Romney Goes Anti-Women

[Si modo]

Pay for your own birth control or don't have sex. Sheesh.

No one will ever have to pay for their own BC under O-care. Everyone is required to have insurance, and much of it will be subsidized, some even fully. And, under O-care, there is zero cost-sharing for BC and other 'woman wellness' treatment and procedure.

PP is obsolete as a provider of BC and other 'woman wellness' programs to low income persons, or any persons, under O-care.

Romney is spot on - we should cut out duplicate spending. It is waste.

If under Obamacare, preventive screenings and birth control are covered, the only other service that Planned Parenthood provides are abortions. How will democrats justify funding it then?

Exactly. And, with current law, the elective abortion services cannot be funded with federal monies.

So, Romney is spot on. PP is obsolete under O-care. The workers there should update their resumes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pay for your own birth control or don't have sex. Sheesh.

No one will ever have to pay for their own BC under O-care. Everyone is required to have insurance, and much of it will be subsidized, some even fully. And, under O-care, there is zero cost-sharing for BC and other 'woman wellness' treatment and procedure.

PP is obsolete as a provider of BC and other 'woman wellness' programs to low income persons, or any persons, under O-care.

Romney is spot on - we should cut out duplicate spending. It is waste.

You seem to have forgotten that Romney is also going to get rid of Obamacare.

Think before you post.

 

[Seawytch]

I think this thread needs more examples of just how far the right has gone on Planned Parenthood, contraception and Title X...

"It is clear that the domestic family planning services supported by the Federal Government should be expanded and better integrated. It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition." ~ Richard Nixon

“I introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.” ("George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970" [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Goldwater supported Planned Parenthood. George H.W. Bush supported Planned Parenthood. Every administration since Nixon has funded Planned Parenthood.

WTF, over?

Indeed. WTF?

O-care already will cover all the services (except abortion) that PP provides. How dare Romney want to eliminate duplicate spending. He obviously hates women because of that.

The HuffPo once again gets it wrong, and those who refuse to think for themselves believe it.

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

 

[mudwhistle]

Anti-woman?
I thought the preferred mantra was "pro choice".

Wait, I thought Rick Santorum was the only real conservative running.

The big knock against Romney seems to be he's no different from Obama when it comes to social issues like abortion and health care.

Guess the left wants to be able to criticise and support social issues at the same time.

A republican that supports choice and health care mandates is bad.

A democrat that supports them is good.

I guess it all depends on your political party.

 

[jillian]

Pay for your own birth control or don't have sex. Sheesh.

once again, if you don't understand the issue, perhaps you need to do a little learnin'

 

[Si modo]

I think this thread needs more examples of just how far the right has gone on Planned Parenthood, contraception and Title X...

"It is clear that the domestic family planning services supported by the Federal Government should be expanded and better integrated. It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition." ~ Richard Nixon

“I introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.” ("George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970" [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Goldwater supported Planned Parenthood. George H.W. Bush supported Planned Parenthood. Every administration since Nixon has funded Planned Parenthood.

WTF, over?

Indeed. WTF?

O-care already will cover all the services (except abortion) that PP provides. How dare Romney want to eliminate duplicate spending. He obviously hates women because of that.

The HuffPo once again gets it wrong, and those who refuse to think for themselves believe it.

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

And, everyone - that is EVERYONE - is required to have insurance under O-care. As a good chunk of the country will have that insurance subsidized, either they will be subsidized or their place of employment which provides it will be, low income folks will get their care regardless.

The persons can get that care anywhere - hospital, physician's office, clinic, etc..

Funding the care providers AND funding, wholly or in part, about half of those insurance programs that pay the care providers is beyond silly. We pay to pay ourselves? Please tell me that you can see how silly that is.

As to your second sentence, you'll need to amend to Constitution about Georgetown specifically. About individuals, I believe it starts later this year, O-care will cover their 'woman wellness' issues. This is why I think all this Fluke shit is ridiculous. The right reacts as if it's the end of the world and the left reacts as if it's the evil Republicans, and neither is right. It's all emotional hyperbole and folks lap it up.

 

[Seawytch]

Indeed. WTF?

O-care already will cover all the services (except abortion) that PP provides. How dare Romney want to eliminate duplicate spending. He obviously hates women because of that.

The HuffPo once again gets it wrong, and those who refuse to think for themselves believe it.

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

And, everyone - that is EVERYONE - is required to have insurance under O-care. As a good chunk of the country will have that insurance subsidized, either they will be subsidized or their place of employment which provides it will be, low income folks will get their care regardless.

The persons can get that care anywhere - hospital, physician's office, clinic, etc..

Funding the care providers AND funding, wholly or in part, about half of those insurance programs that pay the care providers is beyond silly. We pay to pay ourselves? Please tell me that you can see how silly that is.

As to your second sentence, you'll need to amend to Constitution about Georgetown specifically. About individuals, I believe it starts later this year, O-care will cover their 'woman wellness' issues. This is why I think all this Fluke shit is ridiculous. The right reacts as if it's the end of the world and the left reacts as if it's the evil Republicans, and neither is right. It's all emotional hyperbole and folks lap it up.

Still not seeing where it makes sense to cut the funding to clinics that provide the care.

Why would I need to amend the Constitution? Georgetown provides contraception to their faculty so that kinda renders the Constitution argument moot doesn't it? You also didn't address the question. If you allow all these people to opt out of providing contraception for moral reasons AND close PP, where does that leave people?

Now this whole discussion is about Reversible Mittens...he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (even though it's exactly like the Romneycare he wanted to see nationwide) AND Planned Parenthood. This fact also makes your argument moot.

Mittens RawMoney wants to get rid of PP and the ACA...so where is the hyperbole?

 

[Gagafritz]

Pay for your own birth control or don't have sex. Sheesh.

once again, if you don't understand the issue, perhaps you need to do a little learnin'

I guess my "learnin" must be OK because i have managed to support myself and manage my own biology without govt assistance.

 

[Si modo]

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

And, everyone - that is EVERYONE - is required to have insurance under O-care. As a good chunk of the country will have that insurance subsidized, either they will be subsidized or their place of employment which provides it will be, low income folks will get their care regardless.

The persons can get that care anywhere - hospital, physician's office, clinic, etc..

Funding the care providers AND funding, wholly or in part, about half of those insurance programs that pay the care providers is beyond silly. We pay to pay ourselves? Please tell me that you can see how silly that is.

As to your second sentence, you'll need to amend to Constitution about Georgetown specifically. About individuals, I believe it starts later this year, O-care will cover their 'woman wellness' issues. This is why I think all this Fluke shit is ridiculous. The right reacts as if it's the end of the world and the left reacts as if it's the evil Republicans, and neither is right. It's all emotional hyperbole and folks lap it up.

Still not seeing where it makes sense to cut the funding to clinics that provide the care.

....

OK. We fund a clinic. Service is free.

We also fund, wholly or in part, the personal insurance that pays for the services that the clinic provides.

So, we pay for services that we already pay for?

....

Why would I need to amend the Constitution? Georgetown provides contraception to their faculty so that kinda renders the Constitution argument moot doesn't it? You also didn't address the question. If you allow all these people to opt out of providing contraception for moral reasons AND close PP, where does that leave people?

Now this whole discussion is about Reversible Mittens...he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (even though it's exactly like the Romneycare he wanted to see nationwide) AND Planned Parenthood. This fact also makes your argument moot.

Mittens RawMoney wants to get rid of PP and the ACA...so where is the hyperbole?

Yes, the Georgetown argument about their students is moot because of the faculty funding. That was a good point you brought up, so the consistency is not there, at initial glance. I'll reserve conclusion on that invalidation of a Constitutional argument until I find out more.

Seriously, though. I am finding it hard to feel for someone who pays $41-47K a year for school and can't afford $15/month for oral contraception. Maybe they need to cut out a lipgloss in their monthly budget, or three coffees from Starbucks.

Sorry, I can't find any validity to Fluke's pleas.

And, to keep a multi-million dollar operation running for the few who go to Jesuit schools is beyond ridiculous.

 

[mudwhistle]

Pay for your own birth control or don't have sex. Sheesh.

No one will ever have to pay for their own BC under O-care. Everyone is required to have insurance, and much of it will be subsidized, some even fully. And, under O-care, there is zero cost-sharing for BC and other 'woman wellness' treatment and procedure.

PP is obsolete as a provider of BC and other 'woman wellness' programs to low income persons, or any persons, under O-care.

Romney is spot on - we should cut out duplicate spending. It is waste.

You seem to have forgotten that Romney is also going to get rid of Obamacare.

Think before you post.

I heard Romney supports wife beatings.

No, that's Muslims.

Well Romney isn't on record supporting a ban against ripping out women's uterus, so he must be for it.

 

[WillowTree]

Mitt Romney On Planned Parenthood: We Will 'Get Rid' Of It

"Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one, but there are others," he said. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

Ok. I would expect Romney to say something about not funding abortions or some such statement. But to completely de-fund Planned Parenthood is just a stupid move politically. Just because a woman is against abortion, doesn't mean she is also against prenatal care and cancer screenings.

I don't think this will play well at all.

do you mean to stand here and tell us that women are so damn weak that they couldn't possibly take care of themselves without free abortions? Really? Then, women do indeed have a damn problem,, they need to grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for who they fuck, when they fuck em, and and whether or not the dude wears a condom.. and don't give me that rape and incest argument that's a different set of beans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one will ever have to pay for their own BC under O-care. Everyone is required to have insurance, and much of it will be subsidized, some even fully. And, under O-care, there is zero cost-sharing for BC and other 'woman wellness' treatment and procedure.

PP is obsolete as a provider of BC and other 'woman wellness' programs to low income persons, or any persons, under O-care.

Romney is spot on - we should cut out duplicate spending. It is waste.

You seem to have forgotten that Romney is also going to get rid of Obamacare.

Think before you post.

I heard Romney supports wife beatings.

No, that's Muslims.

Well Romney isn't on record supporting a ban against ripping out women's uterus, so he must be for it.

Romney is on record wanting to get rid of the Obama healthcare plan AND get rid of planned parenthood.

What's your point?

 

[mudwhistle]

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

And, everyone - that is EVERYONE - is required to have insurance under O-care. As a good chunk of the country will have that insurance subsidized, either they will be subsidized or their place of employment which provides it will be, low income folks will get their care regardless.

The persons can get that care anywhere - hospital, physician's office, clinic, etc..

Funding the care providers AND funding, wholly or in part, about half of those insurance programs that pay the care providers is beyond silly. We pay to pay ourselves? Please tell me that you can see how silly that is.

As to your second sentence, you'll need to amend to Constitution about Georgetown specifically. About individuals, I believe it starts later this year, O-care will cover their 'woman wellness' issues. This is why I think all this Fluke shit is ridiculous. The right reacts as if it's the end of the world and the left reacts as if it's the evil Republicans, and neither is right. It's all emotional hyperbole and folks lap it up.

Still not seeing where it makes sense to cut the funding to clinics that provide the care.

Why would I need to amend the Constitution? Georgetown provides contraception to their faculty so that kinda renders the Constitution argument moot doesn't it? You also didn't address the question. If you allow all these people to opt out of providing contraception for moral reasons AND close PP, where does that leave people?

Now this whole discussion is about Reversible Mittens...he wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (even though it's exactly like the Romneycare he wanted to see nationwide) AND Planned Parenthood. This fact also makes your argument moot.

Mittens RawMoney wants to get rid of PP and the ACA...so where is the hyperbole?

The hyperbole is when you claim a 72 page document is identical to a 2700 page document.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, fair warning:

If Romney gets the nomination, he will flip flop (to the center/left) so fast on these women's issues it will make your head spin...

...not to mention your vagina.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed. WTF?

O-care already will cover all the services (except abortion) that PP provides. How dare Romney want to eliminate duplicate spending. He obviously hates women because of that.

The HuffPo once again gets it wrong, and those who refuse to think for themselves believe it.

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

And, everyone - that is EVERYONE - is required to have insurance under O-care. As a good chunk of the country will have that insurance subsidized, either they will be subsidized or their place of employment which provides it will be, low income folks will get their care regardless.

The persons can get that care anywhere - hospital, physician's office, clinic, etc..

Funding the care providers AND funding, wholly or in part, about half of those insurance programs that pay the care providers is beyond silly. We pay to pay ourselves? Please tell me that you can see how silly that is.

As to your second sentence, you'll need to amend to Constitution about Georgetown specifically. About individuals, I believe it starts later this year, O-care will cover their 'woman wellness' issues. This is why I think all this Fluke shit is ridiculous. The right reacts as if it's the end of the world and the left reacts as if it's the evil Republicans, and neither is right. It's all emotional hyperbole and folks lap it up.

Romney wants to repeal Obamacare you idiot.

 

[Si modo]

Because PP provides the care, not the insurance. And if your insurance doesn't cover contraception, like oh say Georgetown University's student plan, then what?

And, everyone - that is EVERYONE - is required to have insurance under O-care. As a good chunk of the country will have that insurance subsidized, either they will be subsidized or their place of employment which provides it will be, low income folks will get their care regardless.

The persons can get that care anywhere - hospital, physician's office, clinic, etc..

Funding the care providers AND funding, wholly or in part, about half of those insurance programs that pay the care providers is beyond silly. We pay to pay ourselves? Please tell me that you can see how silly that is.

As to your second sentence, you'll need to amend to Constitution about Georgetown specifically. About individuals, I believe it starts later this year, O-care will cover their 'woman wellness' issues. This is why I think all this Fluke shit is ridiculous. The right reacts as if it's the end of the world and the left reacts as if it's the evil Republicans, and neither is right. It's all emotional hyperbole and folks lap it up.

Romney wants to repeal Obamacare you idiot.

Good for him.

Although, I doubt it will happen if he gets in. It's already law.

 

[bodecea]

Anti-woman?
I thought the preferred mantra was "pro choice".

Wait, I thought Rick Santorum was the only real conservative running.

The big knock against Romney seems to be he's no different from Obama when it comes to social issues like abortion and health care.

Guess the left wants to be able to criticise and support social issues at the same time.

A republican that supports choice and health care mandates is bad.

A democrat that supports them is good.

I guess it all depends on your political party.

The point is....Romney is trying to fit in with the anti-woman wave that is currently hitting the Republican party. He seems to think that is the way to go. How sad is that?

 

[Si modo]

Anti-woman?
I thought the preferred mantra was "pro choice".

Wait, I thought Rick Santorum was the only real conservative running.

The big knock against Romney seems to be he's no different from Obama when it comes to social issues like abortion and health care.

Guess the left wants to be able to criticise and support social issues at the same time.

A republican that supports choice and health care mandates is bad.

A democrat that supports them is good.

I guess it all depends on your political party.

The point is....Romney is trying to fit in with the anti-woman wave that is currently hitting the Republican party. He seems to think that is the way to go. How sad is that?

I realize that 'anti-women' and 'war on women' sound so very dandy, but the terms aren't based in reality.

 

[mudwhistle]

Anti-woman?
I thought the preferred mantra was "pro choice".

Wait, I thought Rick Santorum was the only real conservative running.

The big knock against Romney seems to be he's no different from Obama when it comes to social issues like abortion and health care.

Guess the left wants to be able to criticise and support social issues at the same time.

A republican that supports choice and health care mandates is bad.

A democrat that supports them is good.

I guess it all depends on your political party.

The point is....Romney is trying to fit in with the anti-woman wave that is currently hitting the Republican party. He seems to think that is the way to go. How sad is that?

He's not trying to fit into some stupid imaginary war on women generated by the left.

He's simply saying Planned Parenthood is bogus and needs to do what it was designed for.

Help the poor out of a bind when it comes to raising a family. Planned Parenthood should be like the American Red Cross. Instead the libs turned it into welfare.

 

[Newby]

Mitt Romney On Planned Parenthood: We Will 'Get Rid' Of It

"Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one, but there are others," he said. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

Ok. I would expect Romney to say something about not funding abortions or some such statement. But to completely de-fund Planned Parenthood is just a stupid move politically. Just because a woman is against abortion, doesn't mean she is also against prenatal care and cancer screenings.

I don't think this will play well at all.

To "plan" one's parenthood is apparently a bad thing.

Gee, I wonder how I planned my parenthood without ever walking into a PP office or taking one dime from the feds for doing so?