War On Women Big Fail

[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.

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.

I don't see it happening, but what I DO see happening is cynical politicians fanning the flames of hysterical fear to lock in the votes of underinformed women (NOT uninformed as you tried to twist it earlier) by utilizing some version of "if you vote for him, you'll have to use a coat hanger", which is ludicrous. I mean, how can you seriously take a lower paying job just because taking a better one means you MIGHT have to drive further to kill an unborn baby? If you're THAT afraid of getting pregnant, I have a few ways you can prevent it.

 

[hadit]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

 

[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.

I don't see it happening, but what I DO see happening is cynical politicians fanning the flames of hysterical fear to lock in the votes of underinformed women (NOT uninformed as you tried to twist it earlier) by utilizing some version of "if you vote for him, you'll have to use a coat hanger", which is ludicrous. I mean, how can you seriously take a lower paying job just because taking a better one means you MIGHT have to drive further to kill an unborn baby? If you're THAT afraid of getting pregnant, I have a few ways you can prevent it.

Now on that, I can agree with you. I do not recall if you were here during the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision but I was the one pointing out that gee, 4 types of birth control were allowed to be removed from the HL insurance offering...hardly the end of the world as we know it (11 remained as I recall).

However, hysteria and alarmist rhetoric are the tools of all politicians. How many years did you guys insist Obama was born in Africa--some of you still do?

I'm sure when you stop, the Dems will stop.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

 

[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.

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.

I don't see it happening, but what I DO see happening is cynical politicians fanning the flames of hysterical fear to lock in the votes of underinformed women (NOT uninformed as you tried to twist it earlier) by utilizing some version of "if you vote for him, you'll have to use a coat hanger", which is ludicrous. I mean, how can you seriously take a lower paying job just because taking a better one means you MIGHT have to drive further to kill an unborn baby? If you're THAT afraid of getting pregnant, I have a few ways you can prevent it.

Now on that, I can agree with you. I do not recall if you were here during the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision but I was the one pointing out that gee, 4 types of birth control were allowed to be removed from the HL insurance offering...hardly the end of the world as we know it (11 remained as I recall).

However, hysteria and alarmist rhetoric are the tools of all politicians. How many years did you guys insist Obama was born in Africa--some of you still do?

I'm sure when you stop, the Dems will stop.

1. I never insisted on that. I do believe Obama is deliberately hiding things in his past, like his college records and papers he wrote, which leads inevitably to speculation as to why.
2. No one is going to stop. And if you think politics is dirty today, check out what it used to be like, when candidates would accuse each other of fathering illegitimate children with slaves and stuff.

Also, being on this side of things, I believe that Republicans are late to the dirty politics game and still don't really understand what they're up against.

 

[hadit]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

So your argument is we can grab all the latest technology, things we "supposedly" can't live without - a smartphone, blue ray player, a new flat screen tv, etc etc. Yet we don't want to pay for contraception, that's just way too expensive to include in our list of wants or needs. People everyday deal with the burden of maintaining auto insurance, yet some women feel it's vital that government (correction ... taxpayers) pay for women's birth control. This is after the feminist movement who believe that women really don't need to depend upon a man with all the opportunities left to explore in the career world, yet they are so anxious to trade up and depend upon government over the greater accomplishment of self reliance. Why should I have to contribute my tax dollars to pay for a group of women who can't get their act together and prioritize their list of responsibilities concerning wants vs needs?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

why wont you answer me?

What is in the law that gives women more protection than the existing laws already gave them?
Why do you think women require laws that are any different than the laws that are designed to protect anyone?
If there is a GOP war on women, are you saying that all those women that vote for the GOP are idiots?

Curious...why is a politician who says "we don't want laws that dictate who pays for what in regard to womens health" MORE involved in a womans vagina than a politician who says "we want laws that dictate who pays for what in regard to womens health"

You can claim you can bat us around, but all you have to work with is spin of the truth...and when in a forum where it is reply and respond with text, by the time I am showing you how it is spin, you are picking apart individual words and the way things come across, and totally avoid addressing the issue of spin.

In other words, you aint got nothing.

 

[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.

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)

I hear you and know where you are coming from. They have been saying that for the 30 years I have been paying attention and the pendulum swings the other way. The popes used to say that, too, and next to no one listened to them in practice. Now, the new pope is backing down on it. Time marches on and religions and politicians want to remain viable.

Politicians and the religious do a lot of quacking. From my memory, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush were pro-life; Clinton was pro-choice, as is Obama; and, I don't remember Ford's position but is irrelevant as he did not campaign on it. It makes no difference. They can say what they believe all they want. They won't (and can't) ban abortion or contraception. If one tried, it would be shot down. If, by some bizarre fluke, someone snuck a ban in without the people realizing it ... how long do you think that will last.

It is a whole lot of posturing, quack quack, and has been for 30 years or more. They don't have any power on this issue, and they don't even make any attempts. The smack down would be a career ender past local politics.

 

[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.

I don't see it happening, but what I DO see happening is cynical politicians fanning the flames of hysterical fear to lock in the votes of underinformed women (NOT uninformed as you tried to twist it earlier) by utilizing some version of "if you vote for him, you'll have to use a coat hanger", which is ludicrous. I mean, how can you seriously take a lower paying job just because taking a better one means you MIGHT have to drive further to kill an unborn baby? If you're THAT afraid of getting pregnant, I have a few ways you can prevent it.

Now on that, I can agree with you. I do not recall if you were here during the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision but I was the one pointing out that gee, 4 types of birth control were allowed to be removed from the HL insurance offering...hardly the end of the world as we know it (11 remained as I recall).

However, hysteria and alarmist rhetoric are the tools of all politicians. How many years did you guys insist Obama was born in Africa--some of you still do?

I'm sure when you stop, the Dems will stop.

1. I never insisted on that. I do believe Obama is deliberately hiding things in his past, like his college records and papers he wrote, which leads inevitably to speculation as to why.

2. No one is going to stop. And if you think politics is dirty today, check out what it used to be like, when candidates would accuse each other of fathering illegitimate children with slaves and stuff.

Also, being on this side of things, I believe that Republicans are late to the dirty politics game and still don't really understand what they're up against.

Ever heard of Lee Atwater?

 

[candycorn]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

 

[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?

So your argument is we can grab all the latest technology, things we "supposedly" can't live without - a smartphone, blue ray player, a new flat screen tv, etc etc. Yet we don't want to pay for contraception, that's just way too expensive to include in our list of wants or needs. People everyday deal with the burden of maintaining auto insurance, yet some women feel it's vital that government (correction ... taxpayers) pay for women's birth control. This is after the feminist movement who believe that women really don't need to depend upon a man with all the opportunities left to explore in the career world, yet they are so anxious to trade up and depend upon government over the greater accomplishment of self reliance. Why should I have to contribute my tax dollars to pay for a group of women who can't get their act together and prioritize their list of responsibilities concerning wants vs needs?

I wont' argue that there aren't persons abusing the system on Title X. Aid should flow to those in the most severe forms of need.

We'll hire hundreds of nurses this year. If you believe the BLS, most of the nurses will be female and able to live independently of a male's income contributions. A simple fact.

If you're asking me why your tax dollars go to pay for Title X...it's because Congress funds it...yes that Congress which is 1/2 controlled by the GOP. Don't like it? Stop voting for those who do.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

why wont you answer me?

I did. The law provides monetary aid for victims of assault regardless of gender. I think those implementing the law need to be better trained on what constitutes assault but the law is written to be gender neutral.

What is in the law that gives women more protection than the existing laws already gave them?


Why do you think women require laws that are any different than the laws that are designed to protect anyone?

Please read what the law does and get back to me....I've explained it to you already.

If there is a GOP war on women, are you saying that all those women that vote for the GOP are idiots?

"Idiots" is a strong word. I would say that they are submissive to what they see as a higher power or a higher calling. That submission prevents them from realizing the GOP is currently built to confine them to a gender role/expectation that they would do better to recognize and dismiss.

The VAWA and LLFPA should be an indication of the lengths the GOP will go to on this front. The obvious battle over reproductive rights is (or should be) all the writing one needs to see on the wall. And once the GOP forces you to carry the child to term, they are the last ones that will offer assistance for you to raise the child in a healthful manner.

Curious...why is a politician who says "we don't want laws that dictate who pays for what in regard to womens health" MORE involved in a womans vagina than a politician who says "we want laws that dictate who pays for what in regard to womens health"

Not sure what your point is...elaborate.

You can claim you can bat us around, but all you have to work with is spin of the truth...and when in a forum where it is reply and respond with text, by the time I am showing you how it is spin, you are picking apart individual words and the way things come across, and totally avoid addressing the issue of spin.

In other words, you aint got nothing.

Not sure what I claimed to "have" but here are the facts:

Women overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and that will continue. It will continue because of the GOP war on women. The election later this year will be good for the GOP since it is an off year and there are more DEM seats up for grabs in the Senate than GOP seats.

 

[hadit]

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.

I don't see it happening, but what I DO see happening is cynical politicians fanning the flames of hysterical fear to lock in the votes of underinformed women (NOT uninformed as you tried to twist it earlier) by utilizing some version of "if you vote for him, you'll have to use a coat hanger", which is ludicrous. I mean, how can you seriously take a lower paying job just because taking a better one means you MIGHT have to drive further to kill an unborn baby? If you're THAT afraid of getting pregnant, I have a few ways you can prevent it.

Now on that, I can agree with you. I do not recall if you were here during the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision but I was the one pointing out that gee, 4 types of birth control were allowed to be removed from the HL insurance offering...hardly the end of the world as we know it (11 remained as I recall).

However, hysteria and alarmist rhetoric are the tools of all politicians. How many years did you guys insist Obama was born in Africa--some of you still do?

I'm sure when you stop, the Dems will stop.

1. I never insisted on that. I do believe Obama is deliberately hiding things in his past, like his college records and papers he wrote, which leads inevitably to speculation as to why.

2. No one is going to stop. And if you think politics is dirty today, check out what it used to be like, when candidates would accuse each other of fathering illegitimate children with slaves and stuff.

Also, being on this side of things, I believe that Republicans are late to the dirty politics game and still don't really understand what they're up against.

Ever heard of Lee Atwater?

Of course. The existence of one hard hitter doesn't mean the party as a whole has any idea what they're fighting.

 

[hadit]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

It does help victims of violence and there is no controversy. Again for the 40th time, I brought it up because you guys keep telling whomever is listening that the only things liberals see in a woman is their "plumbing".

But since the ONLY 22 PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE SENATE WERE MALE GOP MEMBERS, it is fair game politically...is it not?

Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice

I'm always tickled by that; as if when you're in Miami, the person in Tallahassee is tuned into "local needs". And as we saw with the ACA, the States can't be trusted to implement things that the governor/legislature doesn't deem necessary.

At any rate: Local Resources OVW Department of Justice Local presence in every state and Territory.

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

He'll have to explain his vote if he runs for President. It won't be pretty.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I don't see it happening, but what I DO see happening is cynical politicians fanning the flames of hysterical fear to lock in the votes of underinformed women (NOT uninformed as you tried to twist it earlier) by utilizing some version of "if you vote for him, you'll have to use a coat hanger", which is ludicrous. I mean, how can you seriously take a lower paying job just because taking a better one means you MIGHT have to drive further to kill an unborn baby? If you're THAT afraid of getting pregnant, I have a few ways you can prevent it.

Now on that, I can agree with you. I do not recall if you were here during the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision but I was the one pointing out that gee, 4 types of birth control were allowed to be removed from the HL insurance offering...hardly the end of the world as we know it (11 remained as I recall).

However, hysteria and alarmist rhetoric are the tools of all politicians. How many years did you guys insist Obama was born in Africa--some of you still do?

I'm sure when you stop, the Dems will stop.

1. I never insisted on that. I do believe Obama is deliberately hiding things in his past, like his college records and papers he wrote, which leads inevitably to speculation as to why.

2. No one is going to stop. And if you think politics is dirty today, check out what it used to be like, when candidates would accuse each other of fathering illegitimate children with slaves and stuff.

Also, being on this side of things, I believe that Republicans are late to the dirty politics game and still don't really understand what they're up against.

Ever heard of Lee Atwater?

Of course. The existence of one hard hitter doesn't mean the party as a whole has any idea what they're fighting.

huh?

 

[hadit]

So rename it the "Domestic Violence Redress Act" and watch the controversy disappear. It's deliberately named the way it is to be a political power tool. I don't see ANY politicians that support it making the case that it's intended to be anything else. Instead of helping everyone understand that it's a way to help victims of domestic violence recover their lives, ALL I hear is a bunch of shouting that anyone who votes against it hates women. You're doing the same thing by throwing it into this faux "War on women" thing you have going on here. Note also that apparently the only women that count in the "War on women" are young, unattached, liberal ones. Older, married, secure, strong women need not apply.

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

It does help victims of violence and there is no controversy. Again for the 40th time, I brought it up because you guys keep telling whomever is listening that the only things liberals see in a woman is their "plumbing".

But since the ONLY 22 PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE SENATE WERE MALE GOP MEMBERS, it is fair game politically...is it not?

It sounds like you're admitting it is being used as a partisan political tool by claiming "War on Women" without bothering to find out if there are other reasons to vote against it.

Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice

I'm always tickled by that; as if when you're in Miami, the person in Tallahassee is tuned into "local needs". And as we saw with the ACA, the States can't be trusted to implement things that the governor/legislature doesn't deem necessary.

At any rate: Local Resources OVW Department of Justice Local presence in every state and Territory.

Ya gotta love it when people start carrying on about how people exercising their right to self determination mean that "they can't be trusted". That's the democrat attitude right there. People need democrats to force them to do certain things because they're either too stupid to know they should or hate somebody and want to harm them. Either way, it's ridiculous.

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

He'll have to explain his vote if he runs for President. It won't be pretty.

That'll be fine. Hillary will have to explain what she's done as well, and that will be a short presentation. At least he has a history of accomplishment. If he can't explain it, that's his problem. If people lie about his explanation and don't care if there was a good reason for his vote, that's their problem.

 

[candycorn]

It's already a law so there is nothing to change.

Rubio is going to have a very hard time explaining his vote if HRC is across the podium from him.

The war on women is very real. The only reason I brought this up is because you guys got tired of me beating the everloving shit out of your on the barriers to contraception, medical procedures, and heathcare you throw up in the path of women (married or not--90% of Catholic women practice contraception in defiance of the Church).

Would you like to talk about that...I'm always in the mood for more battin' practice. Right now, I'm late for lunch.

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

It does help victims of violence and there is no controversy. Again for the 40th time, I brought it up because you guys keep telling whomever is listening that the only things liberals see in a woman is their "plumbing".

But since the ONLY 22 PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE SENATE WERE MALE GOP MEMBERS, it is fair game politically...is it not?

It sounds like you're admitting it is being used as a partisan political tool by claiming "War on Women" without bothering to find out if there are other reasons to vote against it.

You can always find a reason to vote against something... Whether or not they are good reasons is in the eye of the voter.

As for partisanship, if Rubio is proud of his vote, he can use it as a tool himself.

Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice

I'm always tickled by that; as if when you're in Miami, the person in Tallahassee is tuned into "local needs". And as we saw with the ACA, the States can't be trusted to implement things that the governor/legislature doesn't deem necessary.

At any rate: Local Resources OVW Department of Justice Local presence in every state and Territory.

Ya gotta love it when people start carrying on about how people exercising their right to self determination mean that "they can't be trusted". That's the democrat attitude right there. People need democrats to force them to do certain things because they're either too stupid to know they should or hate somebody and want to harm them. Either way, it's ridiculous.

Ahh because the Governor and the Legislature know better than the person?

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

He'll have to explain his vote if he runs for President. It won't be pretty.

That'll be fine. Hillary will have to explain what she's done as well, and that will be a short presentation. At least he has a history of accomplishment. If he can't explain it, that's his problem. If people lie about his explanation and don't care if there was a good reason for his vote, that's their problem.

He does? Thanks for the chuckle.
I think it will be his problem when he doesn't get the votes especially since the GOP just got through playing politics with the ACA and denying persons access to affordable insurance in some cases.

 

[hadit]

That's my point. Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have chosen to make the law a political bashing point instead of something genuinely designed to help victims of violence. As for barriers to contraception, I am aware of no legal barriers preventing a woman from accessing contraception, nor should there be (I'm not Catholic and believe in contraception). Now, as to the rest of what you want to talk about, convince me you mean something other than abortion when you talk about medical procedures and heath care.

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

It does help victims of violence and there is no controversy. Again for the 40th time, I brought it up because you guys keep telling whomever is listening that the only things liberals see in a woman is their "plumbing".

But since the ONLY 22 PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE SENATE WERE MALE GOP MEMBERS, it is fair game politically...is it not?

It sounds like you're admitting it is being used as a partisan political tool by claiming "War on Women" without bothering to find out if there are other reasons to vote against it.

You can always find a reason to vote against something... Whether or not they are good reasons is in the eye of the voter.

As for partisanship, if Rubio is proud of his vote, he can use it as a tool himself.

Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice

I'm always tickled by that; as if when you're in Miami, the person in Tallahassee is tuned into "local needs". And as we saw with the ACA, the States can't be trusted to implement things that the governor/legislature doesn't deem necessary.

At any rate: Local Resources OVW Department of Justice Local presence in every state and Territory.

Ya gotta love it when people start carrying on about how people exercising their right to self determination mean that "they can't be trusted". That's the democrat attitude right there. People need democrats to force them to do certain things because they're either too stupid to know they should or hate somebody and want to harm them. Either way, it's ridiculous.

Ahh because the Governor and the Legislature know better than the person?

How is putting power in the hands of the federal government more empowering to the individual than by putting it in the hands of the state, or even better, the county level? I can move to a different county easily. Not so much a different country, especially if I want to take my money with me.

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

He'll have to explain his vote if he runs for President. It won't be pretty.

That'll be fine. Hillary will have to explain what she's done as well, and that will be a short presentation. At least he has a history of accomplishment. If he can't explain it, that's his problem. If people lie about his explanation and don't care if there was a good reason for his vote, that's their problem.

He does? Thanks for the chuckle.
I think it will be his problem when he doesn't get the votes especially since the GOP just got through playing politics with the ACA and denying persons access to affordable insurance in some cases.

Obamadon'tcare is causing pain and will continue to cause pain for a long time to come. There's no need to play politics with it at all. And if you want truly affordable policies, bring back the bare bones basic ones that young people could actually afford instead of making them pay for things they don't want or need, like a man paying for female birth control.