The GOP and women's rights.

[Listening]

Republicans state mandated rape in Texas

A woman is forced to endure a medical procedure likened to rape. No, it's not Egypt, where army doctors are accused of subjecting protesters to grotesque "virginity tests".
Instead it's Texas, where a controversial law, signed last year by failed Republican presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry, took effect in February.
Aimed at women who seek abortions, a legal right since 1973, the "Sonogram Bill" compels doctors to describe, and patients to listen to, a description of the fetus revealed by an ultrasound.
"A patient must make two visits," explains Rochelle Tafolla, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.
"During the first visit the doctor who is going to perform the abortion must perform the ultrasound. The doctor must display the ultrasound image to the woman. She can look away but the doctor must describe the image. If there is cardiac activity that suggests a heartbeat the doctor is required to turn up the audio so the woman can hear it."
This invasive procedure involves inserting an ultrasound device, or "wand", into the vagina to get a clear image of the fetus and detect any heartbeat in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy, when most American women seek abortions.

How is that rape ?

You are a brain dead moron.

Your mother/wife/sister/girlfriend/aunt/cousin goes into a doctor's office for an ELECTIVE procedure, and the STATE declares that she has NO CHOICE but to have a camera tube put into her.

Forcing a woman to have something inserted into her vagina....sounds like rape to me. But hey, since the GOV'T is ENFORCING YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS/SOCIAL BELIEFS on a woman, then it's okay by you, right bunky?

Who cares what "sounds like rape to you" ?

If she no want the camera, she no go for elective procedure. What is so hard to understand about that ?

Now the realy rage comes out.....religion.

 

[Listening]

Arizona Republicans want to force women to reveal to their boss whether they are having sex or not....

PHOENIX — Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy.A bill nearing passage in the Republican-led Legislature allows all employers, not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage when doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.When a female worker uses birth control pills, which can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, the bill would allow an employer who opted out to require her to reveal what she was taking it for in order to get reimbursed.

What's wrong with that? Viagra was invented for a heart medication. Birth control helps with issues of irregular periods and some diabetes issues. I think if it's a legitimate reason, yeah cover it. If it's for sex, DENY. Pay for your own fun stuff. Health insurance is to make sure you're ok, not to make sure you get laid.

Quite the little fascist flunky, aren't you Bucky? Newsflash for ya, NO MAN IS REQUIRED TO DIVULGE HIS SEX LIFE TO HIS BOSS REGARDLESS WHETHER HE'S GETTING VIAGRA OR NOT, OR A PENILE IMPLANT, for that matter.

But misogynist sure as hell want to control women. Jeezus, the hypocrisy of these "small gov't " types is astounding!

Oh stop with the pant wetting.

What she says is correct and what you say is true too.

However, what will come out of this (a prediction....I, at least, understand that) is that somehow you will attempt to brand the entire right with this. Tried before....ain't working.

Some women oppose abortion.

 

[Listening]

Walker making it more difficult for women to sue to get equal pay for equal work and now Arizonia is reportedly considering legislation that would make it legal for doctors to lie to their women patients in order to prevent an abortion ...

I'm against abortion (in favor of equal pay for equal work) and even I can see that Romney ids going to have to distance himself from this stuff to crack into Obama's lead among women.

Romney has the support of a lot of women. He will need more.

What is more important is that the GOP get away from these issues (which don't impact a lot of women personally) and get back to the basics of the economy (which impact a lot more of them).

You can't have GOP governors and legislators pushing anti-women's rights stuff and then have the Presidential candidate try to ignore it. That's just dumb.

YOU and your cohorts don't dare address the facts of the OP, and are making yourselves look like misogynist cretins none-the-less. This is NOT going to sit well with women regardless of their political affiliations. Deal with it.

We already have dickweed and here is the summary....

Keep whining all you want. Call it a war on women if you want....

Because at some point you asshats have to somehow reconcile the fact that there are plenty of women on both sides of the issue.

As to your approach....I am sure it fits well when you get together with a group of liberal losers in some coffee house, trying to convince yourself you are somehow smart.

You don't get to make up standards that we have to abide by. Just because people won't bow to your extrapolation of the OP does not make them wrong.

Maybe if you took more bathroom breaks, you'd be less of an asshole.

 

[Listening]

Ahhhhh, Media Matters for America. The World Net Daily of the left. Dismissed.

Well if lie often, and they do. It will become the truth.

They should have had Dan Rather write the hit piece.

Translation: another neocon/teabagger dummy on Full-auto and shooting blanks.

Cowards don't DARE discuss content, then just throw rocks at headlines and banners.

Written by a BBQ'd left wing grease ball that has to find a way to express his rage at others because they don't think he is as smart as he thinks he is.

 

[Intense]

How is that rape ?

You are a brain dead moron.

Your mother/wife/sister/girlfriend/aunt/cousin goes into a doctor's office for an ELECTIVE procedure, and the STATE declares that she has NO CHOICE but to have a camera tube put into her.

Forcing a woman to have something inserted into her vagina....sounds like rape to me. But hey, since the GOV'T is ENFORCING YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS/SOCIAL BELIEFS on a woman, then it's okay by you, right bunky?

Who cares what "sounds like rape to you" ?

If she no want the camera, she no go for elective procedure. What is so hard to understand about that ?

Now the realy rage comes out.....religion.

Funny that the Medical Procedure is nothing, in comparison to the Abortion Procedure itself. That said, I do not understand why a noninvasive ultra-sound is not considered, a viable alternative.

 

[BDBoop]

My understanding is that in the earliest stages of pregnancy, the only way to get a picture is transvaginal.

 

[Listening]

Are the Republicans/conservatives conducting a legislative "war on women"? You Bet'cha!


Republican "War On Women" Is Not A Left-Wing Invention | Media Matters for America

Thanks for proving that you are a left wing myrmidon. Media Matters? The IRS is investigating whether they should be able to call themselves a non proffit or a political org.
Quoting them is like taking dictation from the daily Kos.
touchyliberal indeed.

It's TAI-CHI-LIBERAL you neocon numbskull. Learn to read and/or spell. Then get an adult near you to explain what taichi is all about.

And like your dimwitted cohorts, grow a pair and discuss the content rather than trying to discredit the source alone. Whether non-profit or a political organization, the FACTS they report don't change. When you can disprove the information contained, then we'll talk.

Does that mean that if they don't respond, you will STFU ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That rather made no sense, "Cecilie".

What, your use of punctuation? You're right about that.

Now, I realize it's a bit hard to suss out what you're babbling about, given your apparent inability to comprehend the QUOTE function, but try and stay with me as well as your limited brain power will allow.

We're on a thread about the leftist lie that Republicans are waging a "war on women". The OP started out trying to prove this insane hypothesis by basically saying, "See? Media Matters says it, so that makes it true", and was promptly and deservedly laughed at. There followed much back-and-forth on the subject, until we finally arrived at your post, presumably apropos of nothing other than the original thread purpose, since you didn't quote anyone or direct your remarks to anyone.

Now, everyone here knows that you're rabidly in favor of killing unborn babies for any and every reason a Utero-American (I refuse to call such unnatural creatures mothers) might desire, so one might reasonably assume - insofar as reasonability can be applied to anything you say - that your post was intended to provide "proof" of Republicans attempting to harm women. And since your link was to a story concerning law protecting unborn children, aka fetuses, one might also reasonably assume that you consider the very idea of protecting them - or, indeed, treating them as if they matter at all - to be inimical to the good of women.

Ergo, you have just illustrated the peculiar leftist belief that fetuses are the enemies of women, since protecting fetuses somehow harms women, in leftist minds.

I hope this explanation has clarified both the bullshit emanating from your cakehole, and the contempt with which decent human beings view you. I also hope that you feel suitably ashamed at having to have your own post explained to you, although I doubt it, since lesser animals are said to have no sense of shame.

Oh, and by the way, quotation marks are used, in addition to denoting direct quotes and dialogue, to denote something which is considered in doubt by the writer. So denoting doubt about my name, particularly when it's right there in front of your eyes at the top of my post, makes you sound even more pig-stupid than normal, which is quite a feat.

Congratulations, and you're welcome for tonight's little lesson, both in grammar and in what the fuck is going on around you. Consider it my public service for this week.

 

[Intense]

Well if lie often, and they do. It will become the truth.

They should have had Dan Rather write the hit piece.

Translation: another neocon/teabagger dummy on Full-auto and shooting blanks.

Cowards don't DARE discuss content, then just throw rocks at headlines and banners.

Written by a BBQ'd left wing grease ball that has to find a way to express his rage at others because they don't think he is as smart as he thinks he is.

Sometimes TCL confuses legitimate Groups like the Tea Party, with fringe groups like OWS.

Just remember that the Tea Party, is into, daily hygiene, toilet paper, cleaning up litter, and Lawful Demonstration and Rallies. That might help.

 

[Intense]

Thanks for proving that you are a left wing myrmidon. Media Matters? The IRS is investigating whether they should be able to call themselves a non proffit or a political org.
Quoting them is like taking dictation from the daily Kos.
touchyliberal indeed.

It's TAI-CHI-LIBERAL you neocon numbskull. Learn to read and/or spell. Then get an adult near you to explain what taichi is all about.

And like your dimwitted cohorts, grow a pair and discuss the content rather than trying to discredit the source alone. Whether non-profit or a political organization, the FACTS they report don't change. When you can disprove the information contained, then we'll talk.

Does that mean that if they don't respond, you will STFU ?

Somehow, I don't think the Tai Chi is working for you. Your Ying is way out of wack, and your Yang is in the shitter. Study Harder. Eat less carbohydrates, pet a dog or something, man. Try thinking Assertive, rather than aggressive, if you want balance. Leading the charge, like you do regularly, is not a sign of being in balance or in control. Maybe you could learn from Kung Fu, how to at least time your outbursts. How to set up the pins before you strike, even.

 

[BDBoop]

That rather made no sense, "Cecilie".

What, your use of punctuation? You're right about that.

Now, I realize it's a bit hard to suss out what you're babbling about, given your apparent inability to comprehend the QUOTE function, but try and stay with me as well as your limited brain power will allow.

We're on a thread about the leftist lie that Republicans are waging a "war on women". The OP started out trying to prove this insane hypothesis by basically saying, "See? Media Matters says it, so that makes it true", and was promptly and deservedly laughed at. There followed much back-and-forth on the subject, until we finally arrived at your post, presumably apropos of nothing other than the original thread purpose, since you didn't quote anyone or direct your remarks to anyone.

Now, everyone here knows that you're rabidly in favor of killing unborn babies for any and every reason a Utero-American (I refuse to call such unnatural creatures mothers) might desire, so one might reasonably assume - insofar as reasonability can be applied to anything you say - that your post was intended to provide "proof" of Republicans attempting to harm women. And since your link was to a story concerning law protecting unborn children, aka fetuses, one might also reasonably assume that you consider the very idea of protecting them - or, indeed, treating them as if they matter at all - to be inimical to the good of women.

Ergo, you have just illustrated the peculiar leftist belief that fetuses are the enemies of women, since protecting fetuses somehow harms women, in leftist minds.

I hope this explanation has clarified both the bullshit emanating from your cakehole, and the contempt with which decent human beings view you. I also hope that you feel suitably ashamed at having to have your own post explained to you, although I doubt it, since lesser animals are said to have no sense of shame.

Oh, and by the way, quotation marks are used, in addition to denoting direct quotes and dialogue, to denote something which is considered in doubt by the writer. So denoting doubt about my name, particularly when it's right there in front of your eyes at the top of my post, makes you sound even more pig-stupid than normal, which is quite a feat.

Congratulations, and you're welcome for tonight's little lesson, both in grammar and in what the fuck is going on around you. Consider it my public service for this week.

Teal deer.

But I just followed your lead, speaking of liberal "women." It didn't make any more sense when you did it than when I did.

 

[Chris]

RICHMOND, Va. — Hundreds of women have locked arms and stood mute outside the Virginia State Capitol to protest a wave of anti-abortion legislation coursing through the 2012 General Assembly. Capitol and state police officers, there to ensure order, estimated the crowd to be more than 1,000 people — mostly women. The crowd formed a human cordon through which legislators walked before Monday’s floor sessions of the Republican-controlled legislature. The group was protesting bills that would cut off state aid to poor women seeking abortions, define embryos as humans and criminalize their destruction, and require “transvaginal” ultrasounds of women seeking abortions. In the procedure, a wand-like device is inserted and used to send out sound waves. None of the protesters carried posters. Few spoke, even when spoken to. Richmond resident Molly Vick wore a shirt that read, “Say no to state mandated rape.”

 

[Listening]

Why Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are the Most Unconstitutional Decisions of All Time | Americans United for Life | AUL.org

The 1973 United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions in Roe v. Wade[1] and Doe v. Bolton[2] are without question the most egregiously unconstitutional decisions of all time. These decisions turned the USSC into the national abortion control board, and stripped the ability of elected legislators to regulate this new “right” with the notoriously broad definition of “health” in Doe.

While the Constitution does not contain an express “right to privacy,” and certainly does not contain a “right to abortion,” the USSC created this “right” in cases concerning contraception (i.e. Griswold v. Connecticut,[3]) and expanded it to include the “right to abortion” in Roe v. Wade. The Court held that the decision to have an abortion was part of the right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

However, the killing of over one million unborn human beings a year cannot, by definition, involve private acts. Furthermore, while one could argue that our country has a history of protecting individuals’ privacy, our country clearly does not have a longstanding tradition of protecting abortion rights. Therefore, it is disingenuous to argue that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended to include within the amendment a fundamental right to abortion. Instead, the Court unabashedly made the policy decision that unborn children have no rights, under the guise of protecting women’s rights.

The Court’s decisions in these cases have had lasting consequences. Roe and Doe have proven to be utterly unworkable; legislators constantly struggle to construct legislative language that will pass the current “test” used by the Supreme Court in abortion jurisprudence. This confusion is the direct result of judicial interference in a matter that should be handled by the legislative process. Importantly, the purported justifications of Roe, flimsy as they were, have dramatically eroded with further in-depth scientific information about when life begins and prenatal development, as well as public health data showing the substantial and negative physical and psychological impact of abortion on women.[4] What’s more, people who favor[5] and people who oppose abortion rights agree that Roe is fundamentally a policy decision, without Constitutional language to support it. In fact, the Supreme Court has substantially modified the doctrine announced in Roe in subsequent cases.[6]

With any decision, the Supreme Court faces criticism and dissatisfaction. However, few decisions are created out of whole cloth and wreck havoc on major social debates that belong in legislatures. Today, on Constitution Day, Americans should reflect on the Court’s missteps in Roe and Doe and demand that, in the future, the President and the Senate place justices on the Supreme Court who will uphold the law, not invent it.

*****************************

Let's hope Molly Vick's brain starts working one day.

 

[BDBoop]

Interesting. Obviously not about the GOP, but a symptom of what happens when religion controls the wheel.

In a real life example of how dire the need to protect girls, a 9 year old Brazilian girl’s mother was excommunicated by the Archbishop allowing her daughter to abort twins the daughter claims were the result of being raped by her stepfather. Doctors determined that the child’s uterus was not capable of supporting one fetus, let alone two and that trying to bring the pregnancy to term and give birth to the twins would most likely kill her. What was the response of her church to this crime? Her Archbishop excommunicated her mother for allowing the abortion to happen and the doctors who performed the procedure. The girl’s stepfather, who has been arrested for raping the child and her sisters repeatedly, is the only person not excommunicated by the Archbishop. How’s that for compassion?

/snip

Correction: the first version of this post reported that the 9 year old victim had also been excommunicated. This is not the case.

Read more: 9 Year Old Incest Victim’s Abortion Sparks National Debate in Brazil | Care2 Causes

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interesting. Obviously not about the GOP, but a symptom of what happens when religion controls the wheel.

In a real life example of how dire the need to protect girls, a 9 year old Brazilian girl’s mother was excommunicated by the Archbishop allowing her daughter to abort twins the daughter claims were the result of being raped by her stepfather. Doctors determined that the child’s uterus was not capable of supporting one fetus, let alone two and that trying to bring the pregnancy to term and give birth to the twins would most likely kill her. What was the response of her church to this crime? Her Archbishop excommunicated her mother for allowing the abortion to happen and the doctors who performed the procedure. The girl’s stepfather, who has been arrested for raping the child and her sisters repeatedly, is the only person not excommunicated by the Archbishop. How’s that for compassion?

/snip

Correction: the first version of this post reported that the 9 year old victim had also been excommunicated. This is not the case.

Read more: 9 Year Old Incest Victim’s Abortion Sparks National Debate in Brazil | Care2 Causes

No matter how many times I see this little liberal dance of "Pay no attention to how big a fool I've made of myself, I'm STILL MEANINGFUL!!!" it never fails to amuse.

And remember, no one ask what the fuck BRAZIL has to do with the "GOP War on Women" that this thread is supposed to be about, or BDPoop might run away in tears.

 

[BDBoop]

But you're the one twisting my user id. I think you need to check yourself before you start getting all superior on others.

 

[PredFan]

Are the Republicans/conservatives conducting a legislative "war on women"? You Bet'cha!


Republican "War On Women" Is Not A Left-Wing Invention | Media Matters for America

100% bull shit.

Name one right that the GOP is taking from women.

From the OP link:

In May 2011, House GOP Passed Bill That Would Ban D.C. Reproductive Funding. In May 2011, House Republicans unanimously passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which created a "ban on the District [of Columbia] using its own money to fund abortions for low-income women." From The Washington Post:

The House approved a bill Wednesday that would make permanent a ban on the District using its own money to fund abortions for low-income women, dealing D.C. another setback in its quest to retain control over its finances.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act cleared the House on a 251-175 vote, with 16 Democrats joining all 235 Republicans present to support it. The bill would tighten laws designed to prevent federally-funded abortions across the country, and would enshrine the District ban into federal law. The spending resolution signed by President Obama last month contains a similar restriction on D.C., but it only lasts through Sept. 30. [The Washington Post, 5/4/11]

"No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion" Bill Originally Included Language Restricting The Definition Of Rape. The original version of the No Taxpayer For Abortion Act included language amended from the Hyde Amendment, which limited federal funding for abortion to cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. The law would have removed all exceptions other than "forcible" rape. A January 28, 2011, Mother Jones article pointed out that this would have "rule[d] out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases." From Mother Jones:

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.) [Mother Jones, 1/28/11]

Arizona GOP Promoting Law That Restricts Abortion To 20 Weeks And Requires Ultrasound. The Republican-led state legislature in Arizona is promoting a bill that would ban "most abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy." From Reuters:

A controversial Arizona bill that bans most abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy moved closer to becoming law on Wednesday in the Republican-controlled state legislature after clearing the state Senate.

The bill, which would still allow abortions after 20 weeks in the case of medical emergency, was passed by a mostly party-line 20-to-10 vote in the Senate on Tuesday. Only a small number of abortions are performed in Arizona after 20 weeks.

[...]

The Arizona bill would also require women to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to having an abortion, instead of the one hour that is currently mandated under state law.

In addition, the bill would require that the state create a website that details the risks of the procedure and shows pictures of the fetus in various stages. [Reuters, 3/28/12]

Pennsylvania GOP Proposed "Invasive" Ultrasound Bill. In February, Republicans in the Pennsylvania State House introduced legislation requiring that "medical professionals say women would have to undergo an invasive, vaginal ultrasound." From PennLive.com:

Under the bill in Pennsylvania, medical professionals say women would have to undergo an invasive, vaginal ultrasound. That prospect is drawing outrage among supporters of abortion rights.


[...]

The bill, proposed by Rep. Kathy Rapp, a conservative Republican from Warren County, outlines what women seeking an abortion would undergo in great detail.

The bill requires that the woman not only get an ultrasound, but that the ultrasound screen be in her line of sight. The woman can choose to look away, the legislation states, but the technician performing the ultrasound would have to note if the woman viewed the results.

The patient would also have to hear the results of the physician's finding, sign a written report to give to the abortion provider, and receive a sealed copy of the ultrasound's image.

No one has a right to an abortion, and no one has a right to get free stuff from the government. You haven't shown even one right that the GOP is trying to take away.

Total fail.

 

[BDBoop]

No one has a right to an abortion, and no one has a right to get free stuff from the government. You haven't shown even one right that the GOP is trying to take away.

Total fail.

Every woman in America has the right to an abortion.

And every corporation in America is getting 'free stuff' from the government.

 

[PredFan]

No one has a right to an abortion, and no one has a right to get free stuff from the government. You haven't shown even one right that the GOP is trying to take away.

Total fail.

Every woman in America has the right to an abortion.

And every corporation in America is getting 'free stuff' from the government.

Complete bull shit. No one has a right to an abortion, and no one has a right to free stuff from the government. I didn't say that no one was getting free stuff, I said no one has a right to it. Prove to me if you can that there is a right to an abortion. I'll wait.

 

[BDBoop]

No one has a right to an abortion, and no one has a right to get free stuff from the government. You haven't shown even one right that the GOP is trying to take away.

Total fail.

Every woman in America has the right to an abortion.

And every corporation in America is getting 'free stuff' from the government.

Complete bull shit. No one has a right to an abortion, and no one has a right to free stuff from the government. I didn't say that no one was getting free stuff, I said no one has a right to it. Prove to me if you can that there is a right to an abortion. I'll wait.

You can wait all you want, it is the law of the land according to SCOTUS decision.