Michigan Vagi-- DENIED!

DuckReconMajor said:

I can't drive anywhere without passing at least 6 churches.

Heh, I can vouch for this :P

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno, there are some places where I live that have a dozen places of worship along any stretch of road. There's one place with 3 baptist churches within 2 blocks of each other. And this is on the Left Coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

I dunno, there are some places where I live that have a dozen places of worship along any stretch of road. There's one place with 3 baptist churches within 2 blocks of each other. And this is on the Left Coast.


The Baptist "clergy" heiarchy makes this shit happen, I swear. Most churches are actually splits from others, disagreeing over structual issues (deacons, etc etc) and it's really stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

I dunno, there are some places where I live that have a dozen places of worship along any stretch of road. There's one place with 3 baptist churches within 2 blocks of each other. And this is on the Left Coast.


Two blocks from my house are a Catholic church, a Presbyterian church, and a Lutheran church. My friends find this hilarious because my family are atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Snakes said:

One commenter has made an excellent point that flies over most theist's head.

Goldie, Texas, said:

Jack, this is not about condoms or flushing tax money. This is about religious institutions that want to take govt money (like catholic universities) and not play by govt rules. They want to deny women the right to get prescription contraceptives through company insurance.which many women use for hormonal reasons, not just birth control. If they don't want to play by the rules, they are welcome to opt out of federal funds.

Nice to see some reason coming from Texas way.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it looks like both of these asinine bills were shot down. Good work to all the women and men with a brain in their skulls.

But like SOPA and the rest of these insane liberty crushing bills, they WILL return again.

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus Christ, the war on women continues in America.

AZ’s Restrictive Birth-Control Bill

The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday approved a bill that would allow employers to restrict birth-control access based on religious beliefs—and would allow employers to ask for proof of a medical prescription for women seeking contraceptives. The bill’s sponsor, Republican Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, said that “government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.” Planned Parenthood Arizona president Bryan Howard said there haven’t been any complaints since 2002, when Arizona passed the Contraceptive Equity Law, which bans religious employers from denying employees birth control for noncontraceptive purposes.

America is really in turmoil over this. Birth control is now the republican argument for 2012. The pure ignorance and hatred I'm reading over the internet by bigoted theists is sickening.

It all started with that prick Rush Limbaugh lying through his teeth about the tax payers paying for contraceptives, when they are not - the employee pays for their businesses health insurance. Now every conservative with a voice is like "NOT WITH MY TAXES, WHORE!"

They are opening the door again for insurance companies and employers to dictate what they think is a medical necessity, not the doctors. God forbid the government regulates what the insurance company has to offer. No, that would be the evil socialism. It's not like the insurance company will fuck you in your time of need.

The Christians are now bitching about their religious rights being oppressed, but in the process, of course, oppress the people's rights.

Read some of these Youtube commentors to get a picture of some of the complete ignorance being portrayed.

Share this post


Link to post

Why must the right be so frustratingly hard-headed, ignorant, and stubborn?

Share this post


Link to post
Sodaholic said:

Why must the right be so frustratingly hard-headed, ignorant, and stubborn?

What's depressing is they somehow ignore the facts and stick to what they want to hear. The only reason the republicans give a fuck about this is it's a small crack in the health care reform and Obama they can pick at.

Share this post


Link to post

Because the right is conservative by essence. Sticking to old traditions/beliefs is what their voters are asking for. You can't ask them more, until progressive values are established as good old tradition in fact.

That's my limited understanding of it.

Share this post


Link to post
K!r4 said:

Because the right is conservative by essence. Sticking to old traditions/beliefs is what their voters are asking for. You can't ask them more, until progressive values are established as good old tradition in fact.

That's my limited understanding of it.

It's OK to root for more traditional methods. But it's the fact that they are lying about their facts. The tax payers do not pay for anyone's health insurance, whether private or business. That's the big fabricated issue. This is at parody levels.

The other argument is that the government shouldn't dictate what morals the Churches should have. The interaction between a woman and her health insurance is none of the churches business, even if they are the employer. They shouldn't dictate what the insurance company should provide their employees. You can argue that government should not dictate what they (insurance) should cover (my biased is they should becasue the insurance companies are swindlers), but the employer shouldn't have any say what medicine should be given to their employees. The employer doesn't pay for their employee's medical, it's docked from their pay. If the employee's doctor wants her to take the pill to assist with her heavy menstruation/ovarian cysts, etc., She shouldn't have to explain to her boss if she can take the pill or not, becasue it's not his/her business. It's not a place for his/her morals to come into play.

Is it appropriate for a Jehovah's Witness employer to deny his employee's health care to pay for a blood transfusion, even if said employee is not JW?

Share this post


Link to post

I completely agree with you. But as long as conservative voters want to forbid abortion conservative politicians will automatically "adjust" reality to what is in their best interest.

And, when the mass of conservative people is really, really important (not to say, critical), you have what you are seeing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

This is at parody levels.

This is how I feel whenever I read anything -- anything -- written by an American Conservative in the last twelve years. And it's only been getting more outrageous.

It's like half of the USA is on a big trolling conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post

My mind's boggling at the prospect of employers being handed control of their employee's reproductive organs. When was serfdom re-introduced?

That Arizona bill will most likely fall foul of the First or Fourteenth Amendment if challenged in the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post

State Pols Outraged by Anti-Abortion Laws Push Onerous Restrictions on Viagra

Want to use the popular potency drug? First undergo a rectal exam, celibacy lecture, and waiting period. How fed-up female state legislators—and at least one male—are pushing bills to retaliate against the male-led, restrictions-laden drive to limit women’s rights to abortion and birth control.

It looks like some women are making an effort to try and point out the absurdity of the Restrictive Birth-Control Bill. It's just too bad it's going to fly right over the far right's heads.

Share this post


Link to post

*starting a bill in another state so Technician can make the thread title even sexier*

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate the humor there, but there is a distinction: Viagra is purchased before the fact, while people seeking abortions usually do so after the new individual has been conceived.

And I still can't get over the notion that the woman supposedly "owns" the embryo, or that it's part of her reproductive system. Most importantly to me: It's not her genome anymore. Though it has taken plenty of her nutrients to form, so that may be one reason she deserves control. And the mitochondrial DNA is hers, though making that distinction may be splitting hairs.


Generally though, I oppose the propositions that women be forced to look at ultrasounds or sit through lectures before aborting. Either outlaw it, or leave them alone when they make that decision, don't bug them about it.

Share this post


Link to post

The embryo isn't part of her reproductive system; but it's sitting right in the middle of it. I thought Arizona was one of these states that are very big on expelling unwanted foreigners? Pretty sure that fetus doesn't have a greencard.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

It's OK to root for more traditional methods.

I dunno, is it? The traditional methods suck, and the progressive methods are both more fair to the general population, and are more fitting for modern times.

GreyGhost said:

When was serfdom re-introduced?

A long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

This is how I feel whenever I read anything -- anything -- written by an American Conservative in the last twelve years. And it's only been getting more outrageous.

Last 12 years? Really? Why not the last 230 years?

Share this post


Link to post
phi108 said:

I appreciate the humor there, but there is a distinction: Viagra is purchased before the fact, while people seeking abortions usually do so after the new individual has been conceived.

And I still can't get over the notion that the woman supposedly "owns" the embryo, or that it's part of her reproductive system. Most importantly to me: It's not her genome anymore. Though it has taken plenty of her nutrients to form, so that may be one reason she deserves control. And the mitochondrial DNA is hers, though making that distinction may be splitting hairs.


Generally though, I oppose the propositions that women be forced to look at ultrasounds or sit through lectures before aborting. Either outlaw it, or leave them alone when they make that decision, don't bug them about it.

Well, birth control is purchased before the fact too :P

But anyway, yeah the thing has different DNA so it's technically not part of her body. But a bacterial infection has different DNA too, yet it would be crazy for her to not destroy it.

It's really a decision about whether the thing in the womb deserves the rights of an American citizen. Who better to make this decision but the person whose womb it is?

Share this post


Link to post

A fetus is a separate entity from it's mother, yes. But the issue at hand is the value of the fetus to our society and how we should view it. We have two arguments that are always brought up.

1) It has a unique soul - I say bullshit becasue the existence of a soul has yet to be proven. The identity of a human is through the brain. If the brain is damaged, altered, or killed - no more identity, no more individual.

2) The baby has potential - Just recently I seen a Christian ad campaign that said something along the lines of "She could have cured cancer". This is completely ridiculous becasue I can easily say "She could have killed thousands". It's an argument just as relevant. Potential is not being.

But this has very little to do with giving an employer the power to fire someone that is taking a pharmaceutical that you deem immoral.

Share this post


Link to post

Tbh, people (women included) should have control over their bodies, and everything inside. If I got knocked up through any means (accidental, inebriated, raped, etc) and I don't feel morally or financially capable of giving birth to the child, then that's my moral choice. Until the day comes that they can pull an embryo from a person and grow it externally, then they can step in and stop abortions (and pay for their new government children if they want.)

Until then, pushing a burden onto someone to go through the cycle of child birth is just insane under legal protections from an unborn individual. Whether it's morally right or not, regardless (and morality is subjective). "My body, my choice."

As for the birth control "controversy" coming up in America, it's just the backwards right showing how misogynistic they can still be. Legally, sexism is gone, but socially it's still a very real and depressing and oppressing thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Could someone explain what's going on, please?

- health insurance gets deducted from your paycheck?
- what does health insurance have to do with birth control?
- can a woman buy birth control without using her company's health insurance?
- does birth control cost less with her company's health insurance?
- how often does a woman use birth control for non-contraceptive reasons? how serious are those reasons? are there other treatments she could use besides birth control?

Share this post


Link to post

Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Governor, On Ultrasound Mandate: Just 'Close Your Eyes'

During a discussion of a far-reaching mandatory ultrasound bill, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) on Wednesday dismissed off-handedly the insinuation that the measure goes too far, saying, "You just have to close your eyes."

Corbett reaffirmed his support for the "Women's Right to Know" Act, which would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a patient, offer her two personalized copies of the image and play and describe fetal heartbeat in detail before she can have an abortion -- "as long as it's not obtrusive."

He did not indicate whether or not he considered a transvaginal ultrasound to be an intrusive procedure, which the bill would require doctors to perform on a woman whose fetus is not developed enough to be visible by a regular, "jelly-on-the-belly" ultrasound.

Asked if he thinks the bill goes too far to make a woman look at the ultrasound image, Corbett responded, "You can't make anybody watch, okay? Because you just have to close your eyes. As long as it's on the exterior and not the interior."

Pennsylvania's ultrasound bill, unlike the revised version passed in Virginia, does not specify a type of ultrasound, so the doctor will have to use an "interior" procedure for most first-trimester abortions in order to meet the requirements of the law.

Even if the woman opts to "close [her] eyes," as Corbett suggests, the doctor will have to turn the ultrasound image toward her face, give her two signed copies of the printed image, describe the number of heartbeats per minute and tell her if that's normal or not for a fetus of that age. She then has to wait 24 hours and bring all the signed paperwork and both ultrasound images to her abortion doctor in order to have the procedure legally, and the doctor has to repeat to her the age of the fetus.

The Pennsylvania House postponed a scheduled vote on the bill this week because of "concerns raised by the medical community, among others," according to House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R).

Boy, all the repubs are jumping on the bandwagon. This guy's not even sugar coating his guilt trip.

Share this post


Link to post

This might sound crazy - but - am I the only one wondering if the Republicans have been infiltrated by the Taliban?

Share this post


Link to post

DOUBLE DOWN, BABY!

I'm ashamed of my PA representative, but it still isn't as bad as the Wisconsin senator who says battered waves should just think about the good times.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now