GOP Dials Back the Clock on Progress for Women

[Cecilie1200]

Most abortions in this country is by choice for use as BIRTHCONTROL.
that is a sad damn fact, and I guess what you all call, Progress.
and why should I be forced to pay for others HEALTH CARE? I pay for my own by working.

And what does any of that have to do with the fact that the GOP is trying to limit women's rights. Do you think it's ok for a rape victim to be denied coverage for an abortion simply because she can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex?

Wouldn't she report the rape? Most know after a date rape drug that they were raped...right?

A lot of women don't report rapes. And with date rape drugs, you don't necessarily know for sure what happened. One of their hallmarks is that the victim often can't remember anything for several hours.

If you go to the ER as soon as you suspect you were given a date rape drug, they can do a urine test for the drugs. Rohypnol can be detected in the urine up to 72 hours after taking it. GHB, on the other hand, leaves the body in 12 hours, so it's imperative to not urinate after the attack if at all possible, in order to have the best chance of finding traces in the urine.

Even if the tests don't show date rape drugs, the ER can still do a rape kit, and can at the very least detect signs of recent sexual activity, which would help substantiate claims of rape.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think abortion is a good thing...just think how many more thugs and gangsters we'd have in jails across the country if they weren't killing them before they had to raise them to be thugs and gangsters. We would be paying to feed them, house them and clothe them in the penal system. It's cheaper to just kill em before they ever breathe a single breath.

What we should do to protect women from rape and incest is abort the bastard that committed the crime on the spot. No death row, no appeals court, no chance for life after conviction. Cut his nuts off and let him bleed out. After a few of those, the rapist will begin to think before he pounces.

Stupidest post of the day

While I disagree with the premise, this was actually a major theme in "Freakanomics", and had been a popular abortion argument for a long time.

 

[Anachronism]

I find it more than a ltitle disturbing that a man would feel justified in telling a woman what her opinions about her own "rights" ought to be.

I would suggest that there is at least ONE Man who definitely has a right to an opinion on the disposition of that fetus.... The Man who helped her create it.

Feminists like to say that men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have an opinion. Right at this moment, I'm inclined to agree.

Considering that I don't believe women should have anywhere near the level of Rights that they have in this country today, I am going to have to completely and totally disagree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, I don't know what you do for a living, but you're definitely not a doctor or a biologist.

You're right. You don't know what I do for a living.

But I DO definitely know two things you DON'T do. You just demonstrated it.

 

[Trajan]

Q- why are we paying for a person in say Mexico. to have an abortion?

 

[gekaap]

But I DO definitely know two things you DON'T do. You just demonstrated it.

You really just don't know anything. If you think that there's any consensus in the medical world as to the magical moment when the transition occurs between a collection of cells and a human being, the by all means enlighten us.

 

[code1211]

Another clueless fright-winger who doesn't know what she is talking about. Obama already signed an executive order banning ALL tax payer funding for abortions. Second, the bil in question has language in it that limits the rights of women. It says that only incest and forcible rape should be exemptions to the ban on federal funding for abortions. Do you understand what that means? It means, for example, that if a woman is slipped a date rape drug, and is subsequently raped and impregnated, she would have to prove that she was physically forced to have sex. Under the GOP's proposal, simply being drugged and waking up pregnant won't qualify. Being a woman, I'd think that you would be opposed to such draconian measures.



Pay attention. This isn't about abortion in general. It's about women who use gov't health care subsidies being able to abort after being raped. Do you call limiting the rights of women 'progress'?



Like I give a shit what some dumbass rightie thinks.

How exactly can Obama have banned federal funding for abortion and while at the same time the GOP are supposedly taking away federal funds for certain people to have abortions? Either there is no federal funding already or the GOP is trying to restrict it. It's certainly not both.

Good question. I suggest you ask the GOP. They seem to think that fed funding for abortion is in widespread use. But it's not. It's already banned except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. The GOP just wants to make it harder for a woman to prove that she has been raped.

On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but unemployment is dropping. In November it was 9.8 and now it's 9.0.

The dog fight over the budget is coming and the lines are already being drawn. If you haven't noticed this, you just haven't been looking.

Tracking U.S. Monthly Unemployment : NPR

 

[code1211]

And what does any of that have to do with the fact that the GOP is trying to limit women's rights. Do you think it's ok for a rape victim to be denied coverage for an abortion simply because she can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex?

I personally find abortion disgusting, but no one is DENYING anyone from having one, just not ON OUR DIME. they can get knocked up, they can pay for the killing of their unborn child. Yes rape is horrible, but that STILL doesn't mean I have to help pay for her killing the child. that's just the way I see it.

Fair enough. But I find it a little disturbing that a woman would so easily be willing to throw out rights for women.

If the unborn fetus is a female, how does this contribute toward women's rights?

 

[sparky]

because it's just dna?

~S~

 

[California Girl]

I personally find abortion disgusting, but no one is DENYING anyone from having one, just not ON OUR DIME. they can get knocked up, they can pay for the killing of their unborn child. Yes rape is horrible, but that STILL doesn't mean I have to help pay for her killing the child. that's just the way I see it.

Fair enough. But I find it a little disturbing that a woman would so easily be willing to throw out rights for women.

I find it more than a ltitle disturbing that a man would feel justified in telling a woman what her opinions about her own "rights" ought to be.

Feminists like to say that men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have an opinion. Right at this moment, I'm inclined to agree.

As far as I am aware, it still requires input from both a man and a woman to create a life.

Further, no one on this planet has the right to tell anyone else what they are entitled to have an opinion about.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

I personally find abortion disgusting, but no one is DENYING anyone from having one, just not ON OUR DIME. they can get knocked up, they can pay for the killing of their unborn child. Yes rape is horrible, but that STILL doesn't mean I have to help pay for her killing the child. that's just the way I see it.

Fair enough. But I find it a little disturbing that a woman would so easily be willing to throw out rights for women.

I find it more than a ltitle disturbing that a man would feel justified in telling a woman what her opinions about her own "rights" ought to be.

Feminists like to say that men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have an opinion. Right at this moment, I'm inclined to agree.

So in your opinion, because I'm a man, my defense of women's rights doesn't matter? You assume that all women think like you and all men should keep their nose out of it? Well, I disagree. I'm not telling a woman what her rights "ought" to be. I'm defending the rights that women already have - which the GOP is trying to take away.

You all seem to be missing the point of this thread. It's not about your feelings on abortion. It's about the GOP redefining rape in order to limit the number of exemptions to the already existing federal ban on tax payer funded abortions.

Answer the question: Do you think it's ok for a rape victim to be denied an abortion because, since she was passed out at the time of the rape, she can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex? That's what the GOP's proposal would mean for some victims impregnated by their rapist.

You're ok with that and you want to criticize me for defending womens rights? I suggest you try defending women yourself. Right now, you're not doing a very good job of it.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

This is no different than liberals trying to take my rights to own firearms away. You want abortions, fine! Pay for it yourself. I don't see the Government paying for my guns.

You want your rights, I want mine. We don't agree but in the end we both want the same thing, the Government to stay the fuck out of our choices and rights.

Yes it is completely different. We're talking about a woman's choice with her own body, not whether you choose to own a fire arm. Besides, liberals are not trying to take away anybody's right to own firearms. That is complete bullshit and you know it. Liberals are in favor of more gun control (like no assault weapons, extended clips, etc), but that is a lot different than calling for a ban on all firearms. And you know damn well that no politician is going to call for an all out ban on all firearms. If one did, you'd never hear about that politician again.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Go Packers!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

This is no different than liberals trying to take my rights to own firearms away. You want abortions, fine! Pay for it yourself. I don't see the Government paying for my guns.

You want your rights, I want mine. We don't agree but in the end we both want the same thing, the Government to stay the fuck out of our choices and rights.

Yes it is completely different. We're talking about a woman's choice with her own body, not whether you choose to own a fire arm. Besides, liberals are not trying to take away anybody's right to own firearms. That is complete bullshit and you know it. Liberals are in favor of more gun control (like no assault weapons, extended clips, etc), but that is a lot different than calling for a ban on all firearms. And you know damn well that no politician is going to call for an all out ban on all firearms. If one did, you'd never hear about that politician again.

Actually, we're talking about infanticide.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Most abortions in this country is by choice for use as BIRTHCONTROL.
that is a sad damn fact, and I guess what you all call, Progress.
and why should I be forced to pay for others HEALTH CARE? I pay for my own by working.

And what does any of that have to do with the fact that the GOP is trying to limit women's rights. Do you think it's ok for a rape victim to be denied coverage for an abortion simply because she can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex?

If she has private insurance, then it's a matter for her insurance company to decide as to whether they wish to cover it, like any other medical procedure.

If you're talking about "coverage" as in me, the taxpayer, paying for it, you're damned right I think it's okay to deny her MY money. I'M not the one who raped her; why should I pay for it?

What you seem incapable of understanding is that tax payer funded abortions already exist. It is allowed in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.

What the GOP is proposing is to redefine what qualifies as "rape". So let's make this clear. If you support the GOP's efforts on this matter, you support the denial of an abortion for a woman who receives federal health insurance subsidies, if that woman was raped but can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex. For example, if an underage girl is coerced into having sex by a 50 yr old man, and then that girl gets pregnant, you would support denying her an abortion because she wasn't physically held down and forced to have sex. And you want to talk about feminism? You need to take a closer look at feminism. You are not practicing it.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

How exactly can Obama have banned federal funding for abortion and while at the same time the GOP are supposedly taking away federal funds for certain people to have abortions? Either there is no federal funding already or the GOP is trying to restrict it. It's certainly not both.

Good question. I suggest you ask the GOP. They seem to think that fed funding for abortion is in widespread use. But it's not. It's already banned except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. The GOP just wants to make it harder for a woman to prove that she has been raped.

On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but unemployment is dropping. In November it was 9.8 and now it's 9.0.

The dog fight over the budget is coming and the lines are already being drawn. If you haven't noticed this, you just haven't been looking.

You're right - the UE rate is down to 9.0. I hope you're not suggesting that the GOP's new House majority had anything to do with it. They haven't touched jobs; and even if they did, those policies wouldn't have an effect on the economy this soon. So far, all they've done is focus on health care and social issues. Looks like they really got the message

 

[California Girl]

And what does any of that have to do with the fact that the GOP is trying to limit women's rights. Do you think it's ok for a rape victim to be denied coverage for an abortion simply because she can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex?

If she has private insurance, then it's a matter for her insurance company to decide as to whether they wish to cover it, like any other medical procedure.

If you're talking about "coverage" as in me, the taxpayer, paying for it, you're damned right I think it's okay to deny her MY money. I'M not the one who raped her; why should I pay for it?

What you seem incapable of understanding is that tax payer funded abortions already exist. It is allowed in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.

What the GOP is proposing is to redefine what qualifies as "rape". So let's make this clear. If you support the GOP's efforts on this matter, you support the denial of an abortion for a woman who receives federal health insurance subsidies, if that woman was raped but can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex. For example, if an underage girl is coerced into having sex by a 50 yr old man, and then that girl gets pregnant, you would support denying her an abortion because she wasn't physically held down and forced to have sex. And you want to talk about feminism? You need to take a closer look at feminism. You are not practicing it.

It's not about 'allowing' someone to have an abortion. It's about not using taxpayers money to pay for it. I'm pro life, but I'll also defend the right of another woman to be pro-choice. What I won't do, is pay for her abortion.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

If she has private insurance, then it's a matter for her insurance company to decide as to whether they wish to cover it, like any other medical procedure.

If you're talking about "coverage" as in me, the taxpayer, paying for it, you're damned right I think it's okay to deny her MY money. I'M not the one who raped her; why should I pay for it?

What you seem incapable of understanding is that tax payer funded abortions already exist. It is allowed in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.

What the GOP is proposing is to redefine what qualifies as "rape". So let's make this clear. If you support the GOP's efforts on this matter, you support the denial of an abortion for a woman who receives federal health insurance subsidies, if that woman was raped but can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex. For example, if an underage girl is coerced into having sex by a 50 yr old man, and then that girl gets pregnant, you would support denying her an abortion because she wasn't physically held down and forced to have sex. And you want to talk about feminism? You need to take a closer look at feminism. You are not practicing it.

It's not about 'allowing' someone to have an abortion. It's about not using taxpayers money to pay for it. I'm pro life, but I'll also defend the right of another woman to be pro-choice. What I won't do, is pay for her abortion.

Well, I have news for you. You are paying for abortions for victims of rape and incest, and when the health of the mother is at stake.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you support the GOP's proposal to make it harder for rape victims to get abortions when they receive tax payer subsidies for health insurance? That's exactly what this proposal would do. There is no question about that. Do you support it? Would you like it if a "date rape" victim - and beneficiary of tax payer subsidies - was denied an abortion simply because she can't prove that she was physically held down and raped?

 

[gekaap]

It's not about 'allowing' someone to have an abortion. It's about not using taxpayers money to pay for it. I'm pro life, but I'll also defend the right of another woman to be pro-choice. What I won't do, is pay for her abortion.

I really feel like this taxpayer money issue is severely misrepresented. It's not like there's a tax credit on the 1040A that allows you to get back the money you spent on an abortion. We're talking about people who are on programs like medicare or state medical assistance programs that are funded with federal money. Part of their medical coverage is an allowance for abortion procedures under certain circumstances (those circumstances already having been explained in this thread). Abortion is a medical procedure, and if there is a significant medical issue to warrant an abortion, then government aide medical coverage is appropriate to cover such procedures. Federal law prohibits federal funding for elective abortions, so the only time when it would happen is when there is a significant medical issue warranting the procedure.

The real complaint that people need to focus on, then, is government provided medical coverage. There's no reason to break apart government funded medical coverage into pieces. Either you're okay with it, or you're not. If you're okay with it, then accept the fact that you're not a given person's doctor, and you have no place dictating whether said person should or should not have an abortion. That's like saying it's okay for the government to fund flu shots, but not okay for it to fund treatment for chickenpox.

 

[sitarro]

Good question. I suggest you ask the GOP. They seem to think that fed funding for abortion is in widespread use. But it's not. It's already banned except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. The GOP just wants to make it harder for a woman to prove that she has been raped.

On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but unemployment is dropping. In November it was 9.8 and now it's 9.0.

The dog fight over the budget is coming and the lines are already being drawn. If you haven't noticed this, you just haven't been looking.

You're right - the UE rate is down to 9.0. I hope you're not suggesting that the GOP's new House majority had anything to do with it. They haven't touched jobs; and even if they did, those policies wouldn't have an effect on the economy this soon. So far, all they've done is focus on health care and social issues. Looks like they really got the message

You are typical of the dimwits on the left that think that jobs only come from government and politicians. The mere fact that the Republicans took over a majority in the House would make some employers more hopeful for the future and thus willing to chance the hiring of new workers. Just as the losers that have lived off the taxpayers their whole life are excited at the prospect of new taxpayer funded handouts when their pals in the Democrat party are elected. Stop watching the imbeciles on MSNBC.