War On Women Big Fail

[candycorn]

Well it's never been about "equality", which was my whole point in bringing up those areas of concerns women HAD until the message changed to be all about abortion and contraception. I would have hoped they desired more and had grander aspirations than being reduced to merely sex objects and sexual freedom. Not much of a major accomplishment there.

Would you care what a candidate's positions were if one of them was you'd have to get a vasectomy at the age of 25? Women don't care much what a GOPer's position is on taxes are if their policy is that you have to get a TVU or drive 800 miles for a procedure due to new restrictions authored by old white men.

Also brought up was the GOP opposition to the violence against women act and their opposition to the LLFPA... There seems to be a GOP policy to make women's lives as inconvenient and as dangerous as possible.

I'm a woman and I disagree. Abortion is not going anywhere and we all know that. Contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it (even minors, often without parental consent) and cheap, some places free. I'd like to focus on the economy, jobs, education, etc. I am so much more than my ovaries and am pretty tired of us being herded like cattle towards those two nonissues.

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception.

Great.

Abortion is not going anywhere.

Opinion.

Mitt Romney said he wanted Roe overturned and the decision left up to the States. I don't know how fast the women in Texas would lose the right to make their healthcare choices but I do know you could time it with a stopwatch if that were the case.

Contraception is cheap and readily available.

Another opinion. Mostly false. Can you tell us what you'd pay retail for Yasmin or Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo...or Levora for that matter?

These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Which is why I didn't make that argument.

What I did say and I can understand if it's not that important to you is that contraception availability and the right to make one's healthcare choices is a gateway issue. If you agree with Candidate X on it, you will listen to the rest of the platform.

If you disagree with the candidate on the issue, you're likely not interested in their position on taxation.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Members of my extended family disagree with me so I'm quite used to it. I do have throngs of family and friends in Texas and South Carolina so it's familiar ground to me.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

Thanks for the chuckle.

I think women can think for themselves and know what is important to them. The Dems continuously win the Women's vote and do so quite easily and there is no end in sight to that wonderful trend...why do you think that is?

 

[hadit]

I think women can think for themselves and know what is important to them. The Dems continuously win the Women's vote and do so quite easily and there is no end in sight to that wonderful trend...why do you think that is?

A combination of slick, lying politicians and gullible, underinformed voters.

 

[candycorn]

Well it's never been about "equality", which was my whole point in bringing up those areas of concerns women HAD until the message changed to be all about abortion and contraception. I would have hoped they desired more and had grander aspirations than being reduced to merely sex objects and sexual freedom. Not much of a major accomplishment there.

Would you care what a candidate's positions were if one of them was you'd have to get a vasectomy at the age of 25? Women don't care much what a GOPer's position is on taxes are if their policy is that you have to get a TVU or drive 800 miles for a procedure due to new restrictions authored by old white men.

Also brought up was the GOP opposition to the violence against women act and their opposition to the LLFPA... There seems to be a GOP policy to make women's lives as inconvenient and as dangerous as possible.

I'm a woman and I disagree. Abortion is not going anywhere and we all know that. Contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it (even minors, often without parental consent) and cheap, some places free. I'd like to focus on the economy, jobs, education, etc. I am so much more than my ovaries and am pretty tired of us being herded like cattle towards those two nonissues.

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

 

[candycorn]

I think women can think for themselves and know what is important to them. The Dems continuously win the Women's vote and do so quite easily and there is no end in sight to that wonderful trend...why do you think that is?

A combination of slick, lying politicians and gullible, underinformed voters.

I guess it's the loser's prerogative to call the winners "uninformed". If you can't beat them at the polls, call them names on message boards.

 

[hadit]

Would you care what a candidate's positions were if one of them was you'd have to get a vasectomy at the age of 25? Women don't care much what a GOPer's position is on taxes are if their policy is that you have to get a TVU or drive 800 miles for a procedure due to new restrictions authored by old white men.

Also brought up was the GOP opposition to the violence against women act and their opposition to the LLFPA... There seems to be a GOP policy to make women's lives as inconvenient and as dangerous as possible.

I'm a woman and I disagree. Abortion is not going anywhere and we all know that. Contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it (even minors, often without parental consent) and cheap, some places free. I'd like to focus on the economy, jobs, education, etc. I am so much more than my ovaries and am pretty tired of us being herded like cattle towards those two nonissues.

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

 

[candycorn]

I'm a woman and I disagree. Abortion is not going anywhere and we all know that. Contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it (even minors, often without parental consent) and cheap, some places free. I'd like to focus on the economy, jobs, education, etc. I am so much more than my ovaries and am pretty tired of us being herded like cattle towards those two nonissues.

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

 

[hadit]

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

Then why are YOU making the bill a WOMEN'S issue? The fact is, it's not designed to truly reduce domestic violence, it's a tailor made political club, to be used against a particular party. It's deliberately named to gain support from women who know nothing more than the name and give democrats the ability to screech "you hate women because you voted against a bill with 'women' in its title!".

 

[Tresha91203]

Well it's never been about "equality", which was my whole point in bringing up those areas of concerns women HAD until the message changed to be all about abortion and contraception. I would have hoped they desired more and had grander aspirations than being reduced to merely sex objects and sexual freedom. Not much of a major accomplishment there.

Would you care what a candidate's positions were if one of them was you'd have to get a vasectomy at the age of 25? Women don't care much what a GOPer's position is on taxes are if their policy is that you have to get a TVU or drive 800 miles for a procedure due to new restrictions authored by old white men.

Also brought up was the GOP opposition to the violence against women act and their opposition to the LLFPA... There seems to be a GOP policy to make women's lives as inconvenient and as dangerous as possible.

I'm a woman and I disagree. Abortion is not going anywhere and we all know that. Contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it (even minors, often without parental consent) and cheap, some places free. I'd like to focus on the economy, jobs, education, etc. I am so much more than my ovaries and am pretty tired of us being herded like cattle towards those two nonissues.

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception.

Great.

Abortion is not going anywhere.

Opinion.

Mitt Romney said he wanted Roe overturned and the decision left up to the States. I don't know how fast the women in Texas would lose the right to make their healthcare choices but I do know you could time it with a stopwatch if that were the case.

Contraception is cheap and readily available.

Another opinion. Mostly false. Can you tell us what you'd pay retail for Yasmin or Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo...or Levora for that matter?

These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Which is why I didn't make that argument.

What I did say and I can understand if it's not that important to you is that contraception availability and the right to make one's healthcare choices is a gateway issue. If you agree with Candidate X on it, you will listen to the rest of the platform.

If you disagree with the candidate on the issue, you're likely not interested in their position on taxation.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Members of my extended family disagree with me so I'm quite used to it. I do have throngs of family and friends in Texas and South Carolina so it's familiar ground to me.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

Thanks for the chuckle.

I think women can think for themselves and know what is important to them. The Dems continuously win the Women's vote and do so quite easily and there is no end in sight to that wonderful trend...why do you think that is?

Women are the majority of voters in Texas, so they can decide for themselves.

First search on google shows CVS gives a coupon for Yazmin so is under $30, and also gives a link to cheaper options of various varieties.

Birth Control prescription drug prices and information - GoodRx

If you meet income requirements, you qualify for free contraceptives. I was able to find out where and how with a google search using first page hits. It is not difficult.

All of the money poured into women's reproductive rights lobbying and campaigning could be spent handling any outlying issues that may (and likely do) pop up, and it would be FAR cheaper.

Equal pay for equal work would go a long way to removing women from poverty, thus negating the need for free contraception. That is a much more important gateway issue.

I listen to a candidate's platform and make a choice based on it as a whole. Most women I know do the same. I know one single-issue female voter. We have had pro-life Presidents, pro-life Senators and pro-life Representatives since Roe vs Wade and abortion/contraception is more and more available.

The clock will not be turned back. Women are the majority. The work has been done. There is no longer a need for this to be the single women's issue. There are issues that are far more pressing and far more real.

Yes, these are my opinions, just as yours are yours.

 

[candycorn]

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

Then why are YOU making the bill a WOMEN'S issue?

I didn't. I was told that the only thing Dems care about is reproductive rights and I was illustrating that is not the case.
That it provides financial retribution to women who are often facing

The fact is, it's not designed to truly reduce domestic violence, it's a tailor made political club, to be used against a particular party. It's deliberately named to gain support from women who know nothing more than the name and give democrats the ability to screech "you hate women because you voted against a bill with 'women' in its title!".[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

Then why are YOU making the bill a WOMEN'S issue?

"I" am not.

Society is.

The law (among other things) provides financial assistance to the victims of abuse so they don't have to make the decision between eating and staying in the abusive relationship. Now, for the time being, the law will adversely be a positive for women since the old gender roles are still in effect; the male working; the woman staying home. As we progress that may change. The GOP supporting the LLFPA could help equal that playing field come to think about it.

The accusation was that Democrats (of which I am not one) only care about...how did you put it..."a woman's plumbing"? Clearly that is not the case.

The fact is, it's not designed to truly reduce domestic violence, it's a tailor made political club, to be used against a particular party. It's deliberately named to gain support from women who know nothing more than the name and give democrats the ability to screech "you hate women because you voted against a bill with 'women' in its title!".

Nobody prevented the members of the GOP from voting for the bill other than themselves....

If the Dems wish to use it as a club to hit Rubio over the head with if he's matched up against HRC...it's fair game and I expect Rubio to go through 8-10 cases of bottled water trying to explain why he voted against such a bill.

All of your Histrionics not withstanding.

 

[candycorn]

Would you care what a candidate's positions were if one of them was you'd have to get a vasectomy at the age of 25? Women don't care much what a GOPer's position is on taxes are if their policy is that you have to get a TVU or drive 800 miles for a procedure due to new restrictions authored by old white men.

Also brought up was the GOP opposition to the violence against women act and their opposition to the LLFPA... There seems to be a GOP policy to make women's lives as inconvenient and as dangerous as possible.

I'm a woman and I disagree. Abortion is not going anywhere and we all know that. Contraception is readily available to anyone who wants it (even minors, often without parental consent) and cheap, some places free. I'd like to focus on the economy, jobs, education, etc. I am so much more than my ovaries and am pretty tired of us being herded like cattle towards those two nonissues.

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception.

Great.

Abortion is not going anywhere.

Opinion.

Mitt Romney said he wanted Roe overturned and the decision left up to the States. I don't know how fast the women in Texas would lose the right to make their healthcare choices but I do know you could time it with a stopwatch if that were the case.

Contraception is cheap and readily available.

Another opinion. Mostly false. Can you tell us what you'd pay retail for Yasmin or Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo...or Levora for that matter?

These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Which is why I didn't make that argument.

What I did say and I can understand if it's not that important to you is that contraception availability and the right to make one's healthcare choices is a gateway issue. If you agree with Candidate X on it, you will listen to the rest of the platform.

If you disagree with the candidate on the issue, you're likely not interested in their position on taxation.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Members of my extended family disagree with me so I'm quite used to it. I do have throngs of family and friends in Texas and South Carolina so it's familiar ground to me.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

Thanks for the chuckle.

I think women can think for themselves and know what is important to them. The Dems continuously win the Women's vote and do so quite easily and there is no end in sight to that wonderful trend...why do you think that is?

Women are the majority of voters in Texas, so they can decide for themselves.

Yes and if you're the head of, oh let's say, marketing for ACME Publishing, Inc. or ABC Industries and a promotion comes up in the Austin branch...you can't take it because Texas has voted that you don't have the same rights you have in California or New York or Florida?

Would you really want your right to medical procedures to be put up to a popular vote?

Really?

First search on google shows CVS gives a coupon for Yazmin so is under $30, and also gives a link to cheaper options of various varieties.

Birth Control prescription drug prices and information - GoodRx

I'm dubious of that but $30 is a $1 a day or $365 per year.

Equal pay for equal work would go a long way to removing women from poverty, thus negating the need for free contraception.

Gee, another issue the GOP opposes.

That is a much more important gateway issue.

I listen to a candidate's platform and make a choice based on it as a whole. Most women I know do the same. I know one single-issue female voter. We have had pro-life Presidents, pro-life Senators and pro-life Representatives since Roe vs Wade and abortion/contraception is more and more available.

The clock will not be turned back. Women are the majority. The work has been done. There is no longer a need for this to be the single women's issue. There are issues that are far more pressing and far more real.

Yes, these are my opinions, just as yours are yours.

True:

Again, however, women are consistently in the Democrat's camp. I doubt it's because they have shown themselves to be more fiscally responsible, tougher on commies, or because they like puppies and kittens.

 

[Tresha91203]

We aren't going to agree on the urgency of reproductive rights. I've dealt with the issue all my life and find it easy and affordable. Again, if one qualifies, it is free. I am fine with making people qualify for free stuff. I find equal pay a more urgent issue and wish the war drums were being beaten for that issue. That issue impacts reproductive rights as well. There are many, many ways to empower women.

By the way, Dems fail at equal pay as well, all the way up to the CiC. I suspect that may be why that isn't a single-issue vote. It has far more impact on women's lives than how far one has to drive for an abortion in this day and age.

If this were the 70's, I'd be right there with you. This is the information age, though, and the information is not difficult to find. PP will gladly point you to all the resources you need. Internet is available for free in public libraries.

Let us, as women, broaden our horizons. Let's see if we can use our votes to help the whole woman and all women.

 

[candycorn]

We aren't going to agree on the urgency of reproductive rights. I've dealt with the issue all my life and find it easy and affordable. Again, if one qualifies, it is free. I am fine with making people qualify for free stuff. I find equal pay a more urgent issue and wish the war drums were being beaten for that issue. That issue impacts reproductive rights as well. There are many, many ways to empower women.

By the way, Dems fail at equal pay as well, all the way up to the CiC. I suspect that may be why that isn't a single-issue vote. It has far more impact on women's lives than how far one has to drive for an abortion in this day and age.

If this were the 70's, I'd be right there with you. This is the information age, though, and the information is not difficult to find. PP will gladly point you to all the resources you need. Internet is available for free in public libraries.

Let us, as women, broaden our horizons. Let's see if we can use our votes to help the whole woman and all women.

I appreciate the civility of the argument you're making. And I likewise appreciate that you view the world through a different prism. I wonder how you can tell which Party is fiscally responsible, better on jobs, tougher on terrorism, or better on the issue of Immigration. We're 17% in debt, the jobless rate hovers between 6 and 10 percent, terrorism is being rolled back and we have millions of illegal immigrants in the nation. Presidents and Congresses of both parties have dropped the ball over and over again.

Personally, I simply vote values nationally and pick the best person for the job locally.

Since we're not arguing local politics, I will simply point out the last national election and what could have happened if Governor Romney were elected.

Romney wanted Roe overturned and for each State to decide. Fact.

Texas and a lot of red states would overturn the Roe decision at the State level in a matter of minutes if able to. Fact.

Women who live in a state where Roe was upheld would be forced to choose between career and availability of medical procedures if they were being asked to transfer to a Red state where Roe was overturned. Fact.

 

[hadit]

Romney wanted Roe overturned and for each State to decide. Fact.

Texas and a lot of red states would overturn the Roe decision at the State level in a matter of minutes if able to. Fact.

Women who live in a state where Roe was upheld would be forced to choose between career and availability of medical procedures if they were being asked to transfer to a Red state where Roe was overturned. Fact.

That's an irrational argument. Romney could not possibly have overturned Roe. Bush Jr before him certainly desired to overturn it and never even tried. In order for Roe to be overturned, Congress would have to pass to him a law that would violate the ruling, something that would not have happened. Then, he would have had to sign it, had it challenged in court, rechallenged in appeals court after appeals court, and finally taken to the SC, where it would not pass muster. Then, and only then, would the women in Texas be able to push their legislature to restrict the sacrament of abortion. You don't seem to like Texas women very much. I believe your fear is drastically misplaced. No Republican president will move against Roe any time soon.

 

[Tresha91203]

We aren't going to agree on the urgency of reproductive rights. I've dealt with the issue all my life and find it easy and affordable. Again, if one qualifies, it is free. I am fine with making people qualify for free stuff. I find equal pay a more urgent issue and wish the war drums were being beaten for that issue. That issue impacts reproductive rights as well. There are many, many ways to empower women.

By the way, Dems fail at equal pay as well, all the way up to the CiC. I suspect that may be why that isn't a single-issue vote. It has far more impact on women's lives than how far one has to drive for an abortion in this day and age.

If this were the 70's, I'd be right there with you. This is the information age, though, and the information is not difficult to find. PP will gladly point you to all the resources you need. Internet is available for free in public libraries.

Let us, as women, broaden our horizons. Let's see if we can use our votes to help the whole woman and all women.

I appreciate the civility of the argument you're making. And I likewise appreciate that you view the world through a different prism. I wonder how you can tell which Party is fiscally responsible, better on jobs, tougher on terrorism, or better on the issue of Immigration. We're 17% in debt, the jobless rate hovers between 6 and 10 percent, terrorism is being rolled back and we have millions of illegal immigrants in the nation. Presidents and Congresses of both parties have dropped the ball over and over again.

Personally, I simply vote values nationally and pick the best person for the job locally.

Since we're not arguing local politics, I will simply point out the last national election and what could have happened if Governor Romney were elected.

Romney wanted Roe overturned and for each State to decide. Fact.

Texas and a lot of red states would overturn the Roe decision at the State level in a matter of minutes if able to. Fact.

Women who live in a state where Roe was upheld would be forced to choose between career and availability of medical procedures if they were being asked to transfer to a Red state where Roe was overturned. Fact.

I also appreciate your civility and the discussion. ♥

I believe this ship has long sailed. Women are the majority, even in Texas. Pro-life politicians have been campaigning and screaming about overturning Roe v Wade for longer than I've been able to vote. I liken it to prohibition. People against alcohol can scream all they want, but alcohol is not going anywhere. The tide has turned and is rolling against them. Blue laws are more and more rare, even in the most rural of the Bible Belt. I can think of only 1 dry parish here in La, and a third of the parish can tell you exactly how far it is to the liquor store across the line. It will fall in my lifetime.

Likewise, the tide has turned on abortion and contraception. That genie is not going back in the bottle. If some state did manage to make access too onerous for its women, there would be a lot of angry women voters giving them the boot at the next election, and the legislation reversed. In the meantime, the women's movement would be quite vocal nationwide. People of both genders would be offering free transportation across the state line. Money would certainly be flooding in to assist, activists would be flooding in, etc. I doubt it would happen at all, but if it actually did somewhere, it may be a wakeup call to politicians nationwide.

I believe it is still so politically hot is because you will never, ever get the two sides to agree on it. Republican politicians can make all sorts of speeches about banning it, knowing it would be overturned if it passed at all. Democrats can make all sorts of speeches about R's coming to take their rights. It is emotional and solidifies the base. As a single-issue vote, it also means neither side has to actually do anything to get those votes.

As to the rest: Niether side is fiscally responsible and haven't been for as long as I've been aware of politics. Private sector jobs are much preferable to government jobs, but oversight and some regulation are required, as has been proven. There is never going to be a tax system that can work if we have a constant stream of impoverished coming in ... it is just not feasible. I'm not concerned with who's here unless proven dangerous, but we can't even begin to fix the economy with wide open borders. Neither side is pro-terrorism, IMO. I suspect that is precisely why two very different presidents have some very similar policies, as distasteful as some may be. I suspect once they are briefed on the realities of some situations, their hands are pretty much tied. That's just a gut feeling, though.

Locally is where the difference is mostly made, IMO. Nationally, both parties suck pretty bad. Generally, if either side is in power too long, it gets worse. If one party is in too much power, the people are completely irrelevant. It is just a push to solidify the power for as long as possible. I'd like to see 3 to 5 viable parties so politicians will be forced to be more competent because there's another guy close enough like you ready to do the job. As it stands, the choice is "my guy" or "that rat bastard over there." If there were someone not exactly "my guy" but who I could get behind on most issues if "my guy" got caught abusing his power, we would be better able to weed out career power grabbers. We may just be past that point, though.

 

[Jarhead]

Thankfully some are more thoughtful than others.

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

So without the bill, the law allows for a man to hit a woman and a woman to hit a man with a frying pan?
Are you sure about that?

 

[candycorn]

Romney wanted Roe overturned and for each State to decide. Fact.

Texas and a lot of red states would overturn the Roe decision at the State level in a matter of minutes if able to. Fact.

Women who live in a state where Roe was upheld would be forced to choose between career and availability of medical procedures if they were being asked to transfer to a Red state where Roe was overturned. Fact.

That's an irrational argument. Romney could not possibly have overturned Roe. Bush Jr before him certainly desired to overturn it and never even tried. In order for Roe to be overturned, Congress would have to pass to him a law that would violate the ruling, something that would not have happened. Then, he would have had to sign it, had it challenged in court, rechallenged in appeals court after appeals court, and finally taken to the SC, where it would not pass muster. Then, and only then, would the women in Texas be able to push their legislature to restrict the sacrament of abortion. You don't seem to like Texas women very much. I believe your fear is drastically misplaced. No Republican president will move against Roe any time soon.

Not correct.

Roe is a Supreme Court decision. The court can reverse itself in the light of new evidence, different plaintiffs, different circumstances, etc.... What is necessary for such to happen is the court willing to look at a lower court ruling. A few justices being replaced would look at Roe differently.

Would it happen tomorrow? No.

Would it happen in 8 years...quite possible.

It's better we simply keep electing those who support a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions.

 

[candycorn]

We aren't going to agree on the urgency of reproductive rights. I've dealt with the issue all my life and find it easy and affordable. Again, if one qualifies, it is free. I am fine with making people qualify for free stuff. I find equal pay a more urgent issue and wish the war drums were being beaten for that issue. That issue impacts reproductive rights as well. There are many, many ways to empower women.

By the way, Dems fail at equal pay as well, all the way up to the CiC. I suspect that may be why that isn't a single-issue vote. It has far more impact on women's lives than how far one has to drive for an abortion in this day and age.

If this were the 70's, I'd be right there with you. This is the information age, though, and the information is not difficult to find. PP will gladly point you to all the resources you need. Internet is available for free in public libraries.

Let us, as women, broaden our horizons. Let's see if we can use our votes to help the whole woman and all women.

I appreciate the civility of the argument you're making. And I likewise appreciate that you view the world through a different prism. I wonder how you can tell which Party is fiscally responsible, better on jobs, tougher on terrorism, or better on the issue of Immigration. We're 17% in debt, the jobless rate hovers between 6 and 10 percent, terrorism is being rolled back and we have millions of illegal immigrants in the nation. Presidents and Congresses of both parties have dropped the ball over and over again.

Personally, I simply vote values nationally and pick the best person for the job locally.

Since we're not arguing local politics, I will simply point out the last national election and what could have happened if Governor Romney were elected.

Romney wanted Roe overturned and for each State to decide. Fact.

Texas and a lot of red states would overturn the Roe decision at the State level in a matter of minutes if able to. Fact.

Women who live in a state where Roe was upheld would be forced to choose between career and availability of medical procedures if they were being asked to transfer to a Red state where Roe was overturned. Fact.

I also appreciate your civility and the discussion. ♥

I believe this ship has long sailed. Women are the majority, even in Texas. Pro-life politicians have been campaigning and screaming about overturning Roe v Wade for longer than I've been able to vote. I liken it to prohibition. People against alcohol can scream all they want, but alcohol is not going anywhere. The tide has turned and is rolling against them. Blue laws are more and more rare, even in the most rural of the Bible Belt. I can think of only 1 dry parish here in La, and a third of the parish can tell you exactly how far it is to the liquor store across the line. It will fall in my lifetime.

Likewise, the tide has turned on abortion and contraception. That genie is not going back in the bottle. If some state did manage to make access too onerous for its women, there would be a lot of angry women voters giving them the boot at the next election, and the legislation reversed. In the meantime, the women's movement would be quite vocal nationwide. People of both genders would be offering free transportation across the state line. Money would certainly be flooding in to assist, activists would be flooding in, etc. I doubt it would happen at all, but if it actually did somewhere, it may be a wakeup call to politicians nationwide.

I believe it is still so politically hot is because you will never, ever get the two sides to agree on it. Republican politicians can make all sorts of speeches about banning it, knowing it would be overturned if it passed at all. Democrats can make all sorts of speeches about R's coming to take their rights. It is emotional and solidifies the base. As a single-issue vote, it also means neither side has to actually do anything to get those votes.

As to the rest: Niether side is fiscally responsible and haven't been for as long as I've been aware of politics. Private sector jobs are much preferable to government jobs, but oversight and some regulation are required, as has been proven. There is never going to be a tax system that can work if we have a constant stream of impoverished coming in ... it is just not feasible. I'm not concerned with who's here unless proven dangerous, but we can't even begin to fix the economy with wide open borders. Neither side is pro-terrorism, IMO. I suspect that is precisely why two very different presidents have some very similar policies, as distasteful as some may be. I suspect once they are briefed on the realities of some situations, their hands are pretty much tied. That's just a gut feeling, though.

Locally is where the difference is mostly made, IMO. Nationally, both parties suck pretty bad. Generally, if either side is in power too long, it gets worse. If one party is in too much power, the people are completely irrelevant. It is just a push to solidify the power for as long as possible. I'd like to see 3 to 5 viable parties so politicians will be forced to be more competent because there's another guy close enough like you ready to do the job. As it stands, the choice is "my guy" or "that rat bastard over there." If there were someone not exactly "my guy" but who I could get behind on most issues if "my guy" got caught abusing his power, we would be better able to weed out career power grabbers. We may just be past that point, though.

Just to put a bow on the discussion:

Rick Santorum
#2 Delegate recipient in 2012 GOP Primaries. Won 11 States. Had he been awarded IA properly he would have likely won 2-3 more with the momentum of the win.

Here is his views on what we both find important:

9. “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” - Oct. 18, 2011, in an interview with conservative blog CaffinatedThoughts.com.

Read more: Rick Santorum s 10 best quotes - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

2. "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." —Rick Santorum, interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com (October 2011)

 

[candycorn]

I've been thinking about it for over 30 years since I started taking contraception. Abortion is not going anywhere. Contraception is cheap and readily available. These are the facts right now. The implication that women don't need to concern themselves with actual pressing issues is insulting and demeaning.

Many women disagree with you, and they are still women, still making less, still underemployed, still fighting for quality education for their children, still concerned that an ever-refreshing stream of poverty-stricken will mean they can never pay their "fair share." We are thoughtful, but thanks for the "airhead" jab. We women love that.

Let's keep the women focused on their body parts so they won't vote on issues that shape the country. Baaaaa!

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

So without the bill, the law allows for a man to hit a woman and a woman to hit a man with a frying pan?
Are you sure about that?

Put down the crack pipe.

 

[Jarhead]

I agree with you. I'm surprised more women don't find it insulting that, to democrats, the only thing important about them is their plumbing.

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

So without the bill, the law allows for a man to hit a woman and a woman to hit a man with a frying pan?
Are you sure about that?

Put down the crack pipe.

thank you for the mature response.

But I noticed you dodged the question.

What in the bill would have been an advantage to a woman who was a victim of domestic violence?

 

[candycorn]

Of course there is the VAWA and the LLFPA (just 2 examples) of the inverse being true. Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" argument.

It is a good argument. There's no need for an anti-domestic violence bill aimed solely at women. It should apply to all, because domestic violence should be curtailed, whether it's from a husband's slap or a wife's frying pan.

As does the text of the bill does.

A good argument relies on your first understanding what you're arguing about.

So without the bill, the law allows for a man to hit a woman and a woman to hit a man with a frying pan?
Are you sure about that?

Put down the crack pipe.

thank you for the mature response.

But I noticed you dodged the question.

What in the bill would have been an advantage to a woman who was a victim of domestic violence?

Ah, a serious question from a joke of a person.

For victims of abuse (of either gender) it provides monetary resources so you don't have to decide between being able to financially afford to live and getting abused.