This week in the republican war on women

This week in the republican war on women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 11:07:15 AM)
Trent Franks, Republican congressman from Arizona, is sponsoring a bill to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks and is opposing a Democratic offered amendment to make exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He had this to say on the matter "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/12/gop-congressman-rate-of-pregnancies-from-rape-is-very-low/ Apparently the lesson of Todd Akin just didn't stick. On to the spread of state mandated unnecessary procedures for women seeking a legal medical procedure, Wisconsin is on the verge of mandating that every woman seeking an abortion must undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound. Just in case the Wisconsin GOP wasn't being clear enough in their contempt for women they are also pushing through a bill that would allow employers to not allow their insurance plans to provide contraceptives to their employees. http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_23433698/wisconsin-abortion-ultrasound-bill-gets-senate-vote Now what was that stuff about the Republicans learning their lesson in 2012?

thishereboi -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 2:59:37 PM)
While I totally agree he is an asshole and the statement "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." is beyond ridiculous, I also have to wonder why anyone would wait over 20 weeks before terminating a pregnancy resulting from it.

tazzygirl -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:09:40 PM)
You cant see how someone who is a victim of rape or incest might not get an abortion before 20 weeks? Think about that for a moment.

DomKen -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:12:48 PM)
Are you under the impression women always know immediately when they conceive? Do you not see the possibility that it might take some time for a woman, still recovering from the trauma of being raped, to make her decision? It's actually really dumb since it will never get past the Senate and the President and would be over turned by the courts anyway. Kind of shows just how little regard they have for women's rights.

DomKen -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:23:13 PM)
FYI, I've just been told by someone in Madison that the bill passed the Senate in a very contentious session. Also a nurse friend who has read the bill says that the requirements of the law would likely require a transvaginal ultrasound on first trimester women since the tech must describe details of the fetus not generally visible during a standard ultrasound that early in a pregnancy.

kalikshama -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:27:31 PM)
Given the tiny percentage of late term abortions, the point this initiative is clearly to chip away at abortion rights. [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg/450px-US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg.png[/image]

tazzygirl -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:36:30 PM)
Especially with incest cases, the fact that a woman may not know she is pregnant, and/or be unable to seek medical help by 20 weeks is a very real problem. Not all rape cases are by someone who takes and runs. Some rapes occur where the victim may not be able to get help. Take for instance the women held in Ohio. I am one that has no problems with no abortions after 20 weeks. However, illegal acts should not be allowed to continue to punish a woman for months on end after the fact.

Kirata -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:52:44 PM)
Granting there is a battle against abortion, what precisely justifies ginning that up into a generalized "war on women"? K.

kalikshama -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:57:36 PM)
The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation. In includes a wide-range of policy efforts designed to place restrictions on women's health care and erode protections for women and their families. Examples at the state and federal level have included restricting contraception; cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, and prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies. http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/war-women

kalikshama -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 3:59:01 PM)
War on Women is a political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that opponents see as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights.[1][2][3][4] Prominent Democrats and feminists have used the phrase to criticize conservative positions.[5][6][7] Additional uses refer to legislative initiatives regarding the following: access to reproductive health services, particularly birth control and abortion services; how violence against women is prosecuted; how rape is defined for purposes of public funding of abortion for rape victims;[8][9] how workplace discrimination against women is treated; and litigation concerning equal pay for women.[10][11][12][13] The term is often used when targeting policies that reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations, like Planned Parenthood. Other areas of concern include public funding and mandatory employer insurance coverage of such matters as contraception and sterilization. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women

tazzygirl -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 4:04:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Granting there is a battle against abortion, what precisely justifies ginning that up into a generalized "war on women"? K. Could be that this issue affects only women.

thishereboi -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 4:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Especially with incest cases, the fact that a woman may not know she is pregnant, and/or be unable to seek medical help by 20 weeks is a very real problem. Not all rape cases are by someone who takes and runs. Some rapes occur where the victim may not be able to get help. Take for instance the women held in Ohio. I am one that has no problems with no abortions after 20 weeks. However, illegal acts should not be allowed to continue to punish a woman for months on end after the fact. No they shouldn't. Maybe I am just to naive and assume that under special circumstances exceptions would be made.

thishereboi -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 4:14:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Granting there is a battle against abortion, what precisely justifies ginning that up into a generalized "war on women"? K. Because there are a lot of fools out there who think only republicans are against abortion and only liberals are pro choice. If you can convince others that there truly is a war on women by the right, they are more likely to vote for the left.

tazzygirl -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 4:16:26 PM)
quote: No they shouldn't. Maybe I am just to naive and assume that under special circumstances exceptions would be made. I wish I could agree with you. But from all indications, that wouldnt be the case. Too many have made it a point to say she should have tried sooner... or that its "God's will".

Lucylastic -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 5:50:29 PM)
Conyers said it is inappropriate for an all-male committee to decide on a ban, and called it “shocking” that the bill does not make an exception for victims of rape or incest or for women endangered by a pregnancy. http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/060913_franks_abortion/franks-bill-banning-abortion-after-20-weeks-clears-house-subcommittee/ From Altlanta http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/may/23/anti-abortion-extremists-take-their-fight-national/ In the most bitter fight of the 2012 Georgia General Assembly, right-to-life extremists attempted to outlaw all abortions past the 20-week window, including those traumatic cases in which the developing fetus is discovered to be so seriously malformed -- no skull or brain, inoperative lungs and other fatal defects -- as to have no chance whatsoever of survival outside the womb. Had the bill passed in its original form, would-be parents informed by their doctors of that tragic situation would have been stripped of their rights to intervene. They would have been forced by the exquisite wisdom of Georgia state legislators to carry that doomed fetus to full term, and then allow it to die an often excruciating death while they and medical personnel looked on helplessly. And as we've seen, they would also ban the procedure in cases where the fetus has no chance whatsoever of survival, and where carrying it to term ensures only further pain for the fetus and its parents. From WIsconsin Republicans shut down debate, pass bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/211187071.html Iowa Governor DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Catholic, anti-abortion Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad could soon find himself in an uncomfortable position: He may have to sign off on payments for every Medicaid-funded abortion in his state. A bill requiring that authorization is sitting on the Republican's desk after moving through the statehouse. If Branstad signs it, Iowa is likely to be the only state that would have the unique requirement. Iowa's Medicaid program covers a small number of abortions each year due to rape, incest, fetal deformity or to protect a mother's life. Currently handled by the state Department of Human Services, the Medicaid reimbursements cost the state less than $20,000 last fiscal year. The change in who approves the payment is a result of Iowa's unusual political landscape. It is one of only three states with a divided legislature, with Republicans controlling the state House and Democrats the Senate. Blocking funds for Medicaid abortions has been a priority for some conservative Iowa Republicans in recent years, but past efforts to change the rules — as well as make some of the more sweeping abortion restrictions seen in other GOP-majority states —have failed to advance in the Senate. But a split legislature can lead to unusual deal-making. In this case, the abortion plan was negotiated as part of a complex health care bill that included accepting additional federal dollars to expand low-income health care in the state — a key priority for Democrats. Republicans hope by putting the decision into the hands of an anti-abortion governor, fewer public dollars will be spent on abortions. Democrats say they expect no changes, but abortion rights advocates fear it could restrict access to abortions for poor women. Branstad said he is likely to approve the legislation, which impacts reimbursements after the abortions, not authorizing the procedures ahead of time. http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-gov-may-ok-medicaid-abortion-funding-203716543.html Scott Walker would sign abortion ultrasound bill Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) says he will sign a bill requiring women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds. “I don’t have any problem with ultrasound,” Walker said Tuesday, according to the AP. “I think most people think ultrasounds are just fine.” Such measures have proven controversial in other states, perhaps most notably last year in Virginia, where Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) initially supported legislation that would require transvaginal ultrasounds but eventually moved to soften the measure. The measure in Wisconsin, notably, doesn’t require transvaginal ultrasounds — the most controversial aspect of the Virginia legislation. Instead, it allows women to choose between transvaginal ultrasounds and less-invasive abdominal ultrasounds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/12/scott-walker-would-sign-abortion-ultrasound-bill/ Anyone else interested enough to want to know more...can watch this bit.... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/52175141#52175141 the relevant part starts at about 3.20 I read in one that there have been 694 bills introduced this year alone regarding womens issues, abortions,planned parenthood shutdowns and reduction of services and funding.

Lucylastic -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 6:01:33 PM)
Republican state senators in Wisconsin on Wednesday silenced Democratic lawmakers while passing a bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound procedure before being able to receive an abortion. Wednesday’s Senate session began with state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (D) reading letters from several constituents who opposed the bill. “The idea of — quote — small government is in direct conflict with big government Republicans sticking their nose my vagina,” one voter named Suzanne wrote. “How can we get the conservatives — mostly men — to quit blaming women, many times girls, solely for unwanted pregnancies?” A second letter pointed out that the bill’s provision excluding rape and incest would not be effective because only 16 percent of rapes were reported to police. Vinehout said that she had been touched by the letters because she had also been a victim of sexual assault at the age of 15. “And if we truly want to make abortion rare, Mr. President, why are we defunding Planned Parenthood?” the Alma Democrat asked. Republican state Sen. Mary Lazich, who sponsored the legislation, however, encouraged her fellow lawmakers to ignore “the theatrics surrounding” Vinehout’s presentation and then launched into an impassioned speech of her own. “If you have a loved one that’s thinking about terminating their pregnancy, for crying out loud, you want them to have full information, you want them to have an ultrasound, you want them to know what’s going on in that womb and what they’re doing, and that they’re not going to be able to change that for the rest of their life!” she exclaimed. “They make that decision, it’s over! It’s over in a few minutes. And then later on they can live with the fact that they terminated their pregnancy and it was the best thing for them or they killed their child and they made a horrific decision and they regret it and they wish they never would have done it!” Following Lazich’s remarks, Democrats tried to continue debate but Senate President Mike Ellis (R) called for a vote. “It’s non-debatable! Call the roll!” he shouted. “You’re out of order!” “You’re out of order!” someone on the Senate floor shouted back. “You’re interrupting a roll call! Sit down! Right now!” Ellis yelled, repeatedly banging his gavel in anger. “I understand you’re afraid of this debate,” Minority Leader Chris Larson (D) reportedly said, but his microphone was cut off, according to The Associated Press. In the end, the bill passed 17 to 15 along party lines. It was immediately referred to the state Assembly, and Gov. Scott Walker (R) has said that he will sign it into law. With Video - See more at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/12/ruckus-in-wisconsin-senate-republicans-push-through-ultrasound-bill-after-silencing-democrats/#sthash.ACQiXynl.dpuf

tazzygirl -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 6:10:33 PM)
And it will be challenged.. and it will be overturned. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/oklahoma-mandatory-ultrasound-law-unconstitutional_n_1386372.html

dcnovice -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 6:19:46 PM)
quote: Because there are a lot of fools out there who think only republicans are against abortion and only liberals are pro choice. I wonder if some of that "foolish" perception might stem from the parties' platforms. REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, 2012 We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it. We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, 2012 Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs. Just a thought.

farglebargle -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 6:23:07 PM)
If it's not your body, it's none of your fucking business. I wonder what kind of Stalinesque or Mengelesque motivations drive these Government Employees and Legislators to presume that they have any rights in the doctor's office or in the relationship between anyone and their physician. The idea that a woman is the property of The State and must permit herself to be bred according to the wishes of someone from The Government should scare the shit out of everyone.

JeffBC -> RE: This week in the republican war on women (6/12/2013 6:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Granting there is a battle against abortion, what precisely justifies ginning that up into a generalized "war on women"? K. I dunno, it works for me. There is a large-scale and broad effort to attack many of the things that women want. That effort effort has a fair amount of coordination to it although "centrally coordinated" is an overstatement. It's not an overstatement to say there are a few large centers of mass. It doesn't help any that Republicans seem to never stop saying the stupidest shit about ... well ... anything having to do with female reproductive systems. It's hard not to think of it as propaganda. I'm liking that phrase less and less only because I see how our politicians have abused "wars on drugs" and "wars on terror". I'm getting a bit leary of using that word for anything other than a war in the sense that we all know it.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875