republicans not the only ones in war on women

[blue adept]

read, and then tell me there is no war.

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

[HoosierHelen]

Helen, I must ask you. As a woman, do you feel there have been recent changes to the way the government is approaching issues related to women to justify a claim that there is now a "war on women?" Or do you feel is is most likely election year propaganda?

Tater, I would not choose the name of this movement by the Republican party to move backwards women's rights as a 'War on Women'. I would rather choose to call it a 'Movement against Women's rights'. I do not believe these efforts of theirs has enough support among voters to label it a war yet. Should the Republican party not have the wisdom to back off these efforts, the passions are certainly strong enough to escalate this into a 'War against Women's rights'.

It is interesting to notice how the Republicans draw the support of women into these bills of theirs and make notes of this where they are pushing their agenda. Empowering women with their rights of choice over their own bodies, whether it be in the case of abortion or birth control it is without doubt the focus of the list that Blue has posted. Abortion is a highly emotional, difficult topic to discuss even among the most reasonable people. I will not engage in a debate on this topic on this thread or any other. It is my opinion that life is preferable, yet, I respect the rights of a perspective mother to her choices. I leave those choices between her and her physician. My opinion on this is firm. Others are equally firm in denying her this choice. I choose to not force my opinions on others, it would be great if others would do the same.

The efforts taken by the Republicans to change the wording from 'rape' to 'criminal sexual conduct' is most obvious. Its purpose in those instances are in federal funding is available for abortion, the range of circumstances in which abortions are covered is being narrowed. Why they are so bent on forcing unwanted births on mothers and equally bent on removing birth control availability from the same mothers is beyond my comprehension?

In answer to your question, Tater, I do not believe the Republican party has the best interest of our middle class and poor women on their agenda. I don't believe they have gained enough support to yet qualify this as a 'War on Women'. The possibility is certainly there as we saw in the reaction to Rush Limbaugh's unwise attack on Sandra Fluke.

[HomeyG]

read, and then tell me there is no war.

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Time to review some of your statements so let's start with an easy one: #5 In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

According to the information from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...p/~c112KToLUn:, for which I have conveniently pasted the applicable paragraphs, the Truth Meter will give you a big fat FALSE.


QUOTE
`(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
`(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
`(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
UNQUOTE

[Common-Tater]

read, and then tell me there is no war.

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Nice cut and paste from http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ I recall once being attacked for not providing my sources. Again I'll ask, how are any of these new? There have always been those trying to reverse RvW, always those working against contraception, cutting Head Start, people who think women belong in the home, not the workplace. None of these are new issues. They're old, old, old....and none ever gain any steam. This is all just recent propaganda like the Democrats 4 years ago screaming about Republicans attacking old people. Next election it'll be something else. It's a little frightening that people from Gen-X and younger tend to be able to compromise and work together with people of differing opinions better than our older counterparts. The odd thing is that the baby boomers were the ones in the middle of the human rights battles of the 50-70s. Yet they're the stubborn ones who refuse to compromise and work together (in general).

[blue adept]

Time to review some of your statements so let's start with an easy one: #5 In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

According to the information from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...p/~c112KToLUn:, for which I have conveniently pasted the applicable paragraphs, the Truth Meter will give you a big fat FALSE.


QUOTE
`(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
`(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
`(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
UNQUOTE

You have pasted one, are you sure that is the bill? I am not. Homey, even your candidates have stated the same sentiment as what I have stated, are you sure? do you want me to investigate?

[blue adept]

Nice cut and paste from http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ I recall once being attacked for not providing my sources. Again I'll ask, how are any of these new? There have always been those trying to reverse RvW, always those working against contraception, cutting Head Start, people who think women belong in the home, not the workplace. None of these are new issues. They're old, old, old....and none ever gain any steam. This is all just recent propaganda like the Democrats 4 years ago screaming about Republicans attacking old people. Next election it'll be something else. It's a little frightening that people from Gen-X and younger tend to be able to compromise and work together with people of differing opinions better than our older counterparts. The odd thing is that the baby boomers were the ones in the middle of the human rights battles of the 50-70s. Yet they're the stubborn ones who refuse to compromise and work together (in general).

What a joke, I would have given the source upon being asked. My point is exactly yours, this is an old war, people working against the rights of women, keep them in the home where they belong, and you are wrong, or you are not very good at history, [imagine that] women have won great rights that they should have had always, what is really amazing is that gen-x is ignorant about the civil rights movement. We are not stubborn about anything other than relinqueshing our God given rights, and we work togather quite well, thank you very much!

[blue adept]

Women of the Fence post, I ask you very sincerely, are you feeling like the right has got your best interests at heart? Do you feel that the republicans are going to put womenhood into a place of equal respect with manhood? I ask, because, if you wish to have them speak for you, I will stop.

[HomeyG]

You have pasted one, are you sure that is the bill? I am not. Homey, even your candidates have stated the same sentiment as what I have stated, are you sure? do you want me to investigate?

I see the confusion because when I clicked my link it gave me a time out, however, if you will use that link and research HR 358 of the 112th Congress you will find my paste is verbatim so yes, investigate, as I stand by my statement that you will get a false on the truth meter. Please note that my source is The Library of Congress, a federal entity, not some bias, fly by night website.

[blue adept]

I see the confusion because when I clicked my link it gave me a time out, however, if you will use that link and research HR 358 of the 112th Congress you will find my paste is verbatim so yes, investigate, as I stand by my statement that you will get a false on the truth meter. Please note that my source is The Library of Congress, a federal entity, not some bias, fly by night website.

I have read the legalize, but here is what factcheck has to say about it, and you have to read it all, because there are clauses, and clauses, and their foot is just inside the door,


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/tax...gh-risk-pools/

[HomeyG]

I have read the legalize, but here is what factcheck has to say about it, and you have to read it all, because there are clauses, and clauses, and their foot is just inside the door,


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/tax...gh-risk-pools/

Read your link in its entirety and I still stand by my response that your statement is false.

[Common-Tater]

My point is exactly yours, this is an old war, people working against the rights of women, keep them in the home where they belong, and you are wrong, or you are not very good at history, [imagine that] women have won great rights that they should have had always,

I don't have any personal sense of inequality between men and women. I feel they compliment eachother well in most cases and when working together can accomplish a great deal. Both sides have their own little predjudices they need to get over though.

what is really amazing is that gen-x is ignorant about the civil rights movement. We are not stubborn about anything other than relinqueshing our God given rights, and we work togather quite well, thank you very much!

Funny, most of the occupy protesters were young people. We're not ignorant of the civil right movement. It was a significan't part of junior and senior high history classes...they were also mentioned in civ classes and gov classes. As I moved into college it was part of my 4 yr degree and also my masters. The only people ignorant of the movement are those who choose to be. You work well with other Baby Boomers but your contempt for younger generations is quite clear. Does that sound familiar? As I recall from history, your parents had quit the contempt for your generation.

[HoosierHelen]

Again I'll ask, how are any of these new? There have always been those trying to reverse RvW, always those working against contraception, cutting Head Start, people who think women belong in the home, not the workplace. None of these are new issues. They're old, old, old....and none ever gain any steam. This is all just recent propaganda like the Democrats 4 years ago screaming about Republicans attacking old people. Next election it'll be something else. It's a little frightening that people from Gen-X and younger tend to be able to compromise and work together with people of differing opinions better than our older counterparts. The odd thing is that the baby boomers were the ones in the middle of the human rights battles of the 50-70s. Yet they're the stubborn ones who refuse to compromise and work together (in general).

We are NOT discussing RoeVWade here, Tater and we are discussing efforts made by the Republican party in 2012. Where the Republicans anti-abortion current movement drew my attention in 2012 was in Virginia and purposed by their Republican majority.

The ultrasound bill, one of two of the most restrictive anti-abortion measures heard in the state in recent years, could force women undergoing first trimester abortions to submit to a vaginally invasive procedure, offer them images of the fetus and have the resulting image lie on their medical file for seven years. Democratic delegates have so far fought in vain against the controversial bill in Virginia, which has a Republican majority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...onstitute-rape

There have been multiple states across the nation that joined this movement. In the case of Virginia, their bill was toned down considerably due to pressure from women and Democrats. The pre-abortion ultra-sound is no longer invasive there. I’m not clear on the status in other states.

Va governor signs pre-abortion ultrasound into law

RICHMOND, Va. — Abdominal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions in Virginia will become mandatory starting July 1 under a law signed Wednesday by the state's Republican governor, who had faced a national uproar when earlier versions of that measure sought to make the exams medically invasive.

The bill signed into law by conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell requires all abortion providers in the state to comply or pay a $2,500 fine for each violation. It also requires patients living within 100 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed to wait 24 hours after the ultrasound examination before having an abortion.

Under the law, victims of rape or incest who reported the attacks to police are exempt from examination. Women also must be offered the chance to view the ultrasound images, but not forced to see them, the law states.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_1...ound-into-law/

It's a little frightening that people from Gen-X and younger tend to be able to compromise and work together with people of differing opinions better than our older counterparts. The odd thing is that the baby boomers were the ones in the middle of the human rights battles of the 50-70s. Yet they're the stubborn ones who refuse to compromise and work together (in general).

Interesting perspective, Tater. You see there is limited room for compromise on being pregnant. You either are or you aren't. Women's rights cannot and should not be compromised for any political/religious agenda. If contraceptives or abortion is accepted and/or rejected by a female, that is not a politician or religious leaders choice. That is a woman's choice. I will not be posting any further on this topic.

[blue adept]

Read your link in its entirety and I still stand by my response that your statement is false.

You have missed the point Homey, this is about a war on women. I believe that this article shows very clearly that the right is trying very hard to erode womens rights. True that they haven't as yet lost the right to abortion in case of rape, incest, or endangerment, but it is just a matter of time before the nut jobs continue the attack. Did you not notice that they left room for other language?So my "statement" is false, thank god, one statement out of many that could be made against the right.

[blue adept]

I don't have any personal sense of inequality between men and women. I feel they compliment eachother well in most cases and when working together can accomplish a great deal. Both sides have their own little predjudices they need to get over though.

Funny, most of the occupy protesters were young people. We're not ignorant of the civil right movement. It was a significan't part of junior and senior high history classes...they were also mentioned in civ classes and gov classes. As I moved into college it was part of my 4 yr degree and also my masters. The only people ignorant of the movement are those who choose to be. You work well with other Baby Boomers but your contempt for younger generations is quite clear. Does that sound familiar? As I recall from history, your parents had quit the contempt for your generation.

You continue to accuse me of things, that you have no clue about. My contempt for the younger genertions indeed, Tater, I do not understand how you can continue to accuse everyone of things that aren't true, calling them names, and then accuse them of name calling, and through it all, claim innocence. You may have studied about the civil rights movement, but you clearly don't understand it.

[HomeyG]

You have missed the point Homey, this is about a war on women. I believe that this article shows very clearly that the right is trying very hard to erode womens rights. True that they haven't as yet lost the right to abortion in case of rape, incest, or endangerment, but it is just a matter of time before the nut jobs continue the attack. Did you not notice that they left room for other language?So my "statement" is false, thank god, one statement out of many that could be made against the right.

Your concession that the statement is false even with its caveats is certainly appreciated.

[blue adept]

Your concession that the statement is false even with its caveats is certainly appreciated.

Yes, I imagine it is, maybe next time you are caught, you will do the same.and yes, that was a little katty!

[michael medeski]

The ultrasound bill, one of two of the most restrictive anti-abortion measures heard in the state in recent years, could force women undergoing first trimester abortions to submit to a vaginally invasive procedure, offer them images of the fetus and have the resulting image lie on their medical file for seven years. Democratic delegates have so far fought in vain against the controversial bill in Virginia, which has a Republican majority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...onstitute-rape

There have been multiple states across the nation that joined this movement. In the case of Virginia, their bill was toned down considerably due to pressure from women and Democrats. The pre-abortion ultra-sound is no longer invasive there. I’m not clear on the status in other states.

V[B]a governor signs pre-abortion ultrasound into law

RICHMOND, Va. — Abdominal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions in Virginia will become mandatory starting July 1 under a law signed Wednesday by the state's Republican governor, who had faced a national uproar when earlier versions of that measure sought to make the exams medically invasive.

The bill signed into law by conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell requires all abortion providers in the state to comply or pay a $2,500 fine for each violation. It also requires patients living within 100 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed to wait 24 hours after the ultrasound examination before having an abortion.

Under the law, victims of rape or incest who reported the attacks to police are exempt from examination. Women also must be offered the chance to view the ultrasound images, but not forced to see them, the law states.

"A Virginia bill states that any woman seeking an abortion must first lie back in a chair with her feet in stirrups and a 10-inch ultrasound wand in her vagina."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...ltrasound-bill

[HomeyG]

Yes, I imagine it is, maybe next time you are caught, you will do the same.and yes, that was a little katty!

Evidently you don't read my posts because I have, on more than one occasion, admitted that I was wrong. As I read your listing, or should I say moveon.org's list as Tater pointed out, I find most of the accusations are towards what might happen and not what has happen and if it has happen it is usually isolated cases from a wayward politician. For instance, of the 38 states that have fetal homicide laws I found only one state that attempted to file homicide charges against an abortion provider. Furthermore, it should be noted that the case was dismissed. I hear from the left, from the President down to members of the Fence Post, that we need more cooperation between the parties but don't you think these unfounded comments are contributing towards the divide of this country and not towards the unity the left purportedly supports. If you can find me hard cases to support your arguments I may change my mind but, until then, I find most of the comments are nothing more than scare tactics directed mostly at women.

[HomeyG]

"A Virginia bill states that any woman seeking an abortion must first lie back in a chair with her feet in stirrups and a 10-inch ultrasound wand in her vagina."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...ltrasound-bill

Now this would be an interesting statistic: "How many women changed their minds about an abortion because they became an informed mother."

[michael medeski]

Now this would be an interesting statistic: "How many women changed their minds about an abortion because they became an informed mother."

or this one....

"how many rape victims want something forced in their vagina against their will?"