are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[beebrisk]

I must have missed something, but when did Governor Romney align himself "with people who say legitimate rape" never results in pregnancy?" I believe pretty much everyone in the Republican party distanced themselves from him, and Romney made it clear he did not share his misguided beliefs.

As far as seeing pregnant teenagers in the ER, my daughter volunteers in Womans and Infants hospital. And many of those teenagers have readily admitted they had access to birth control but either did not want to ruin the moment or could not be bothered. And this does say alot about today vs the 1950's. Many people today do not want to take responsibility for their actions. Why bother when the government will just bail you out.

Well, I used Akin's quote and Romney distanced himself from Akin, but perhaps I should have quoted Mourdock instead that pregnancy from rape is "God's will." Romney supports him. So wrong quote, same point.

Personal responsibility is of course a factor. However, I think the abstinence-only disaster is partially responsible for the lack of use of birth control even when we have access. There are so many myths and misconceptions about sex, birth control, condoms, etc, and these are being perpetuated by our schools. And that is primarily a Republican agenda.

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Obviously, I'm a woman. In no way do I feel my rights are being "chipped away". I have ALL the same rights, privileges AND responsibilities as as FI and every other man. Sure, my plumbing is different so some issues are separate, but I'm NOT unequal.

Romney legislated from the center in MA and I don't expect anything different from him if he becomes president. I will not be subjugated by voting for him. Despite the propaganda from the press and Sandra Fluke, I don't fear turning into a handmaiden, a Stepford Wife or a 2nd class citizen.

Perhaps if I could come up with one right bestowed on men that I don't have as a woman I'd feel differently about that. Perhaps if I didn't feel as if I was just as smart or strong as any man and able to stand up for myself I'd feel differently. But then, that would just be admitting I'm weak. That would just be admitting I am a victim--simply because I'm a woman. After all, isn't that what the women's movement has tried to teach us for the last 4 decades or so??

Speaking of the women's movement, they really ought to get on Obama about paying his female staff about 18% less than the men who work for him.

Abortion has survived 5 Republican presidents. It's still the law of the land. It's not going anywhere. Neither is access to birth control. Every Target and Walmart in America dispenses it for about $9/month. There's help available if that's not affordable. Thanks to Title X, low income and uninsured women have much greater access to free or low cost BC than they ever did before the law was signed. That law by the way, was conceived and signed by.....a Republican president.

Despite the current administration's politics of fear, I don't expect to be vacuuming the house in my dress and pearls, while preparing dinner and tending to my man's every last need. No one I know will be dying in a back ally abortion in this country.

This administration has been masterful at playing to the emotions of women with scare tactics and lies but pandering and patronizing does not equality make.

 

[hlmr]

That's beautiful DF because it's precisely the point: Health insurance plans routinely cover Viagara but not birth control pills.

Tell me, when you were listening to Rush rant on and on about Sandra Fluke, did he happen to mention if the oxycodone he was addicted to was covered by his health insurance plan or did he have to buy it off the streets like many other addicts? When he went in for treatment, did his insurance plan cover that? Since you like to fret about how people mooch off the system, why not spend some time worrying about Rush and how he personally helped drive up insurance costs while you are worrying about Ms. Fluke.

Is this factual? I can't even begin to comprehend this, if it is true.

 

[Laila619]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

 

[jstarfireb]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

 

[jstarfireb]

Oh, and this may also be pure speculation, but I think the next set of rights to go after women's reproductive freedom will be religious freedom, which is of course not just a woman's issue, but affects nearly everyone. This is important to me as an atheist; freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion. If we follow on the path of things like "faith-based initiatives" and the teaching of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution, church and state may become impossible to separate, and essentially we will have a Christian theocracy.

 

[Lula]

That's beautiful DF because it's precisely the point: Health insurance plans routinely cover Viagara but not birth control pills.

Tell me, when you were listening to Rush rant on and on about Sandra Fluke, did he happen to mention if the oxycodone he was addicted to was covered by his health insurance plan or did he have to buy it off the streets like many other addicts? When he went in for treatment, did his insurance plan cover that? Since you like to fret about how people mooch off the system, why not spend some time worrying about Rush and how he personally helped drive up insurance costs while you are worrying about Ms. Fluke.

Is this factual? I can't even begin to comprehend this, if it is true.

Yes, it's true.

 

[Maria D]

That's beautiful DF because it's precisely the point: Health insurance plans routinely cover Viagara but not birth control pills.

Tell me, when you were listening to Rush rant on and on about Sandra Fluke, did he happen to mention if the oxycodone he was addicted to was covered by his health insurance plan or did he have to buy it off the streets like many other addicts? When he went in for treatment, did his insurance plan cover that? Since you like to fret about how people mooch off the system, why not spend some time worrying about Rush and how he personally helped drive up insurance costs while you are worrying about Ms. Fluke.

Is this factual? I can't even begin to comprehend this, if it is true.

Well, no the bolded isn't actually factual...Health insurance plans do routinely cover Viagara and prescription birth control. They do not cover non-prescription birth control methods. But, what I wrote is still on point with regard to the Sandra Fluke case. Her health plan, being administered by a Catholic organization, would not cover birth control pills but would cover Viagara.

edited to add: maybe Lula knows more than I do...it's been a long while since I've needed birth control. Do most health insurance plans cover prescription birth control? I'm pretty sure they don't cover condoms, even though that's a health issue beyond preventing birth.

 

[Dancing Fire]

That's beautiful DF because it's precisely the point: Health insurance plans routinely cover Viagara but not birth control pills.

Tell me, when you were listening to Rush rant on and on about Sandra Fluke, did he happen to mention if the oxycodone he was addicted to was covered by his health insurance plan or did he have to buy it off the streets like many other addicts? When he went in for treatment, did his insurance plan cover that? Since you like to fret about how people mooch off the system, why not spend some time worrying about Rush and how he personally helped drive up insurance costs while you are worrying about Ms. Fluke.

i don't listen to the radio.

 

[Maria D]

well that's good DF, gives you more time to sit and worry about who is getting what for free!

 

[FrekeChild]

Also regarding Romney being so bi-partisan while being governor, what other choice did he have? Massachusetts as a whole, is super liberal. He had to work with Massachusetts democrats - there wasn't anyone else to work with.

He had NO OTHER CHOICE but to work with democrats. He had to go through with what the Democrats wanted. Because Massachusetts is cobalt blue.

That's not bi-partisanship. He's not going to surround himself with Democrats, he's going to be a Republican puppet.

IF he gets elected.

 

[beebrisk]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment. Anyone who tells me otherwise is just condescending and insulting.

 

[Lula]

I must have missed something, but when did Governor Romney align himself "with people who say legitimate rape" never results in pregnancy?" I believe pretty much everyone in the Republican party distanced themselves from him, and Romney made it clear he did not share his misguided beliefs.

As far as seeing pregnant teenagers in the ER, my daughter volunteers in Womans and Infants hospital. And many of those teenagers have readily admitted they had access to birth control but either did not want to ruin the moment or could not be bothered. And this does say alot about today vs the 1950's. Many people today do not want to take responsibility for their actions. Why bother when the government will just bail you out.

Well, I used Akin's quote and Romney distanced himself from Akin, but perhaps I should have quoted Mourdock instead that pregnancy from rape is "God's will." Romney supports him. So wrong quote, same point.

Personal responsibility is of course a factor. However, I think the abstinence-only disaster is partially responsible for the lack of use of birth control even when we have access. There are so many myths and misconceptions about sex, birth control, condoms, etc, and these are being perpetuated by our schools. And that is primarily a Republican agenda.

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

I can't agree enough with the bolded.

Ditto.
People get the government deserve. I remember life pre Roe v. Wade. I was anti-abortion when I was much younger, in the 1970s. A woman I worked with heard me espousing my anti-abortion beliefs, took me aside and told me about how she almost died from an illegal abortion. She went on to marry and have children. She was lucky. Her story sent chills down my spine, and I've been pro-choice ever since. This is an issue that should remain between a woman and her doctor -- and her conscience.

It boggles my mind that so many "small government" people are in favor of greater government intrusion into what should be private healthcare decisions. Overturning Roe v. Wade and enforcing all the strict abortion and contraception laws those clowns want to pass would cost a bundle. Small government indeed.

And there is nothing special about business owners. There are just as many stupid, ineffectual and self-serving business owners as there are politicians. Business owners are not some sort of superior class of beings, and government is not a business. Take a public finance class if you don't believe me.

 

[FrekeChild]

That's beautiful DF because it's precisely the point: Health insurance plans routinely cover Viagara but not birth control pills.

Tell me, when you were listening to Rush rant on and on about Sandra Fluke, did he happen to mention if the oxycodone he was addicted to was covered by his health insurance plan or did he have to buy it off the streets like many other addicts? When he went in for treatment, did his insurance plan cover that? Since you like to fret about how people mooch off the system, why not spend some time worrying about Rush and how he personally helped drive up insurance costs while you are worrying about Ms. Fluke.

Is this factual? I can't even begin to comprehend this, if it is true.

Well, no the bolded isn't actually factual...Health insurance plans do routinely cover Viagara and prescription birth control. They do not cover non-prescription birth control methods. But, what I wrote is still on point with regard to the Sandra Fluke case. Her health plan, being administered by a Catholic organization, would not cover birth control pills but would cover Viagara.

edited to add: maybe Lula knows more than I do...it's been a long while since I've needed birth control. Do most health insurance plans cover prescription birth control? I'm pretty sure they don't cover condoms, even though that's a health issue beyond preventing birth.

Yes, they do. Some insurance plans even cover abortions.

 

[Lula]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts.

Health care providers who do not work for church-funded institutions who refuse to provide information on birth control and abortion may be in violation of the Code of Ethics governing their profession. They may lose their license to practice in some states. And they may face fines and sanctions from their professional organizations.

ETA: And I was very critical of the president about his attitudes on gay marriage. And don't even get me started on how disappointed I am that the president did virtually nothing to regulate the banking industry, and kept most of Bush's cabal of banking advisors. I've been voting for the lesser of two evils for president since the 1970s. But Romney/Ryan are two scary unknowns, so the choice this year is clear.

 

[beebrisk]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts.

Health care providers who do not work for church-funded institutions who refuse to provide information on birth control and abortion may be in violation of the Code of Ethics governing their profession. They may lose their license to practice in some states. And they may face fines and sanctions from their professional organizations.

(A) Who knew religious freedom wasn't covered in the Constitution?

(B) As for those professional codes you mention, well shouldn't that tell you right there that you don't have to worry about your BC being witheld by the local CVS pharmacist?

Or are you saying that Catholic institutions should be forced by the Fed Govt to dispense? (See point A)

 

[FrekeChild]

From Planned Parenthood's website:

General health care services vary by location. They may include
anemia testing
cholesterol screening
diabetes screening
physical exams, including for employment and sports
flu vaccines
help with quitting smoking
high blood pressure screening
tetanus vaccines
thyroid screening


Men’s Sexual Health Services at Planned Parenthood

Services offered at Planned Parenthood health centers vary by location. Some of the services include
checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
colon cancer screening
erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
jock itch exam and treatment
male infertility screening and referral
premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
routine physical exams
testicular cancer screenings
prostate cancer screenings
urinary tract infections testing and treatment
vasectomy


Women's Health Services

Breast Cancer Screenings
Procedures to Prevent Cervical Cancer
Female Infertility
Menopause
Menstruation
Ovarian Cancer
Pap Tests & HPV Tests
Pelvic Exam
Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
Yeast Infection & Vaginitis

"Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/


I just want to mention here, that mammograms are NOT fail safe. My mom had one shortly before being diagnosed with breast cancer. The mammogram showed NOTHING. She had FOUR LUMPS.

 

[Lula]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts.

Health care providers who do not work for church-funded institutions who refuse to provide information on birth control and abortion may be in violation of the Code of Ethics governing their profession. They may lose their license to practice in some states. And they may face fines and sanctions from their professional organizations.

Who knew religious freedom wasn't covered in the Constitution?

Those sorts of situations have been litigated and have lost in court. Religious freedom has not been interpreted in the way you are suggesting. Look it up. The court cases are public record.

 

[jstarfireb]

Freedom of religion is important, but one person's freedom ends when their practices harm another person. It's the same as having freedom of speech as long as it's not libel, or saying that my freedom to swing my arm ends where your face begins. The problem with allowing providers, pharmacists, hospitals, etc. to decide whether they are willing to prescribe birth control (and this is especially key with emergency contraception) is, again, that a woman's access to these services will then depend on where she lives. It's easily conceivable that someone may live in a rural area with access only to a Catholic hospital, for example, and if she comes into the ER after being raped and is denied emergency contraception because it's against the provider's religion, she may have no other option to get EC. Because EC is more effective the earlier it's given, the delay may cause her to become pregnant and possibly seek abortion, which may again be an expensive and limited service in her area. That's what started my whole soapbox rant; access to public health services like contraception should be universal and should not depend on where you live.

ETA: What Lula said!

 

[Lula]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts.

Health care providers who do not work for church-funded institutions who refuse to provide information on birth control and abortion may be in violation of the Code of Ethics governing their profession. They may lose their license to practice in some states. And they may face fines and sanctions from their professional organizations.

Who knew religious freedom wasn't covered in the Constitution?

Those sorts of situations have been litigated and have lost in court. Religious freedom has not been interpreted in the way you are suggesting. Look it up. The court cases are public record.

Here you go: http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/11/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-from-fired-pharmacist.htm
And, for the record, the judge in this case -- who is now deceased -- was very, very conservative. I used to work with him.

 

[beebrisk]

From Planned Parenthood's website:

General health care services vary by location. They may include
anemia testing
cholesterol screening
diabetes screening
physical exams, including for employment and sports
flu vaccines
help with quitting smoking
high blood pressure screening
tetanus vaccines
thyroid screening


Men’s Sexual Health Services at Planned Parenthood

Services offered at Planned Parenthood health centers vary by location. Some of the services include
checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
colon cancer screening
erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
jock itch exam and treatment
male infertility screening and referral
premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
routine physical exams
testicular cancer screenings
prostate cancer screenings
urinary tract infections testing and treatment
vasectomy


Women's Health Services

Breast Cancer Screenings
Procedures to Prevent Cervical Cancer
Female Infertility
Menopause
Menstruation
Ovarian Cancer
Pap Tests & HPV Tests
Pelvic Exam
Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
Yeast Infection & Vaginitis

"Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/


I just want to mention here, that mammograms are NOT fail safe. My mom had one shortly before being diagnosed with breast cancer. The mammogram showed NOTHING. She had FOUR LUMPS.

My point was, PP does NOT do mammograms. Although the president said they do.

PS-My mother's mamo showed very little of the actual cancer that was present when she had her mastectomy. Agreed. They are not fail safe.

 

[beebrisk]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts.

Health care providers who do not work for church-funded institutions who refuse to provide information on birth control and abortion may be in violation of the Code of Ethics governing their profession. They may lose their license to practice in some states. And they may face fines and sanctions from their professional organizations.

Who knew religious freedom wasn't covered in the Constitution?

Those sorts of situations have been litigated and have lost in court. Religious freedom has not been interpreted in the way you are suggesting. Look it up. The court cases are public record.

I'm well aware of that fact.
I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

 

[Lula]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

 

[jstarfireb]

About the flip-flopping, I (and I think most democrats) see Obama's changing stances, particularly with regard to same-sex marriage, as an evolution of his true beliefs over time rather than a bait-and-switch move. Romney's flip-flopping seems much less sincere considering he made such huge shifts in such a short time.

 

[Maria D]

That's a chilling read Lula. What's even more chilling is where is the outrage? We're letting religious organizations get away with imposing their principles on non-followers? IN AMERICA? I guess we only get riled up when it's the threat of Sharia Law.

 

[beebrisk]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

*State* issue.

 

[Lula]

ETA: What really scares me is that so many women are dismissing the slow chipping away at our rights and failing to understand the slippery slope we are on with a Republican-controlled Washington. Any woman who votes for Romney is voting for her own subjugation. The Handmaid's Tale is coming.

Jstar,

Can you explain what rights would be taken away from me as a woman if Romney were to become president? I'm genuinely curious, as an undecided voter.

Sure, and I invite others who agree to chime in too! (Circe would be super-helpful in this discussion.) It's precisely what I was referring to above - the right to plan whether and when to have children. And it may be that YOUR or MY rights aren't quite as affected, assuming that everyone here is probably well-off enough to afford things like birth control if we can afford things like jewelry. But the right for ALL women, not just the privileged and wealthy, to have affordable options as well as to be educated about safe sex and birth control and empowered to use them, is at risk. The right for all to have access to emergency contraception (not, for example, to have a pharmacist decide it's too much of a sin to dispense to you) and abortion (which I vehemently disagree with beebrisk - the far right side has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for years) is at risk.

Reproductive freedom will suffer under Romney. He will take funding from Planned Parenthood, which by the way provides affordable women's health care and cancer screenings to thousands of women, not just birth control and abortion. His running mate supports personhood amendments and would deny abortion rights even in cases of rape and when the mother's health is in jeopardy. I hope I'm wrong if he does get elected, but I'm very VERY worried about it. And that's just the beginning. I recommend a great book called "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" which describes the relationship between reproductive freedom and women's status in general, in the workplace, economy, etc. It's worth a read especially as an undecided voter to understand how important these rights are.

I think there's a grave danger when we become complacent about our rights that women before us have fought so hard for. We can look the other way and believe they're not at risk, but that does us all a disservice.

Regarding Romney's "centrist" stance - yes, he was quite moderate when he was the governor; I can't deny that. However, his presidential campaign showed a much more right-leaning stance. Then he backed off and was more moderate in the debates. So how do you know which Romney you'll get if he's elected? He's been all over the map. Even if I were conservative, I'd be very concerned about his flip-flopping because you never know what you're gonna get!

Planned Parenthood is not a "right".
Planned Parenthood does NOT perform mammograms despite what the president has said (easy enough to fact check)
It is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt to "educate and empower" women on the use of birth control!
I am most certainly not against BC (childless by choice) but I will stand by and support the right of any American not to sell it if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. That is THEIR constitutional right.
Remember when the sitting president said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? Did anyone resort to this kind of hysterical hyperbole and call him a homophobe? Did he flip flop on this and so many issues like transparency and Gitmo?
As for my status in the workplace (and in general) that's pretty much judged by my performance, my record, my relationships and my character--Not the state of my uterus at the moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts.

Health care providers who do not work for church-funded institutions who refuse to provide information on birth control and abortion may be in violation of the Code of Ethics governing their profession. They may lose their license to practice in some states. And they may face fines and sanctions from their professional organizations.

Who knew religious freedom wasn't covered in the Constitution?

Those sorts of situations have been litigated and have lost in court. Religious freedom has not been interpreted in the way you are suggesting. Look it up. The court cases are public record.

I'm well aware of that fact.
I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

I agree with you. Religious institutions have long been exempt from providing these services. The issue is that in some areas of the country, the only option for health care is a church-owned health care provider. Some of these church-affilitated health care organizations are immense. But that's another issue.

I do draw the line at private businesses -- and my boss -- telling me what birth control I can and cannot use, at the same time that they are paying big bucks to cover Viagra.

 

[beebrisk]

That's a chilling read Lula. What's even more chilling is where is the outrage? We're letting religious organizations get away with imposing their principles on non-followers? IN AMERICA? I guess we only get riled up when it's the threat of Sharia Law.

No. We are allowing religious institutions to assert their Constitutional rights. If you need BC, go down the street to CVS, not to the Catholic hospital. If you want an abortion, go to PP, not the Catholic hospital.

 

[Maria D]

Beebrisk wrote:

However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.
-----

How about this: no religious institution should be allowed to occupy prime real estate without paying property taxes.

You're twisting the argument here. No one asked that a Catholic hospital dispense BC or perform abortions. The issue was that their employee health plan cover legal prescription medicine.

 

[Maria D]

That's a chilling read Lula. What's even more chilling is where is the outrage? We're letting religious organizations get away with imposing their principles on non-followers? IN AMERICA? I guess we only get riled up when it's the threat of Sharia Law.

No. We are allowing religious institutions to assert their Constitutional rights. If you need BC, go down the street to CVS, not to the Catholic hospital. If you want an abortion, go to PP, not the Catholic hospital.

And if I WORK for the Catholic hospital, and have to get my insurance through my employer, because this country didn't pass a universal health care plan administered by the government, I would not have my birth control that I buy at CVS covered, would I?

So the Catholic hospital should be allowed to discriminate against non-Catholic employees by infringing on freedom of THEIR beliefs? And yet still get tax-exempt status? What a racket.

 

[Lula]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

*State* issue.

Yes, Roe v. Wade took the abortion issue away from the states. This has been a bone of contention with the federalists for 40 years.