yes; it replaces the "afterglow" Cigarette ;)
I'll have to email you the rest of that thought.
"Personally I don't think that Republicans are Evil. They are not very bright, but they are not evil. Any smart person, would stay away from Conservatives who took over the movement and have been causing problems.
Does anyone have to tell me that they are not smart? The race is almost over, yet there is not a winner in the Republican primaries. The Three Stooges are at it again.."
I appreciate your well thought out post Crin. But you overlook that we have so much talent in the Republican party that it is very hard to judge between them :) We just want to hang on to every good man as long as we can.
As for intellect, I know what you mean, my 14 & 15 yr olds didn't think I was very smart at that time either. You know how that is, shallow intellect and lack of experience at that age. Some people grow out of it and some don't.
I'm just proud of you for hanging in there and making an effort to understand us :)
Hey, do people call you the full name or Roryann or do they short cut it to a nick name?
I think our men on the left will see eventually that they've been taken for a ride by the 'weak' manipulative women that specialize in feeling sorry for themselves.
I actually really like strong women. I like honest ones that respect others as much as themselves. :)
Because, who is supposedly "waging" this war on women.....other women?????.....
They can't have it both ways.
JJ "The dems lack of comprehension of what personal responsibility entails, is a perfect example of "not smart."
You're right JJ. They take MY money to give to other people, and say it is to give them their rights. No so! They just can't stand up to the dem ladies.
I don't know what newfangled equipment you think they use, but I had an ultrasound wiht two of my kids and they squirted cold gel on my pregnant belly and ran a blunt instrument over it until I could see my baby in my womb.
There are no insults or injuries coming from anyone. This is just so ridiculous. As I said, the only ones buying this garbage are those who defend anything and everything this president does. They'll go along with anything this administration tells them to go along with.
This isn't working any better than the " all bankers and oil companies and corporations are evil" garbage. This president has nothing in his dismal record to run on and he's desperate.
This is not a conservative principle. Nor is it "small government." This is a "handmaiden's tale." This is oppression from the state. Just like being strip-searched for having a faulty auto muffler—which can happen now thanks to the "conservative" justices of the Supreme Court.
Abortion should be put to a vote in ALL states. Let's see how it does then. My guess is, it won't fare well.
I don't buy this oppression argument at all. I also think women seem more opposed to abortion than men.
Can you show me the links to any of this, especially the one about legalizing the murder of abortion doctors? I'd be interested in reading that one.
Googling "South Dakota HB 1171" and "Nebraska LB 232" will provide links to more information about these bills, including the text of the legislation itself.
Transabdominal ultrasounds don't involve penetration, but transvaginal ultrasounds do. Both types of ultrasound involve the use of a transducer. In the case of a transvaginal ultrasound, that transducer is inserted into the vagina.
Republicans have passed, and are trying to pass more, laws that require doctors to insert ultrasound probes into women's vaginas, even when neither the doctor nor the woman wants the procedure done, and when there is no medical justification for doing so.
It definitely falls in the "war on women" category. I'm sure that not all Republicans would be okay with those bills. I'm also sure that not all Republicans are okay with the Republican's "war on women". Not even all Republican legislators.
"It makes no sense to make this attack on women. If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters."
-- Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator for Alaska
I agree. I also think it's insane to call killing an "abortion doctor" justifiable homicide if the abortion is consensual, whether it's legal or not. But I think this is the sort of thing you can expect when people insist on referred to abortion as "murder".
"war on women"...psshhhh....
I quite agree...but one fool hardly a Law makes. These idiots here are given orders to promote specific methods of attack; this is merely the newest.
I didn't say anything about any "murder" being justified, Sue. As you point out, if a killing is legal, then by definition it isn't murder.
"The point is that whether or not someone calls it murder does not make it an expectation that anyone should consider murdering an abortion doctor justified."
I think whether or not someone considers abortion to be murder definitely impacts on whether or not they might consider killing an "abortion doctor" justified. I think legislative measures such as HB 1171 make that clear. I think the statements of people who kill "abortion doctors" and bomb "abortion clinics" also make it clear.
Scott Roeder said that he shot and killed George Tiller because "preborn children's lives were in imminent danger".
Francis Grady said that he tried to firebomb a Planned Parenhood clinic in Wisconsin "[b]ecause they’re killing babies there".
Eric Rudolph said, after pleading guilty to four bombings (two women's health clinics, a gay nightclub, and at 1996 Olympics in Atlanta), said (among many other things), "Abortion is murder. And when the regime in Washington legalized, sanctioned and legitimized this practice, they forfeited their legitimacy and moral authority to govern" and "The object was to target the doctor-killer, but because the device was prematurely discovered by the security guard, it had to be detonated with only the assistant-killers in the target area."
"I think whether or not someone considers abortion to be murder definitely impacts on whether or not they might consider killing an 'abortion doctor' justified."
Well, as I said, they'd have to be nuts to think that and I don't think there's much anything short of psychiatric help can do to make someone who's nuts think any differently but nuts. (Case in point, Eric Rudolf who may not be criminally insane, but he's a flippin' nutcase) So, once again, the reason you think or want to make anyone else think calling abortion murder impacts any rational person to justify murder of an abortion doctor is just your way of saying you don't like abortion to be called murder and you're using that as an excuse to justify imposing your thoughts on others.
And as I said, there certainly seem to be lots of people who think that. Including legislators who try to pass laws to make the killing of "abortion doctors" justifiable homicide, people who take it upon themselves to kill "abortion doctors", people who agree that "abortion doctors" should be killed, but disagree on how they should be killed and by whom, etc.
Whether or not all those people are "nuts" is debatable.
Wil B, The women in VA who would have a problem with the transvaginal ultrasound might want to know how abortions are performed. Same procedure except with the abortion, after the probe comes the vacuum that sucks out the life the woman is carrying inside.
Which is more invtrusive? I guess it depends on whether the woman feels a baby would be too intrusive on their lives, but they don't think about how they feel afterwards and some will carry that guilt for the rest of their lives.
To me, the ultrasound and abortion is the difference between a hangnail and a stab wound.
Which is more intrusive?
The woman is choosing to have the abortion procedure, but not the transvaginal ultrasound. The reason the ultrasound is intrusive is because politicians are requiring that the procedure be done, even if both the patient and the physician don't want to do it.
I think that how people feel about this not only depends on how they feel about abortion, but how they feel about politicians demanding that women have probes inserted into their vaginas. People who think it's okay for politicians to demand that women have probes inserted into their vaginas before they can get an abortion (a legal medical procedure) might also think about whether it's okay for politicians to demand that women have probes inserted into their vaginas before they can get a hysterectomy, or mammoplasty, or chemotherapy. And whether or not it's okay for politicians to demand that women have probes inserted into their vaginas before they can vote, get a driver's license, apply for a job, etc.
William, we're not living in some God-forsaken country where women can't do anything before getting permission. Women are in control of their own bodies. Unfortunately, the control should be self-control. And I'm with you there, if you cannot afford to have children without the government stepping in, you shouldn't have them.
I would much rather see women have their healthcare needs met at reputable hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices that have no scandal attached.
Who is assaulting them? If they want to kill their baby, they can, I'm sure the Daddy won't stand up for the child. But asking me to pay for it is a war on this woman.
Btw, Your hair is darling :) but I think it's pulling on your brain a little.
Wm. " . . .but when you attempt to impose your beliefs upon the rest of society, who may not subscribe to them, or intimidate or even kill abortion providers or women seeking their services, consider how you would feel if someone was trying to do the same to you".
I believe the woman is committing murder William. But, the gov't has given her the OK. So, I agree it is no longer against the law.
And you and other Democrats are forcing me to pay for it. And it makes me feel very bad.
It's not fighting a war against women to say I don't want to pay for your preventive needs. I don't think it's wrong to use them but if you want them buy them for yourself. What is happening to Americans that are quite happy to be on the dole all the time. I don't want to pay for it!!!
Oh really? Then you are for Obamacare, I take it. Since many of the previous uninsured and uninsurable were women and children. Last year 1100 anti-women measure were introduced in state legislatures around the country. Eight states are trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Thirteen states are pushing for mandatory medically unnecessary ultrasound bills. Anti-abortion folks always claim they don't advocate killing anyone, but when clinics are bombed or doctors are murdered the perps are always from the anti-abortion community. These are your people, not progressives.
Glome, I don't want to pay for corporate welfare, or subsidies to oil companies that are part of the wealthiest industry to ever occupy the planet, but I don't get to pick and choose who gets my tax dollars except by representative government. Why should you be any different?
For the uninsured in this country, there is medicaid. For those who work who cannot afford to pay the full price of healthcare, there are insurance programs that charge people based on what they can afford.
No, I do not believe that kids should be covered under their parents' healthcare plans unless they are a full time college student. I worked beginning at the age of 17 and paid for my own healthcare.
With the growing number of people becoming dependent on the government, what happens when the government runs out of other people's money.
I live by the rule that you should work for what you want, and you should not get what you didn't work for. You act as though people who are poor do not work. There are millions of people working to support their family who can be labeled poor. But poor doesn't mean the government should take care of them for the rest of their lives.
I didn't know I had people, unless you mean women. But you seem to know what women want and need, even though I've been a woman for over 50 years, since birth.
I think that was a necessity to prevent a rebelliion :) Every president has continue to promise we wouldn't have to put our tax money into killing the babies. Even President Obama promised us that a number of times.
They all know Americans that are for protecting the babies is very serious & they kept protecting the tax payer toward being forced to involve himself in the or killing.
President Obama Promised us even while he was writing his medical bill.
Wm, even if you're liberal, you have to acknowledge that President Obama has trouble recognizing the importance of telling the truth.
That's simply not true. I can't imagine I'm the only woman who believes this is what Obama is making up to secure the female vote. He would never get the conservative womens' vote and he already has the liberal womens' vote, so I don't know what this made up War on Women is supposed to accomplish, except divide us further apart. That's one thing Obama's good at.
The Dems always want to make a mountain out of a molehill anyway...There is no Republican war on woman as the Dems try to once again, make the public look stupid.... I hope that these people research the libs/Dems/progressives and get a backbone, develop a brain, and start thinking for themselves and not need a Dem to do the thinking for them... Research Dems... While you Obama supporters are at it... Research who the real racists are... Go back to the Civil Rights Movement, check out how the politians voted... Check out Al Gores daddy and Billy boy Clintons mentor.... You might learn something... Stop showing your stupidity and READ, as the Dems/Libs on here claim to be so darn smart... Cant prove it by me... They need to read...
No one is trying to ban contraception. The left believes that if others expect them to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, that it's a war.
Excellent summation; this pretty accurately explains Leftists, their lies, and their lying lies...and why they use them.
What have the other organizations done and what do they have to do with the made-up "war on women", which is basically a tool to get women to re-elect Obama. I hate to break it to you and to him, but conservative women probably didn't vote for him the first time around, and Catholic and Jewish women most likely won't this time either. War on Women! Come on...that's comical, really.
I'm glad I live in an open carry state with self-defense laws in place. Anyone attacks ME or tries to attack my family or invade my home, yeah, I would most definitely shoot first and ask questions later.
The left is becoming a three-ring circus.
You talk about the "lawless left," but it is Republicans who has summarily suspended democracy in Benton Harbor, Michigan and it is Republicans who are embroiled in fudging the vote counts in the Michigan House of Representatives. Looks to me that its the "lawless right" you need to be checking out.
Weigh that against Republican legislatures in states across the country trying to do exactly what I mentioned above. Don't even think you're talking an equivalent threat to democracy. Please. Educate yourselves and we'll talk. Until then, this conversation (such as it is) is just a waste of time. Later.
So first you call white people scared and then you say they're carrying concealed weapons. The point of buying a gun to use to protect yourself and your family, is to remove that fear. I know it's done that for me.
How can a US citizen NOT have an ID? How is that even possible?
Educate myself? You're given an opinion, and a bitter biased one at that. This white person never did anything to you, so insulting my intelligence shows me you don't know how to debate an issue.
Yes, you have wasted too much of my time. Buh-Bye!