Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

The Conservative War on Women and Women’s Health

We all must eat and drink water to survive; recognizing this as normal behavior appears to have no political consequences. Given mankind’s fascination with the culinary arts many opportunities for indulgence abound in every culture when it comes to eating. We no longer eat just for sustaining our existence; we eat for fun and pleasure. Some of us eat more than we should, but even those among us who are svelte and elegant enjoy the pleasure of a well-made meal.

Pleasure and necessity have been mixed together in the culinary arts. Many of us, and certainly most liberals, will confess to enjoying what we eat. When the topic turns from food to reproduction, however, a political divide has erupted that is separating conservatives from the rest of us. Life style and private behavior and not tactical differences in how to achieve world peace or prosperity here at home now dominate the political agenda of the conservative right. A personal health issue, birth control, is now center stage in Republican circles.

Procreative behavior without babies as the end result has now been labeled an act of depravity by the leadership and patricians of the right. Rush Limbaugh, that brusque spokesperson for the right, sees political overtones associated with access to birth control. Limbaugh said recently he wanted to watch a Georgetown University student going through the motions of procreation while using birth control because she testified before Congress that contraception is central to a woman’s rights to control her personal destiny and to manage her health. Somehow that got inflated with an illicit pleasure that no women should experience.

Not to be out moralized by Limbaugh’s commentary on what is appropriate behavior, the conservative Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum added to the monolog that birth control is not OK “because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” What does that mean? In what sense beyond not making a baby is this immoral?

What makes the potential for pleasure in any activity wrong in the minds of Limbaugh and Santorum? Is it wrong to enjoy what you are doing just because it is essential?

99% of women who are in relationships use birth control and 98% of Catholic women in this category do as well. Whether or not birth control is used to manage health or to prevent pregnancy is for most people an entirely private matter. For social conservatives however this private matter should not be supported in any fashion by our government. Something almost every women does has somehow become a subject for scorn. Currently every Republican running for the office of President has made this social conservative dogma a primary reason for seeking this office. They want us all to behave as they think we should.


Comments

"The war on Women" is a false narrative promulgated by the left that want to talk about anything but jobs, the economy and energy policy. The big lie worked for awhile, but Obama's poll numbers have crashed again.

What will the next phony issue be? Mediscare? Nope, don't want to bring up that Ryan budget. SS scare? Nope, can't do that because we'll be reminded that it was Obama that threatened to cut off SS checks if the debt limit weren't raised. Obamacare? Bwa-hah-hah! That'll be the day.

Nope, we'll try to scare women and hope there's enough stupid ones that will buy the Democrat's drivel.

If there is any war on women, it's the Democrats war against their pocketbooks!


Democrats need a game change. People see right through the phony "War on Women": Web Link


HoneyBadger will not address the truth, it is just too hard to deny the statements being made by the social conservative Republican right. Their main campaign ploy, their solution to everything, appears to be "we hate what you hate". See Web Link

The constant assertions coming from the pens, keyboards and mouths of the spokespersons of this radical right is that everyone who opposes us is a crook or worse. Elected officials, unless they are social conservatives, are all bad, government is bad, paying for government is bad, helping a neigbhbor who has stumbled or made a bad choice in their life is bad, etc.

When people need help, the help the social conservative right offers is the lesson of failure; they recommend suffering the consequences of a mistake in life as the best path to improvement. For the women who has made a mistake in love that lesson may mean an unwanted child.

There are many reasons to use birth control technologies and medications: health and family planning are the most obvious. The radical right is actively putting barriers to make thoses choices much harder to implement for women across America. To claim this is not a war on women's rights, is just another example of the outright lies and distortions, perhaps out of sheer ignorance and stupidity, that characterizes this radical movement in American politics.


Evidently, "honeybadger" isn't a female badger.


This has been an issue as far back as I can remember, but the head of the spear was, and still is the "Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision", Web Link

That decision, reached in January 1973, has been a target, a constant target for those that oppose birth control. It is discussed and attacked regularly, even as we sit here now. Some say it is the right of choice vs the state (or government) and it never seems to be short on opinions. To say that the topic is not political would be absolutely foolish, but who continues to keep the 'issue' alive?

Well, let's take a peek at the latest squawkers opposing women's right to chose. Among them, we see the republican wannabes standing tall and proud beating their drums, thumping their chests and pounding the podiums with their rhetoric and opposition to a woman's choice, for whatever reason.

Taking a closer look at the squawkers, we find the likes of Cain and Newt. Newt's track record on lack of self respect, family values and hanging onto the arm of one woman (a wife, pick one; there have been several) while firmly grasping the leg of another is certainly more pronounced than that of the candidate he mentored (Cain, AKA Moses), that doesn't let Cain off the hook.

Well, Cain is gone and has lent his support (whatever that might be) to Newt. There's a shocker! Looks like adulterers stick together. They stick together beyond just their lack of respect for women. They stick together in offering the rest of us their ideas on family values, too.

One would think that with all the incredibly huge issues this nation currently faces as the world shrinks, that we could do better than this, but then understanding the virtues of the wannabes, what else would one expect?


A man is known by the company he keeps..........and the sponsors he keeps, as well.

Web Link


Hmm SQUAWAKERS ...well-named.

I think all these so-called Squawakers would shut-the-Bleep-Up IF:

1.)People AGAINST abortion (A legal right that a woman may choose) would be forced to raise her un-wanted baby in their home at their own expense.

2.) Folks who want to take away Social Services would be forced to house and care for the needy under their own roofs.

3.)Folks who want more money for the schools would be required to pull the cash from their OWN pockets.

4.) Candidates running on a "Small Government" platform would be required to lay-off all Government employees once elected to office.

5.) Those barking against Government Welfare would be forced to forego receiving their own Social Security and Medicare, or Veteran's Benefits

AND LAST...

6.) All the men spouting ugly rhetoric (Rush L.)Web Link

or passing Legislation that demeans women (Bob McDonnell- Gov. VA Web Link would be barred from taking Boner-Pills Web Link and subject to Anal probes.


It would be a different problem if the issue was only the individual’s right to end a pregnancy, but it is not. The radical extremes of the conservative right who dominate the Republican Party and its candidates for the Presidency want to end family planning and any medical treatment for women related in any way to reproduction. The comments of Santorum and Limbaugh were not in reference to ending a pregnancy, they were about access to technologies that women use to plan their families and to stay healthy. There are many women who use birth control medications for specific medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing reproduction. These applications of medical science and its technologies are also targeted in this fanatical war against women.

The war on women is only is only the tip of the iceberg. Santorum claims that anyone who thinks it is a good idea to go to college is a snob. The distain for learning is only matched by the lack of it among the social conservative ideologues.

There is no shame in not being a scholar or not being knowledgeable on every topic. But instead of admiring those who have invested the time and energy to learn the radical extremists of the conservative right celebrate ignorance and call learning a sport of snobs.

Sara Palin did not know that there are two Koreas, a North and South. She thought Queen Elizabeth ran the British government, that Saddam Hussein and not al-Qaeda had attacked us on 911. Few of us know who is leading Turkey today or what the Turkish government is doing vis-a-vis the Arab spring, but some one who is running for the Presidency of the United States must know these things. It is not OK to be an ignoramus if you aspire to that job.

The radical conservative right and their apologists who see ‘shades of gray’ in every position these radicals champion need to face up to the utter silliness and real danger of these views. Ignorance is not something we should celebrate. Denigrating experts who disagree with our opinions on topics for which we are not expert will not make climate change go away, it will not fix the economy. Ignoring history is hardly a sound platform from which to govern.


^^^ Evidently, "honeybadger" isn't a female badger. ^^^

You don't need to be a female to see that the "Republican War on Women" is a complete and utter fabrication.

The war is against excessive government. No one is taking condoms or abortion away from you. Just pay for it yourselves, and stop lying about what Republicans believe.


Directly quoting from the public record what Republican candidates for office have said, quoting what people close to them report to have heard them say (also in the public record), and quoting well known right wing Republican propagandists such as Rush Limbaugh is apparently something that HoneyBader deplores. Why?


The war is against excessive government

Then why are Republicans mandating unnecessary medical procedures?

....and stop lying about what Republicans believe.

Do you mean like Santourm's belief that states can outlaw birth control: -- Web Link

Or Santorum's puking at the concept of the separation of Church and State? -- Web Link


"You don't need to be a female to see that the "Republican War on Women" is a complete and utter fabrication." Says "honeybadger."

If "honeybadger" were a female, "honeybadger" would recognize that there *is* a Republican War on Women. It seems that the men and women posting on this thread do not agree with "honeybadger."

Perhaps it is time for all good "honeybadgers" to hibernate, regardless of their gender, and just sleep it off until after November.


One of Jim's points, perhaps the core point is partially illustrated with this: "There are many women who use birth control medications for specific medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing reproduction. These applications of medical science and its technologies are also targeted in this fanatical war against women." When referenced against this, Web Link , we get a better understanding of what Jim is addressing.

Of course, folks like HB see what they want rather than what is because 1) HB is a male and has never had to deal with what Ms Fluke relates to Congress & more importantly 2) the facts on this matter don't compliment his views, so he chooses to either ignore them or twist them. Nothing out of the ordinary there. After all, HB whole heartedly endorsed Palin (both then and now), then Cain, then Newt, even during and after all the backstories on both Cain and Newt were released. After all that disappointment, it is easy to understand the frustrations facts may play in this for those with myopic views, not to mention his repeated humiliation of backing losers (in more ways than one). Kind of makes a fool of himself, IMHO, but that is certainly within his rights.

I guess what I mean to say is that but for a few individuals, most get it. Furthermore, barring some huge negative event between now and election day, Obama simply needs to sit back and chuckle at what the likes of HB call competition.

The unwillingness of the republican party to change, to grow, to have even a fundamental grasp of the real issues facing real Americans is exactly why they are where they are; and they will stay that way until they learn.

Of course, sucking up to the big money of special interests plays a large role here. It must be quite an exhilarating feeling to get paid to parrot family values, as dictated by special interests, while ignoring them in your own life. Do you think Newt was celibate each time he changed branches in his own tree of love?


Such a sheeple thread. There is no war on women or women's health. You've been duped by a political marketing machine.

Let's get back to the issues please...

employment

economy

Afghanistan

Israel/Iran

energy

socialized medicine

Your fellow DNCers are trying to create a distraction.

>>The unwillingness of the republican party to change, to grow, to have even a fundamental grasp of the real issues facing real Americans is exactly why they are where they are; and they will stay that way until they learn.

Blah blah blah. The stereotyping is laughable.

That's okay. This will be old news by next month anyways.

Rome is burning, and you are distracted about your human rights on the hemline of your toga. Well done.


BTW: Remind me to find Jim Larimer's address and vote for him without presenting ID. As I can assume he's marching in protest in the Republican War on Minority Voters too.


>>The war is against excessive government. No one is taking condoms or abortion away from you. Just pay for it yourselves, and stop lying about what Republicans believe.

It's the government's obligation to fund a $3 optional 'medical' cost. Blah blah, I know there are additional benefits from contraception aside from frisky behavior (repeated). But when does it stop. A woman's right to a gym, to have her granola subsidized. Amazing when/where liberals choose to defend "women's rights".


" "There are many women who use birth control medications for specific medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing reproduction."

I assume that it would be OK then to expect folk to pay for birth control medications for women who use them for specific medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing reproduction, but that it is also OK to not require folk to pay for birth control medications for women who use them for preventing reproduction - especially single women who use them specifically for recreational sex ?????


"HB is a male and has never had to deal with what Ms Fluke relates to Congress & more importantly -----"

MS. Fluke lied shamelessly to Congress about the cost of birthcontrol pills.

" After all, HB whole heartedly endorsed Palin (both then and now"

Well, I guess that proves once and for all that HoneyBadger chooses to ignore or twist the facts. What better proof could there be?

"The unwillingness of the republican party to change, to grow, to have even a fundamental grasp of the real issues facing real Americans is exactly why they are where they are; and they will stay that way until they learn."

That is pretty much the way Republicans think of Democrats.

"social conservative Republican right."- - - - - You for got radical and a few others.

"Of course, sucking up to the big money of special interests plays a large role here"

That is what Republicans think the Democrats are doing. I wonder how they got that idea.

Sometimes I think that Democrats don't know the first thing about Republicans. Do you suppose that Republicans are like that too.


Barnus, I have to smile when I see comments like, "Sometimes I think that Democrats don't know the first thing about Republicans. Do you suppose that Republicans are like that too."

You take some umbrage at a few of my comments. Let me try to make something clear: the dems are no better. They just find other issues to trip over.

I have made my thoughts and opinions on both parties about as clear as I know how right here on TA, over a long period of time. I believe I've also supplied ample evidence to support my positions. Far as I'm concerned, they're all the same...and as Stevie Wonder can see, they are both killing America, and getting very wealthy doing it.

My primary beef with these swill suckers is that although they ask us for money, support, and votes when that is what is needed for them to ascend to the ruling class, they (the vast majority, either party) seem to swallow a term's worth of amnesia pills, forgetting whatever they said while bending over for special interests; and the wisdom of our Supreme Court has only endorsed that behavior.

No, I don't think one better than the other. They both suck. There isn't a leader in the bunch and now, more than most other times is when the need is strongest. This thread just happens to harken to one of the GOP's illusions. The dems have an equal string of their own.

"That is what Republicans think the Democrats are doing. I wonder how they got that idea." That comment can transpose the characters and still work.


" Barnus", I understand your reticence to pay for birth control for women who want to have recreational sex. If you were the beneficiary of said recreational sex, your position might be different.

Now, as I understand the law, no one is going to come up to Montara and demand you "kick in". I understand that the law requires the insurance industry to treat female birth control as they treat vasectomies and Viagra.

A valid disagreement might be that adding contraception to an insurance policy might increase your individual premiums. While the same argument could possibly made about any item that is covered, many insurers claim this will be at least a revenue neutral cost as it will minimize unwanted and medically dangerous pregnancies and minimize abortions.

The additional mandated coverages for mammograms and colonoscopies will also have a potential to increase health insurance premiums.

I wonder why there has been no right wing opposition to those coverages?


" Barnus", I understand your reticence to pay for birth control for women who want to have recreational sex. If you were the beneficiary of said recreational sex, your position might be different."

- - - - -I suppose, but that would not make it right.

"A valid disagreement might be that adding contraception to an insurance policy might increase your individual premiums"

- - - - - The Insurance companies are not going to pay for it out of the goodness of their hearts. If giving away pills to policyholders decreased the cost of providing insurance, the insurance people would have thought of it and done it long ago. We will not only pay the added cost of supplying the pills, we will pay the additional cost of handling the claims and, of course, a load of 5% or so for a profit on those expenditures.

It makes no sense to treat surgery like pills.

It makes no sense for the rest of us to pay for Viagra anymore than it makes sense for us to pay for the pills. In fact, if the pills actually do decrease the birth rate, we will get fomething out of that. I will be surprised if that happens.


This comment, "MS. Fluke lied shamelessly to Congress about the cost of birthcontrol pills" is, first of all up for debate. One might ask that you "Prove it". I thought her presentation, which I linked above, was good.

Certainly folks don't lie to Congress. I mean, we have all the CEO's of all the major tobacco companies being truthful, don't we? Also, let's not forget Ollie and his boys. They too were truthful, weren't they.

The examples of lying to Congress is longer by a bunch than the two I just mentioned, however, we could prove their lies. Further, they represent(ed) very big business. Ms Fluke, on the other hand, simply provided a well articulated stance and opinion with examples for clarity. You may not agree with her, but to say she lied? Oh, Barnus, now you're stooping into HB territory. You are better than that by far.

From another angle, one might conclude that insurance companies are simply looking out for themselves. More population, more customers. Very simple and very honest.


"You don't need to be a female to see that the "Republican War on Women" is a complete and utter fabrication."

He's right...It's a SMOKESCREEN made up by Republicans so they won't have to address Jobs-Jobs-Jobs, Fracking Operations Polluting groundwater, or the WAR & TROOPS, Climate Change or even, GOD FORBID, the ECONOMY. They sure shut up about Drill-Baby Drill after the BP OIL Disaster in the Gulf, didn't they?

No THEY are gong around mouthing off about Trans-vaginal probes and de-funding Planned Parenthood so they can appeal to their base, instead of the entire populace. Clear Channel suspended advertising on Rush's show this week, (Had to).


Don't we pay for Viagra for men who use that specifically for getting it up do they can have recreational sex ????? My understanding is that's covered too!


This is the type of BS that marginalizes the Republican party and will lead to President Obama's reelection. So keep on spewing hate and filth!!!


"Don't we pay for Viagra for men who use that specifically for getting it up do they can have recreational sex ????? My understanding is that's covered too!"

Yes. we shouldn't.


It gets worse:

Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should “accept this horribly created” pregnancy because it is “nevertheless a gift in a very broken way” and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has “to make the best out of a bad situation“:

Is anybody listening to this?

The Republican Right Wing agenda is closer to Sharia Law, than to the US Constitution!


golda (if you don't mind), would you be so kind as to provide a source for your comment quotes please.

It may be very helpful to the dialog or someone's choice. Thank you.


Hi George,

It was from a Piers Morgan interview with Santorium a few days ago.

Hopefully this is the right link?

Web Link


Golda - Web Link

Interview with Piers Morgan watch the interview about 2 minutes in...


George Carlin Video

Conservatives aren't Pro-Life, they're anti women

Web Link


Thank you for the link(s). I just watched it. It's only two and a half minutes.

But, wow.

I believe Santorum won two states this evening.


^^^This is the type of BS that marginalizes the Republican party and will lead to President Obama's reelection. So keep on spewing hate and filth!!! ^^^

Opposition to federal funding for recreational contraceptives is spewing hate and filth? The only hate I see being expressed in this thread is from liberals towards conservatives.

1) Sandra Fluke testified before a Democrat press conference disguised as a Congressional hearing.

2) In the real Congressional hearing chaired by Darrel Issa, Pelosi tried to swap her previously requested and approved witness to Sandra Fluke.

3) In the real Congressional hearing, experts on both sides of the issue of contraception law were allowed to testify. In Puglosi's faux Congressional hearing, Sandra Fluke was the only witness.

4) Contraceptives used for medical purposes are already allowed under Georgetown's plan. Ms. Fluke wants that coverage extended to free contraceptives for birth control, which is contrary to the core beliefs of the law school she chose to attend.

5) Ms. Fluke is a highly privileged individual and future 1%-er.

6) Funding for recreational contraceptives is not a right, now matter how hard you stomp your feet, how long you hold yor breath or how loud you wail.


Please go back to sleep, "honeybadger."


"The only hate I see being expressed in this thread is from liberals towards conservatives."

Pot, meet kettle: Web Link

I will provide Ms Fluke's congressional testimony once again for those few (HB) that either haven't bothered to read it, or simply can't comprehend; Web Link

Now where's this 'hate' coming from?


IMO, Bill Maher has used the worst words against women.


Where will the religious fanatics stop.....with Talibamentalist bedroom cams?

Web Link


Perhaps George missed these quips from this thread:

Setting new lows for public discussion -- "Please go back to sleep, 'honeybadger.'"

Fully buying into the faux "war on women": "This is the type of BS that marginalizes the Republican party."

And the ever sour Cid: "He's right...It's a SMOKESCREEN made up by Republicans so they won't have to address Jobs-Jobs-Jobs, Fracking Operations Polluting groundwater, or the WAR & TROOPS, Climate Change or even, GOD FORBID, the ECONOMY."

Oh boy, another poster that wants to stifle discussion: "Perhaps it is time for all good "honeybadgers" to hibernate, regardless of their gender, and just sleep it off until after November."

Some of you folks really need to get out of your echo chamber and get your opinions about Republicans and directly from a Republican. The problem is that none of likely know anyone that is Republican. Or, if you conduct yourselves in real life like you do on this list, it's doubtful that anyone would want to waste their precious time discussing anything with you.


Does that mean you are going back to sleep now, "honeybadger?"

Interesting word, "badger." Exotic species, those honey badgers. Good thing they're not native in this country; you wouldn't want to meet one. Wikipedia has an interesting article about them, in case anyone is curious: Web Link


^^^ Does that mean you are going back to sleep now, "honeybadger?" ^^^

Do you have trouble staying on topic? Do you even know what the topic is? Or are you still running with the herd spooked by those that want to distract you from the real issues this election season?


Sweet "honeybadger," in case you forgot, the topic of this thread is "The Conservative War on Women and Women’s Health." As one of the millions of targets of said war, I am definitely on topic for fighting back. Since you are adverse to rational discussion and factual information, I am using simple words to let you know how your rants affect the audience you would most like to and need to convince: Women. You offend and you bore women. And so, as I would say to a child, "Go to sleep, little 'honeybadger'; we've heard enough from you."

P.S. I know a lot of Republicans, and you "honeybadger" are not a Republican.


Suzanne misguidedly said (or maybe it was a typo?): You offend and you bore women.

Perhaps she meant to type "woman" since she is expressing her individual opinion? People like her certainly don't speak for this woman.

This perceived "war" most definitely is a smokescreen for something insidious.


^^^ People like her certainly don't speak for this woman. ^^^

Thank you, Rosemary Potatoes!

^^^ P.S. I know a lot of Republicans, ^^^

Highly doubtful.

^^^ and you "honeybadger" are not a Republican. ^^^

Thank you, Suzanne!


HB- The ratel bears more anatomical similarities to weasels(polecats) and is a deviant of the marten family and they possesses an anal pouch which is reversible. The smell of the pouch is reportedly "suffocating" which may account for why they live alone in self-dug holes, or in vacated dens of aardvarks, warthogs or termites (Lovely!) While mostly solitary, males emit loud grunting sounds when mating and they have been known to dig up human corpses in India. They are known to savagely attack their enemies and they will retaliate fiercely when attacked, and are reviled in North India.

Suzanne & Rosemary - (With such charming attributes it's no wonder a person with similar characteristics would use that as their Nom de Plume on a message board!)


Cid, I am not sure why you used my name in your recent posting.

Please do not consider me one of your cohorts.


I did not consider you a cohort. SORRY that you felt so.


Those damned Republicans!

<Web Link>

Oh wait! Those are Obama staffers. Never mind, nothing to see here.


Comments made by politicians or radio talk-show hosts sound different when repeated by women:

Web Link


Is there anything more pathetic than a lonely, bitter old man complaining endlessly about people he has never met and who consider him totally irrelevant? Someone who has nothing of value to say. Someone whose family avoids discussing anything with him.

If you ever encounter such a person please try to understand his motives and perhaps ignoring him would be the kindest thing one could do.


'x' fundamentalists (I like math, fill in the variable with whatever group you want) should be a marginalized section of society. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way with the human race (or at least hasn't for a million-or-so-years).

Radical christians aren't pregnant (cool connection to the thread, eh?), but unfortunately they're currently our sword of Damocles (well, OK, them and all the other christian radicals).


"If you ever encounter such a person please try to understand his motives and perhaps ignoring him would be the kindest thing one could do."

I pity those I meet who seem to always view the glass as half empty. One can never truly have compassion for those who both verbally & anonymously attack people for no reason, but you are correct....A Long-Distance Troll is probably banned on their own community's message boards and so has to "amuse themselves" at our expense, by lurking on ours. How shall we ignore his hateful comments when there is no "IGNORE" button like on some boards...(When he pops up with nasty jabs on any subject he cares to insert himself into?)


There has been discussion and comparisons (by some) between Limbaugh's pattern of comments, due to and his latest misogynist words of wisdom and Bill Maher's pattern of comments. I ran across this, "Four Questions for Bill Maher", Web Link , and thought I'd put it up.


^^^ "Four Questions for Bill Maher", ^^^

Bill Maher rationalizing his foul mouth. Big surprise. I hope you aren't buying it.

But the hypocrisy doesn't lie with Bill Maher. It lies with those that think it's fine to say what Limbaugh did (and much worse) so long as conservative women are the target.


Thanks for bringing that to our attention, George. Maher is a Prince and a fine entertainer, not at all like that awful Rush Limbaugh. When he calls a woman a "C," it is for a good and valid reason.

I love this thread. It is childishness brought to a new level. It is a good thing that what is going on here is not that terrible "back and forth." Clay doesn't tolerate that.


Bill Maher is a no talent and disgusting man. I wish he would lose his advertisers.


"It is childishness brought to a new level." A new level indeed, Barnus.

Check this out:

Web Link "Rush Limbaugh Syndicator Suspends National Ads For Two Weeks" &

Web Link "Rush Limbaugh Could Bring Millions To Sirius XM: But At What Cost?"

Almost has the smell of the "Too big to fail" bailout, where we witnessed company after company Rewarded for their bad behavior with a little boost from us taxpayers.

Who really won there? and who really wins here?


No doubt this is off topic now that the discourse has devolved with its usual Talkabout predictability. 

Re: the supposed "war" on women--a couple of things you will not see in the good ol'  unbiased (sic) MSM--

Article:

Web Link

YouTube video:

Web Link


Be careful, RP. Presenting irrefutable facts in support of an alternative point of view is considered "hateful" and "filthy" 'round these parts.

Thanks for the links, especially the latter. That young lady understands that fertility is a gift that doesn't need "fixing."


"Bill Maher is a no talent and disgusting man. I wish he would lose his advertisers"

Now that is funny (and ill-informed) Bill Maher appears on HBO and he has no sponsors.

"George. Maher is a Prince and a fine entertainer, not at all like that awful Rush Limbaugh. When he calls a woman a "C," it is for a good and valid reason."

"Barnus" can you locate for me on this or any other thread where that type of comment is made?


Boney

I believe the part about Bill Maher was quoted in the Link that George

Provided above - "There has been discussion and comparisons (by some) between Limbaugh's pattern of comments, due to and his latest misogynist words of wisdom and Bill Maher's pattern of comments. I ran across this, "Four Questions for Bill Maher", Web Link , and thought I'd put it up."


Yet one more look and assessment: "The Body Politic: This campaign needs more women and less gynecology", Web Link , written by Virginia Heffernan for Yahoo news.


Good link, George. I think many women could agree with Heffernan, in part at least (my opinion of course). And those of us of the female persuasion are not the airheads some misguided (and very naive) marketers might think. 

Here's what a certain group of men recently stated. (And don't give me that hoohah about "what do they know" because there ARE women behind the scenes.)

"...we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive... This is not about the Bishops’ somehow 'banning contraception,' when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago .."

Please see Web Link to read this in context. 


Boney, ----- Cid is correct. The article linked by George inspired my comment. I don’t know why George linked it. Perhaps he believes that the comments made by Limbaugh are awful and those made by Maher were OK in the circumstances. Perhaps he just wanted to point out the inconsistency of the responses to Limbaugh and to Maher.

In any event, in the article, Maher argues that his calling Ms. Palin a C was OK because he, Maher, is a comedian and a potty mouth and doesn’t have any commercial sponsors – so what is wrong with his calling Ms. Palin a C?

Ms. Palin isn’t the only victim of his “humor,” by the way. He once joked about the potential sales value of Hillary’s C.

It is true that Maher does not have commercial sponsors. He does have a very nice, lucrative gig with HBO however, which he uses to minimize, demean and insult women. Should we all write to HBO and insist that they drop him – try to take away his livelihood as you have advocated for Rush?


"Should we all write to HBO and insist that they drop him – try to take away his livelihood as you have advocated for Rush? "

Barnus, I believe you are a big enough boy to do what you think is best. Usually what I do is simply not watch someone who offends me, but you can decide what you want to do. If I decided to write and demand his resignation, that is what I would do. If I really felt strongly, I would encourage others to do the same. And frankly it would be none of your business. I am certain you would not want my 1st Amendment Rights curtailed.

And if you do not believe there is a war on women by the Republican Party check out the number of laws that have been introduced in the last year to eliminate both birth control (declared legal 47 years ago) and abortion rights (declared legal 45 years ago).

The last number I saw was 96.


Here is one of the latest Texas war on women

Web Link


The Arizona Republicans have a great new plan

Web Link


This was just too choice not to share: "After Giving Limbaugh a Bye, Romney Blasts Maher" Web Link


I know I shouldn't touch this topic... But, this is not a war on women. This is not going to make me very popular... Women are being cast as surrogate scapegoats for larger issues.

As god's chosen people how could we have fallen on such tough economic times? We watched as George W. Bush(laisse faire) and then Barak Obama(hopeful progressive) whimped out to threats of the country degenerating into chaos and bailed out the too big to fail. Long held political principles? Moral hazard? Out the window. Holding the guilty responsible? Bernie Madoff. Think the banks are insolvent and want to bet against them? No way. The two people that were the major contributors to the crisis(Bernanche and Geitner) will print as much money as it take to make sure every crooked bank is solvent. Paul Volker? Obama sent him fishing. GS's Blankfein claiming to be doing "god's work" (blasphemy?) screws customers and country alike, with complete indifference, while shuffling his feet at the Fed discount window borrowing taxpayer dollars for free to exploit the spread on Geitner's T bills. Meanwhile the regional banks, that did nothing wrong, get Graham Dodd regulation, while the national banks slap fees on their customers. 20% function unemployment. Foreclosures. The best and brightest graduating with no job prospects and $80K in debt. Ahead of us? A decade long slog along the bottom, while the rest of the world eats our lunch or lets us fight their wars for them. ... and where's the moral outrage?

Rationally, no viable presidential candidate can solve America's financial problems or operate outside the wishes of the 1%.

So, what Rick Sanctimonious offers us is displaced moral outage. Let's stone some women and perhaps that will placate god(singular), we will again be god's favored people and our economic outlook will improve? Sound outrageous? Of course. Politics today is about emotion, not rationality or even political correctness.

Rush Limbaugh is in attempting to turn himself into a shock jock like Howard Stern. Howard Stern self classifies himself as a comedian to dodge the misogyny label. Ignore Limbaugh and he will disappear to a satellite channel.

Bill Maher can't tell the same jokes as Sarah Silverman? Come on. I bet only 30% of the US population gets Sarah Silverman's shtick. Both Maher and Silverman poke fun at political correctness.

But, the best comedian in the whole world is Mahomoud Ahmadineejad. He's got the job Jon Stewart can only dream about. Can you imagine being the front man comedian for a bunch of conservative mullahs with complete free reign to tell any joke he wants about the most powerful nation in the world and the rest of the western world?


The Republican Party’s defense of Sara Palin’s incredible ignorance of world history and global affairs is scary. This astounding lack of knowledge of world affairs in someone who ran for the Vice Presidency of the United States and who has traveled the nation campaigning for the aggressive use of US military power on a world she does not understand is sure utter insanity.

Detailed knowledge of world history and current political tensions is not a topic everyone person understands deeply or is even interested in understanding. The idea of a Renaissance intellect, someone who is expert on every topic, is mythical. No one has that breath of knowledge. But someone running for highest political offices in America, the Vice Presidency or Presidency, must be a specialist when it comes to world affairs. They will certainly have many expert advisors when elected to these offices, but they need to be knowledgeable enough to know who are the real experts. Palin does not.

Yahoo political defenders of the Republican Party candidates don’t understand this difference. They have are defending the ignorance and gaps in fundamental world knowledge of the latest group of Republican Presidential candidates as if this ignorance has no consequences. The conservative right insists that reports of this ignorance, whether reported in the news or as political jokes, are snobbery or worse. This reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of the press in democracy.

The Republican Party and its apologists are forgiving and defending the vicious insult Rush Limbaugh used to describe a law student speaking for a woman’s right to access to birth control. The inference that any unmarried woman who uses birth control must need it exclusively for recreational purposes is as ignorant as it is sick. This inference based upon an imagined intrusion into someone’s private life applies equally to married women. In both cases it justifies the desire of these ultra right wing fanatics to control other peoples behavior and to define acceptable behavior according to their right wing narrow views.

Americans with our tradition of individualism, equality, and the entrepreneurial spirit should identify these voices on the ultra right as contrary to what has made this nation great. We should see these actions as a war on women, a war on knowledge, and a war on the freedom.


^^^ Americans with our tradition of individualism, equality, and the entrepreneurial spirit ... ^^^

That describes constitutional conservatives, not the progressives you idolize.


HoneyBader must not have heard about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Who does he have in mind as great job creating entrepreners? MItt Romney? Romney's record at Bain Capital was to salvage profits by laying off workers.

Romney dismissed Limbaugh's attack on women and made light of Maher's comedic commentary on Palin's celebration of ignorance. Which author of the Constitution does HoneyBader imagine would agree with him: Franklin, Hamilton, or Madison. Surely it would not be Madison who was the prime mover behind the separation of church from state. That is a Constitutional principle the radical conservative right that controls the Republican Party seems to have forgotten or openly wants to repeal.


"Usually what I do is simply not watch someone who offends me"

- - - - - I guess I read it wrong. I thought sure it was you who posted a list of Rush's sponsers, suggested that they be contacted to encourage the ending of the sponsorship, and then kept us up to date on how many did just that.

By the way, I understand that Michelle is scheduled to appear on the Letterman show. You remember David Letterman? He was the fellow that advised us that Sarah palin's little girl was in the Yankee dugout getting knocked up. He later explained by way of an apology that the advice was just a joke. I guess Michelle thinks it was funny.

Maybe a little girl getting knocked up is funny - like major contributers calling a woman a C. I'm probably just losing my sense of humor.


"Warren Buffett" - - - - - Do you mean that rich guy who just won't pay his taxes?


"Here is one of the latest Texas war on women"

"Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year."

- - - - - Now THAT'S what I call a war on women. The Texas officials are floundering amatures compared to the present administration when it comes to waging war on women.

The Texas officials said we don't want tp pay for birth control or abortions sought by reason of having fun - and the Administration comes back with: "Oh yeah, well we are going to let them die of cancer - that'll teach you." (Paraphrase)


"The Arizona Republicans have a great new plan"

- - - - - Well, I guess that you believe that Arizona legislators and employers who feel that taxpayers should not have to pay for recreational sex without personal responsibility are waging war on women on the theory that recreational sex is a medical issue.

As I pointed out in another thread - free pills will be a disaster for women's health. It will discourage the use of condoms and thereby contribute to the spread of disease at a time when antibiotics are becoming ineffective. I guess policies that will lead to the the inabilty to bear children, suffering and death of women are just fine if the Party can get some votes out of it.


"As I pointed out in another thread - free pills will be a disaster" for women's health" Perhaps you are not aware of the current "free pill" policies.

Web Link

"The Texas officials said we don't want tp pay for birth control or abortions sought by reason of having fun - and the Administration comes back with: "Oh yeah, well we are going to let them die of cancer - that'll teach you." (Paraphrase"

This is one of the least informed statements on this or perhaps and other subject. You obviously either did not read the article or did not comprehend it. The problem has nothing to do with birth control or abortions. The problem is that the Texas law attempts to mandate where women go for their health care. You also probably did not notice that they knew in advance what was going to happen when they asked the same thing of the Bush administration in 2000.

"- - - - - I guess I read it wrong. I thought sure it was you who posted a list of Rush's sponsers, suggested that they be contacted to encourage the ending of the sponsorship, and then kept us up to date on how many did just that"

No, your read it correctly. You simply decided to ignore the rest of the statement which said "...If I decided to write and demand his resignation, that is what I would do. If I really felt strongly, I would encourage others to do the same. And frankly it would be none of your business. I am certain you would not want my 1st Amendment Rights curtailed."

It is still none of your business.


^^^ Romney's record at Bain Capital was to salvage profits by laying off workers. ^^^

That's the liberal spin, anyway. And good enough for all goose-stepping leftists.

The entire narrative you're trying to peddle is false. And it only plays to the choir. Most Americans, particularly independents, know it's a false narrative.

There may be a "War on Women," but our entire culture now derides women in positions of power: Web Link


From the link provided by HoneyBadger--

"The problem is the coarsening of discourse in public life."

Amen.

I don't get out much. Do guys tip their hats any more? Does the younger generation even know what that IS?


"Perhaps you are not aware of the current "free pill" policies"

- - - - - If your link says anything that contradicts my post, I missed it. It has to do with prescription drugs and devices. The only device that will prevent the spresd of disease is a condom - non prescription.

"This is one of the least informed statements on this or perhaps and other subject"

- - - - - I should have read the article more carefully. However, but for the details, my point remains. Texas said no to planned parenthood - the administration said in that case you get nothing at all and women can just suffer for it. Who is waging war?

I take your explanation/denial to mean that it was in fact you who posted a list of Rush's sponsers, suggested that they be contacted to encourage the ending of the sponsorship, and then kept us up to date on how many did just that.

Perhaps you should post a list of Letterman's sponsers with similar comments. Perhaps we should all write to Mr. & Mrs Obama to remind them of Letterman's "joke" and express puzzlement that, in the circumstances, Mrs. Obama would agree to appear on his show.


And now the latest from Wisconsin. Prohibiting women from buying insurance on the open market covering abortion. Does anyone care that abortion is legal. Just as legal and for the same reason private gun ownership is legal and corporations are people too -- because the Supreme Court said so.

Web Link

" I should have read the article more carefully. However, but for the details, my point remains. Texas said no to planned parenthood - the administration said in that case you get nothing at all and women can just suffer for it. Who is waging war?"

I guess you need to read it again. HHS is saying today the same thing they said in the year 2000.

"Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year."

"Perhaps you should post a list of Letterman's sponsers with similar comments"

I choose not to, but I would support your right or the right of any other citizen to do so.


K. This is ridiculous. The conservatives (mostly the men, but including many of the conservative women) honest-to-their-god believe Eve is the culprit. Simple as that. Keep 'em necked and in the kitchen, unless something better comes up, and don't listen to what they say...

There is anti-women discrimination rampant in this stupidly-conservative country disguised as a religious concept. Stop It Now!


Quizzically shaking head. (Do these guys really know any women? Or better, do these guys know any real women?)


This is the Warren Buffett I referred to in my comment above, see Web Link. This is the Warren Buffett who is one of the five wealthiest men in the world today, who is extraordinarily generous and has joined with Bill Gates in philanthropy, who believes that his taxes are ridiculously low and that they should be raised for the good of the nation. Must be some other Buffett that Barnus has in mind.

Barnus claimed above that free medications will increase the prevalence of disease not lower it. This view contradicts the evidence. For example, Polio, a disease that crippled a President, was eradicated when the government provided free vaccines for everyone in the 1950's. Many lives have been saved or spared the hardships imposed on individuals who have suffered this disease. The cost savings is also substantial.

Reproductive health has been singled out by Republicans to be denied to women who rely on government programs. Republicans also support employers who want to deny their employees the right to participate in health insurance programs that offer the full spectrum of reproductive health services including family planning and birth control. In every case the employee's have earned the right to participate in these insurance programs with their labor and the services they provide to their employer. These employers, aided by the Republican Party, are in effect limiting how these employees can apply the compensation they have earned, limiting what services they can purchase with it. This is both a war on women and a restriction on individual freedom.


Birth control and abortion are very volatile topics touching all countries, cultures, and religions on earth. Each country, culture, and religion address this topic in their own ways.

Rather that characterize the laws and practices of the 195+ or - countries and their states and sub-sections, and the innumerable cultures and religions (current and past) on this matter, let me try a different macro-approach. Please respond to Talkabout with your position on each @ for the policy that you believe is correct for the USA..

Abortion is OK for___: Meaning:(Please provide your answer for each @ question)

@What age, 10-88 1/2

@What term of pregnancy, 0- 36th week

@With parent's approval, yes or no

@For citizens and/or for aliens or undocumented "workers", Y/N for country of residence Or country of citizenship

@For incest, Abortion OK OR Not OK

@For Rape, Abortion OK OR not OK

AND @Who Pays, Country of residence OR Aborter OR country of Citizenship

Finally, a few graphic details for your consideration.

Wikipedia Ref for late term abortions Web Link

Live Birth Abortions Ref

Web Link

Talkabout is interested in your responses.

B Frank


What "B.Frank's" or anyone elses opinion on abortion is really irrelevant. The Supreme Cour has spoken. They say that the Constitution says women have a right to get an abortion anytime prior to the 3rd Trimester of pregnancy.

" The Supreme Court held that the "right to privacy," assured the freedom of a person to abort unless the state had a "compelling interest" in preventing the abortion. This was a 7-2 decision.

The Court then held that, though the state had an interest in protecting fetal life, this interest did not become "compelling" until "fetal viability" occurred in the third trimester of pregnancy."

So the questions you are posing are as silly as asking for opinions as to whether or not we should have slaves, or own guns, or if corporations, or if schools should be integrated.

They are all settled law. I chose not to view your "graphic details"


Dear Boney,

Apparently you are very well versed in the law, so would you be so kind as to answer my very simple questions above (without any graphic details) as though you were the Chief Justice. I am confused on questions of age, rape, incest, how trimester is defined, who bears the costs, which courts decide (and their criterion), parents approval...you know, the basic human question regarding life.

Thank you in advance.

I find this oh, so, confusing since I am not of the female persuasion, even though I am quite effeminate.

B Frank


If you are confused as to what a trimester is, you are beyond help. Ask your mother or your wife.


Oh goody, the Partisan Jim game! Everyone can play!

The Partisan Jim Game

"Reproductive health" is a euphemism used by Democrats to disguise the brutal reality of abortion. They do this to encourage women to remain barren or to become dependent on goverment, or both. Democrats want to deny employers their First Amendment rights and mandate what is covered in their employer-funded health insurance programs. Democrats recognize no limits on the power of federal government nor do they care about the cost of birth control and abortions services -- those can be passed on to future generations, if any. Democrats fabric rights for the "needy" to justify stealing from the most successful and hardest working American so the Democrats can keep the downtrodden dependent on government buy their votes. These Democrats have no respect for the US Constitution or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Democrat War Against our founding documents is a war on both men and women a restriction on individual freedom.


Frank is suggesting that the Conservative’s War on Women is about abortion. That is the kind of selective thinking that ignores the bigger issue of a woman’s right to manage her health and to plan her life. Access to medical care related to family planning and reproductive health is the issue here. Additional issues include a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work and reasonable treatment in the work place including maternity leave. Frank’s goal must be to expand this topic, so lets consider where he is going.

Frank’s suggestion that the rest of the world’s nations and their treatment of women should be surveyed and recorded so that some sort of lowest common denominator standard could be deduced from this data is an appalling example of this repressive thinking. Does Frank think that how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Zimbabwe in any way should inform their treatment here in the United States?

We are the nation based upon principles of equality, liberty, and democracy. Our values are changing the world. This is the reason for American Exceptionalism. These uniquely American ideals have been expressed in our Declaration of Independence and codified into law in our Constitution.

Frank’s suggestion that a standard for how to treat American women should be based on a survey of nations that include Afghanistan and Somalia, two nation’s whose values are rooted in the middle ages, should be rejected as absurd. Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of backward looking repressive reasoning that characterizes this radical ultra right wing component of the Republican Party that now dominates its policies and goals. The War on Women is the tip of a repressive iceberg of stone-age values and thinking.


HoneyBader's concept of liberty is as confined and removed from reality as his views on what America stands for among nations. Limiting choice and freedom is the opposite of liberty. Placing arbitrary constraints on woman's rights to determine her future is a giant step backwards towards the values of the middle ages.


"


It is intellectually dishonest to equate opposition to federal funding of abortions and contraceptives to a desire to return to the middle ages. It is also intellectually dishonest to grossly misrepresent the views of others to create a canard to make a point. Yet Jim Larimer does all those things so he can make the false claim that there is a Republican "war on women."

It's as though he studied for years to excel at explaining away something as obvious as the nose on his face.

What he considers "enlightenment" is actually ignus fatuus. His is a dim light that divides Americans for political advantage. His is a dim light that presumes we get our rights and liberty from government.

And that's all there is to Jim -- he's a font of intellectual dishonesty to promote government power at the expense of individual liberty.


"Reproductive health" is a euphemism used by Democrats to disguise the brutal reality of abortion"

For the totally ill informed, here is a short dissertation on reproductive health. Web Link


"This is the Warren Buffett who is one of the five wealthiest men in the world today, who is extraordinarily generous and has joined with Bill Gates in philanthropy, who believes that his taxes are ridiculously low and that they should be raised for the good of the nation.

- - - - - - WOW! What a prince! Wouldn't you think that a man that wonderful in every way would pay his taxes and quit lobbying to raise the taxes of folk who actually pay their taxes?

"Barnus claimed above that free medications will increase the prevalence of disease not lower it. This view contradicts the evidence. For example, Polio, a disease that crippled a President, was eradicated when the government provided free vaccines for everyone in the 1950's."

- - - - - GOOD GRIEF! That is about the silliest thing you have posted yet - Just when I believed that you had hit your peak and couldn't go any higher. Polio, by the way, is a disease - pregnancy is not a disease. By the way, again, polio has not been eradicated. Distributing free polio vaccine did not encourage people to expose themselves and others to the spread of disease - for the sake of good times. Distributing free birth control pills will, by discouraging the use of condoms which is the only thing that we know of that will help the spread of disease by folk just having a good time. Ergo, Distributing Free birth control pills will facilitate the spread of disease at a time when treatment is loosing its eficacy and be a disaster for women's health and the health of everyone else for that matter - at the expense of innocent folk who would rather not be exposed to more disease and would rather not be required to pay for the good times enjoyed by others without having to bother with responsibility. Web Link

"Reproductive health has been singled out by Republicans - - - and - - -"

Yeah yeah yeah. Republicans are just horrible people who just want to harm other people - especially women. Of Course. The ogres. Maybe we should eradicate them - like polio.


^^^ For the totally ill informed, here is a short dissertation on reproductive health.^^^

Wow, another "look, a squirrel!" post by BB. What a profound effort to obfuscate a simple yet serious issue.

If you believe women should have access to free recreational contraceptives, then send financial support to any of the numerous private foundations and clinics that provide such products and services. You don't have to demand that Americans give up their first amendment rights for the conveniece of a few irresponsible women that think the only place to get contraceptives is from religious organizations opposed to their use for recreational purposes.


" The Supreme Court has spoken. They say that the Constitution says women have a right to get an abortion anytime prior to the 3rd Trimester of pregnancy."

- - - - - I'll go with Boney and the Supreme Court on this one even though the decision is a terrible decision for a number of reasons. Bad decision but a wonderful compromise that has worked well - for the most part. Good compromise - even though courts have no authority to compromise - but that is another issue. I am not being coy or sarcastic here. I think that the rule set down in Roe has worked out well - so well, in fact, that if Roe were overturned tomorrow the reversal would have little or no practical effect. If I have any concern about the decision it is that, in this day of open sesame to the human genome, it opens the door to eugenics. I suspect that, in the future, blue eyed blonds will become more common and that some folk who might have made a difference will not be born.

We are the nation based upon principles of equality, liberty, and democracy."

- - - - - Do those principles include the right of the government to force us to pay for other folk's feckless recreation? I gues that is what equality, liberty, and democracy are all about - pay what you are told to pay or go to prison.

"Limiting choice and freedom is the opposite of liberty."

- - - - - does that mean that not allowing folk to choose not to pay for the fun others wish to have without a nod to responsibility is the opposite of liberty? Does that mean that our freedom can and should be taken away if we choose to refrain from paying for other folk's recreational activities?


Of course we all believe in choice! Should men go through life with the facial hair bestowed upon them by the (so called)Creator or should they alter their appearance by hacking off the hair with a sharp instrument? Is this a personal choice or should we all be involved in deciding? (I think I heard that it has been ruled a "private" decision!)

Some want the decision to get rid of facial hair, once it's made, paid for by the government, the employer, Warren Buffet--anyone so long as it doesn't come out of the shavee's own pocket. 

To paraphrase Prof. Jim:

"Facial health has been singled out by Publicans Web Link to be denied to men who rely on government programs. Publicans also support employers who want to deny their employees the right to participate in health insurance programs that offer the full spectrum of facial health services including shaving, nick and ingrown hair control. In every case the employees have earned the right to participate in these insurance programs with their labor and the services they provide to their employer. These employers, aided by the Publican's Union, are in effect limiting how these employees can apply the compensation they have earned, limiting what services they can purchase with it. This is both a war on men and a restriction on individual freedom."

Here hear!


Mr Larimer, let me try this again,

For starters,you chose an inflammatory topic, even labeling the boogeyman, "Conservatives" in your title. I am a conservative and I chose to respond about your topic. I avoided your normal and obvious liberal vs conservative harangue, and I chose to talk about the world-wide situation about your topic. I did Not offer, as you stated, "Frank’s suggestion that the rest of the world’s nations and their treatment of women should be surveyed and recorded so that some sort of lowest common denominator standard could be deduced from this data is an appalling example of this repressive thinking"

Your unfair characterization of my comment is ludicrous, and mean spirited. (Perhaps you are posturing for the Nov 2012 election?)

So let frame my comments one more time.

The USA only comprises 5% of the world's population. The USA is a melting pot of all those component countries, races, cultures, and religions. My survey was a simple attempt to assess the range of values, cultures, and beliefs on "your" topic within the Talkabout community.

The USA has many laws regarding women, abortion, health, as well as many other topics. You and I each share first amendment rights. I respect your rights to all amendments. It is clear you do not reciprocate. I will not be intimidated by your rude assaults on my rights. You initiated the topic,

I exercised my right to express my opinion.

So let me end with your assessment of me "Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of backward looking repressive reasoning that characterizes this radical ultra right wing component of the Republican Party that now dominates its policies and goals. The War on Women is the tip of a repressive iceberg of stone-age values and thinking."

Surely you must realize that your attitude and tone destroys any hope of bi-partianship. That is not my hope, but clearly you want a fight on your topic in "your" arena. I remind you, I have rights and opinions as well, as do charlie, moe, and sue.

So, in closing, Mr Larimer, what is your opinion on face hair? especially government programs for the "the full spectrum of facial health services including shaving, nick and ingrown hair control"


A focus of the conservative’s war on women is a policy to make it legal for an employer who objects to some medical services and technologies to remove these from the health insurance coverage available to their employees. Conservatives justify this policy on three basic grounds: first, that the employer is being forced to pay for something regardless of their opinions or beliefs; secondly, that employees who agree with their employer’s beliefs are being forced to subsidize these services; and third, the services may not work.

The current hot spot in the conservative’s war on women, which now dominates the Republican Party’s agenda in this Presidential election year, is the belief that family planning and reproductive health is immoral. There can be no doubt that many people and institutions, both secular and non-secular, adamantly disagree with this belief. There is even ample survey evidence that this is a minority point of view.

Taking the third objection first, the claim that these services may not work, refuses to acknowledge that in the US all medical care is vetted by a process that is designed to eliminate treatments and services that have been found objectively to not provide the service claimed. In the case of vaccines, for example, they are tested for efficacy and for safety before being approved for use. It is commonsense and widely known that not all medical services work perfectly for every person, so when a vaccine or service does not provide the desired outcome for a single user that is not a reason to prohibit its use for all users or to make it harder to obtain.

The second objection raised in this war on women’s rights is that an employee who shares their employer’s beliefs about the particular healthcare services, in this case an employee who opposes the use of family planning and reproductive healthcare services, is being forced to subsidize their fellow workers who use these services. An insurance plan is a bet you make with the insurance company that you will need a particular service either by electing to use it or by medical necessity during the term of the policy. The insurance company is betting you will not require these services. Insurance companies make a profit on average so their bets are winning bets. The only service that any employee has purchased with a healthcare plan is the service they personally use.

The third objection is that the employer is being forced to provide a service they do not believe in. This too is a false analogy. The employer is not paying for the insurance; the employee, either directly or indirectly, has earned the money used to purchase healthcare insurance. The argument that the employer is being forced to buy something they find ethically immoral ignores the fundamental fact that the employees are paying for this coverage not the employer.

The conservative’s war on women’s rights, championed by the Republican Party, is not focused on healthcare alone; radical conservatives disagree with the majority of Americans, both secular and non-secular, on many aspects of a woman’s rights in society in general and in the work place in particular. These radical conservatives are using the political process to create policies that limit opportunities for women in the work force, oppose freedom of choice for women in how they live their lives, and deny that women today are paid less than men for the same work in the work place. Their desire to create policies that deny or make more costly reproductive health services for women should be seen in this broader context of the conservative’s denial of a women’s equal role in all aspects of American society.


There is no conservative war on women or any other kind of war on women. It is tempting to say the "War on Women" is a myth, but I refrain because it is not a myth. It is a lie. The "War on Women" is a big lie told in hopes of procuring votes from the uninformed.

It is not that everyone repeating the lie are themselves liars. Some buy without resistence or questioning every Party pronouncement. Some believe, honestly believe, that if it comes from the Party it is honest and correct. It is sort of an unspoken, unpublished infallibility doctrine.

Just about every conservative I know or have ever known, be they male or female or something else, loves women. Why wouldn't they?

I am sure that liberals love them as well - yet they seem inclined to use them towards their political ends. I suppose they don't understand that they are using them.


Defenders of the right don’t like words to mean what they mean. The dictionary definition of war includes: struggle; battle, skirmish, fight, clash, engagement, encounter, offensive, attack, campaign, hostilities and crusade. Pick whichever meaning you believe most closely resembles what is going on in the current Presidential campaign. To objective observers right wing Republican conservatives are “campaigning” with moralistic arguments similar to “crusades” to limit and restrict a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare. This is why calling it a war on women is justifiable.

When the political divide on this issue is made obvious, the tactic as Barnus illustrates above, is to suggest that those of us who claim this is war are liars. And when we point that out, they will accuse us of ad hominem instead of admitting to this tactic themselves.

This is a war on women and it is an attempt to place limits on individual choice and on liberty. Someone’s beliefs have no place in America limiting other people’s access to perfectly legal actions and services.


Perhaaps "Barnus" has a point. "War on women" does bring up some images that are not appropriate. I see it more as trying to bring women back to the teachings of the Bible. Like Paul said in his letter to the Corinthians:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Or as God spoke directly to Moses in the 10th Commandment saying that a man's wife was chattel just as his slaves were:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Or as so wonderfully spoken in 1 Timothy 2:11

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

So, we must keep in mind these devout Christian politicians are not waging war - they are bringing women into compliance with God'ss Law.

Can I have an Amen on that?


Rick Santorum was right. Conservatives can talk about social issues without launching a massive new government program to impose those beliefs on everyone else. Liberals can't hold any views near and dear without abusing the power of government to impose their belief system on everyone and power of the media to stifle any opposition.

And that is why liberals become so hysterical as we approach elections. Democrats fear Republicans because they believe the Republicans will abuse power and force everyone to bend to their will as Democrats did with Obamacare.

Democrats fear a war on women because that is what they themselves would do if they were the pro-life party.


"Conservatives can talk about social issues without launching a massive new government program to impose those beliefs on everyone else."

If that statement were not so ill informed and dangerous it would be really funny.

There have been nearly 100 new legislative acts proposed in the last two years in republican controlled state legislatures and The US House of Representatives and Senate to limit, restrict, eliminate, or control women's access to birth control and abortion services.

Web Link


"Republican conservatives are “campaigning” with moralistic arguments similar to “crusades” to limit and restrict a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare."

1) do you mean Republican conservatives as opposed to Democrat conservatives - or Republican conservatives as opposed to Republican liberals?

2) Are morals bad?

3) What is reproductive healthcare? Birth control pills used to make recreational sex possible without responsibility have nothing to do with healthcare. Unprotected sex spreads disease - it doesn't cause it. Further - as is obvious and as I have explained - free birth control pills will encourage and thereby be very bad for anyone engaging in unprotected sex. Only condoms can protect against the spread of sexually transmitted disease - and they are not perfect. Free pills will discourage the use of condoms. Shining the light on these facts does not equate to War on Women. Shining the light on facts is good for women's health - not bad. Why do some want to keep the facts away from women? Isn't that a War om Women?

4) Who, specifically, wants to "limit and restrict a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare." Do you mean some specific, named people, or everyone who does not agree with you, or only conservative Republicans who do not agree with you? Are you sure that you are not confusing a reluctance to saddle people with the cost of recreational birth control pills or to force religious people to pay for the pills even though it is against their religion with wanting to restrict access.

I wish that you and others could understand that forcing taxpayers and insurance buyers to pay for recreator's pills has nothing to do with restricting access. The program to push those costs on to people is no more than the creation of still another entitlement which has the additional advantages to the pushers of making it possible to create an entitlement while screaming and hollering that anyone who questions the program is "waging War on Women. That, of course, however clever it is, is dishonest.


"Rick Santorum was right." Was he/ is he right to advance his (alleged) religious views into politics, into the political fight for his own nomination?

"Santorum renews promise to root out obscene pornography", Web Link Is this another "right" move by Santorum?

With all of the very real issues facing America today, along with all of the very serious issues we see going forward, is it 'Presidential' to pander so heavily to the special interests when so many other very real, day to day issues exist that need vetting and solutions?

He, like the rest, is just prostituting his candidacy in the hopes that he hits all the segments within the "party" to capture every vote possible to win.

In other words, he is no better nor worse than any or all of his current competitors in that he is being "handled" rather than handling his own campaign - addressing and looking for solutions, real solutions to real problems that need to be clearly identified, discussed and resolved.

Aren't there enough real issues to chose from and lead on? I don't see the need nor benefit of creating issues, issues based on deep personal beliefs that are both personal and emotion filled as a surrogate for leading America out of the malaise we currently struggle with.

And that is what we see; creating emotional 'outrage' or 'sympathy' on matters that are insignificant or have no standing in actual day to day, year to year critical issues that we face as a nation replacing the plethora of very real issues that threaten our nation now, and into the foreseeable future.

I don't know...call me crazy...but I want to see a real leader, someone that cuts the wheat from the shaft, has a clear vision of a better America, and has a plan - a real and workable plan to move us forward by not only solving our real current issues, but also by envisioning what it will take to move us forward.

Unfortunately, I don't see one in this race. Maybe next time.


HoneyBadger’s logic is once again flawed and backwards. Rick Santorum and his supporters on the conservative right are trying to use the power of government to take away or restrict a woman’s choices regarding reproductive health. They are attempting to limit the range of healthcare solutions, all perfectly legal, that a woman can select or purchase insurance to guarantee. No person who opposes this conservative agenda has advocated for a mandate to force anyone to use these solutions. The choice to use family planning and reproductive healthcare solutions is entirely up to the individual.

There is no analogy between requiring all healthcare insurance providers to include reproductive healthcare and family planning as a covered service in their policies and forcing anyone to use these covered services. That is a red herring issue.

The recent national healthcare legislation, similar to legislation enacted in Massachusetts while Mitt Romney was the Governor, has the goal of lowering the cost of healthcare in all of the US as it has already in Massachusetts. One of the reasons healthcare is more expensive on average in the US today is that it is not universal. Many Americans do not have healthcare insurance and therefore cannot afford healthcare when an expensive health issue arises. Preventative care and the management of chronic illness both require easy access to healthcare on a national scale to effectively reduce the total cost of healthcare. This legislation will expand insurance coverage; it does not require that anyone use it.

Mitt Romney has been criticized by this fellow conservative Republicans for his role in enacting healthcare legislation in Massachusetts. These same critics oppose a woman’s right to access reproductive healthcare services under the recently enacted national healthcare insurance legislation. All of this is a conservative political effort to restrict other people’s behavior and to make that behavior conform to norms that these conservatives deem proper. All of the assertions about recreational use of these healthcare services underscores their real agenda to control what other people do regardless of whether it is legal or proper.


The answer to Barnus's question above, "Are morals bad?" is another question.

Mr. Barnus do you enjoy beating your wife?

Barnus can have whatever opinion he desires on the behaviors couples engage in privately. Labeling some of the private interactions people have as recreational because he thinks they are is as sick as it is silly just like his question about morality.

To be perfectly clear Barnus, no one should be expected to answer a question like "Do you enjoy beating your wife?" it is not a real question just because it ends with a question mark.


"Republican conservatives are “campaigning” with moralistic arguments similar to “crusades” to limit and restrict a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare."

"1) do you mean Republican conservatives as opposed to Democrat conservatives - or Republican conservatives as opposed to Republican liberals?"

I use the term conservative to describe the people who have proposed nearly 100 laws in the last 2 years to limit women's ability to access abirth control and abortion services.

These people include the Republican portion of the US House of Representatives, the Republican portion of the US Senate (minus 1), The Govenors and Legislatures of New Hapmshire, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. I may have missed another one or two.

So, if you object to them being called Republicans, or Conservative Republicans, please let us know what term you would prefer. They all do, however, refer to themselves as Conservative Republicans.


"War on women" does bring up some images that are not appropriate.” Like this? Web Link

BTW - are we now going to start a war on the Bible?

-

-

What George said.

-

-

"There have been nearly 100 new legislative acts proposed in the last two years in republican controlled state legislatures and The US House of Representatives and Senate to limit, restrict, eliminate, or control women's access to birth control and abortion services" (Link provided)

- - - - Boney, first, there is a big difference between abortion and birth control pills. As you pointed out elsewhere – access to abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court.

2nd - I'll bet that to the extent that there are such bills, they talk to who pays rather than access.

3rd I couldn't find reference to that number in the article you linked.

4th - the article is nothing but a dishonest, sarcastic hit piece. The kind that there is far too much of (of which there is far too much?) It contains this wording "But a crackdown on women’s rights, once mainly confined to the crazy Southern states, is now under way all over the place, with many locales vying in the Which State Can Best Demean Women Sweepstakes." No intelligent person can take such an article seriously.

5th - the article states: "Consider Sandra Fluke, the law student labeled a hooker by Rush Limbaugh. Fluke’s supporters stress that she was pained by a friend who had ovarian cysts that could have been prevented by birth control. Meanwhile, in Arizona, a female mental health worker testified that she needed contraception to treat endometriosis." It is quite impossible, of course, to know if Fluke’s friend’s cysts would or would not have been prevented by birth control. If the friend was a student at Georgetown and had bought into the school’s health insurance program, it would have paid for birth control pills prescribed to treat the condition and probably to prevent the condition if the friend’s overall health was such as to indicate that the pills were needed. Also, of course, birth control pills can be very inexpensive and there is no reason why the friend could not have bought them if she felt that she needed them. The whole episode had nothing to do with access. As to the female health worker in Arizona – I could find no information on her testimony – but, if she needed contraception – what was stopping her from utilizing contraception?


“They are attempting to limit the range of healthcare solutions, all perfectly legal, that a woman can select or purchase insurance to guarantee.”

- - - - - Wrong. Simply incorrect. There is, however a concern regarding coercing employers, particularly employers who find certain aspects to be against their religion, to pay for it. As an aside, that is unconstitutional and the SC will almost certainly say so.

"There is no analogy between requiring all healthcare insurance providers to include reproductive healthcare and family planning as a covered service in their policies and forcing anyone to use these covered services. That is a red herring issue." - - - - - I'll say. In fact you are the only person that I know of or have heard of that ever raised the issue. It is indeed a red herring.

"The recent national healthcare legislation, similar to legislation enacted in Massachusetts while Mitt Romney was the Governor, has the goal of lowering the cost of healthcare in all of the US as it has already in Massachusetts.”

- - - - - It will increase the cost of healthcare while reducing the quality thereof. Everybody knows that. It has already been determined that it will cost almost twice as much as promised, and that is just the beginning - the number will double again

"This legislation will expand insurance coverage"

- - - - - Wrong. It will shrink insurance for healthcare - drastically - fatally sometimes.

"Mitt Romney has been criticized by this fellow conservative Republicans for his role in enacting healthcare legislation in Massachusetts. These same critics oppose a woman’s right to access reproductive healthcare services under the recently enacted national healthcare insurance legislation."

- - - - - Wrong - wrong - wrong. Why can't you discern the difference between access and payment? They are not the same.


The War On Religion, The War On Terror, The War On Drugs, The War On Poverty, The War To End All Wars, The War To Make The World Safe For Democracy, The Mother Of All Battles, The Culture Wars, The Clash Of Civilizations, and The Good War Against Whatever are all slogans meant to Gin Up Controversy and motivate the team.

Like the above long but abbreviated list, The War Against Women is nonsensical sloganeering more about branding than conveying useful information.

First, everybody knows that if employers can deny coverage for Birth Control to women based on moral objections that they can deny coverage for Viagra and all other medical treatment for erectile dysfunction to men who are not having sex in a manner that the employer finds to be OK per her code.

Second, everybody knows that Republicans such as Ron Paul are down with employers who would deny coverage of any sort to the partner in a mixed race relationship because it against the laws of nature. Not saying they would themselves do it, not saying that they believe it, and not saying they would think it a good idea. Just saying.

Third, there are literally dozens of examples of where Republicans have expressed both dismay and bemusement with Democrats who haven't figured out that if employers can pick and choose what they will cover based on moral objections that that means employers who object to the ownership of Guns can impose restriction on health coverage accordingly. Google it up, there are plenty of Republicans who are pointing this out.

Fourth, this concept, that the moral quandaries of employers trump Fed and State imposed requirements regarding health care policies, can be used to deny coverage to Tobacco Users, Beer Drinkers, Meat Eaters, and those caught violating the prohibition against consuming table grapes. Chavez!!

Fifth, a little noticed side story to all this WAW Hoo Hah is that Rastafarians, who are all in a tizzy with the prospect Gania based healthcare, Faith Healers who pray for riders in policies that will reimburse them for services rendered, and the NRA who envisions a reduction in healthcare costs if every citizens were required to own a gun, have formed a Super Pac devoted to advancing the notion that an employer has the right to inflict any moral agenda he sees fit in return for the job. I found a link to their theme tune: -- Web Link

War On Women? Give us a break.


"I use the term conservative to describe the people who have proposed nearly 100 laws in the last 2 years to limit women's ability to access abirth control and abortion services."

- - - - - There is that 100 laws again. I searched for something on that - couldn't find anything. Help!


Google Search One:

"bills aimed at planned parenthood"

Web Link


Google Search Two:

"bills against birth control access"

Web Link


Google Search Three:

"bills against viagra"

Web Link


Google Search Four

"bills against vasectomies"

Web Link


Google Search Five:

"bills against male enhancment"

Web Link


Google Search Six:

"bills against sex"

Web Link


Guys & Cid,

I find it fascinating that of the dozens of postings on this topic, only one is by a woman, that would be you, Cid. I also note that many of the comments touch on who is going to pay the costs for the "health" or "sex" or whatevuh received by the recipients. The range of said health or sex coverages is limitless in many ways and degrees.

So far in this topic I see no mention of payment for transgender operations or for mutilations or for tattoos or for piercings, but in time, I would expect outrage by liberals if any conceivable "health" or "sex" concept is not paid for by our government (me & you).

Once upon a time, a woman, In 1964 Ayn Rand wrote a book "The Virtue of Selfishness" Has anyone read it?

Perhaps Mr Larimer has opened up the proverbial can of worms with this topic. If no liberal will draw a line in the sand, other limits of resources, credulity, morals, values, religions, cultures, and yes, even common sense, inevitably come to the fore. But, as we know, Mr Larimer at that time will leap to the stage and blame Conservatives for _whatevuh____.


John Charles - you are starting to appear to be just as confused as some other poster. I checked your links. I could find no reference to bills that: limited women's access to planned parenthood --- limited access to birth control --- limited access to viagra --- limited access to male enhancement - whatever that is --- limited access to vasectomies - which. I believe has nothing to do with women's access to reproductive health care --- limited access to sex. Maybe you are pointing out that folk who can't stand the idea of people enjoying themselves are, when all is said and done - equal opportunity party poopers?


"Once upon a time, a woman, In 1964 Ayn Rand wrote a book "The Virtue of Selfishness" Has anyone read it?

- - - - - Not me. Is it still in print? Is it fiction or an essay? I read Atlas Shrugged at a time when I was young and a flaming liberal. I thought it was one of the best stories I had ever read. I guess the philosophy rolled right off of my back like rainwater.


@B Frank a resident from a community outside the area

"Guys & Cid,

I find it fascinating that of the dozens of postings on this topic, only one is by a woman, that would be you, Cid."

Perhaps you should read more carefully, B Frank.


"- - - - Boney, first, there is a big difference between abortion and birth control pills. As you pointed out elsewhere – access to abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court."

As have contraceptives in the 1965 Supreme Court Decision Griswold v Connecticut.

Web Link


I neglected to add that the decision was expanded to cover unmarried people in the Supreme Court decision Eisenstadt v Baird

Web Link


leader led.ir : noun

1) a person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country

2) the principal player in a music group

3) Brit. a leading article or editorial in a newspaper

4) a short strip of nonfunctioning material at each end od a reel of film or recording tape for connection to the spool

5) a shoot pf a plant at the apex of a stem or main branch

6) (leaders) printing a series of dots or dashes across the page to guide the eye, esp. in tabulated material

leadership lead.er.ship: noun

1) the action of leading a group of people or an organization

2) guidance, direction control, management, superintendence, supervision, organization, government

3) directorship, governorship, administration, captaincy (maybe my fav), ascendancy, supremacy, rule, command domination, influence

from Wiki; Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".

Now, with that, I feel compelled to ask: is there a leader in the bunch; a Real Leader?

There is a very wide gap between running for an public office for the perks, telling us what we might want to hear and using the voters to get there versus running for office to find, study and resolve critical issues and provide a real and realistic approach to our future (in this case) as a nation - and our role in an ever shrinking world.

Personally, I see more than enough of the prior, and a severe lack of the later.

In the meantime, we would probably be better served to view this election cycle like so many before it: as entertainment. It's not until the day after the election that we will know which of the current bunch will hold the office of President. We do know, however, that whomever it may be, we are in it deep for at least another 4 years - and we can ill-afford the lapse and waste of time.


As have contraceptives in the 1965 Supreme Court Decision Griswold v Connecticut.

So - it really has nothing to do with access, does it?


"I neglected to add that the decision was expanded to cover unmarried people in the Supreme Court decision Eisenstadt v Baird"

The Griswold decision is one of those that I find to be bothersom. Legally, it is a terrible decision - one wherin the justices read into the Constitution a thing that reasonable folk could find there by any stretch. It was not a rendering of the law - it was an usurpation of the law by 6 justices that took it unto themselves to change the law by denying the Constitution. Penumbras indeed.

On the other hand - I like the result.

Of course married couples SHOULD have the right to practice birth control in any manner that doesn't harm others. And, per "Eisenstadt," if they have that right there is no rational reason to withhold the same right from others.

My concern is that whenever justices take it upon themselves to change the law by defying the law, the bottom line is that the Constitution is chipped away at and, ultimately, rights are lost. That is why of all the practices I despise, the appointment of judges and justices based on party loyalty is the worst. They should be chosen based on their ability and willingness to put their philosophy aside when deciding cases. I like to think it it was done that way at one time. I don't see it being done that way again in the forseeable future. No one seems to care. Appointing judges and justices is all part of the political game.


Suzanne--

Maybe we're supposed to be flattered to be considered "one of the guys"?

Or perhaps they don't realize that this is what we put up with every day!


Oh gee - I hope it is obvious that I meant "could not find there ---"


OMG.

Is Rosemary Potatoes a woman????


"OMG.

Is Rosemary Potatoes a woman????

B Frank, a resident of a community outside of the area, 6 minutes ago"

Are you?

As a writer you might have heard of, Ayn Rand, said repeatedly "Check your premises."


...you are starting to appear to be just as confused as some other poster.

Nah Barnus, just showing links to bills some politicos are trying to make hay with. I see what you are getting at and I agree. There is no War Against Women. The phrase is just for branding purposes. Just as there is no War On Religion, there is no War On Women. Access to Abortion, Contraception, or Male Enhancement is being denied to nobody.

I feel you man. I see where you are coming from. You are preaching to the choir on this one. These stupid catch phrases, War On Women, War On Terror, War On Poverty, War On Drugs, War on Religion, and on and on are meant for people who are too lazy or stupid to think things through for them selves.

But do you not see that the WOW and WOR controversies are ginned up hype or that if one looks past concatenating slogans that nobody on either side has seriously considered what the implications are if they get what they want?

Right now the question is, is it right to force any employer, institution, or indeed person to pay for something, that they object to, based on moral grounds

How far should this concept be taken? Can it be taken too far in your estimation? Would you defend employers who refused to provide any health care benefits to employees who possess a gun? Statistically speaking, one is more likely to be shot if a gun in the house so there is an actuarial reason and one might even go so far as to contend that Guns are evil. I wouldn't but if some self righteous City, Church, University System, or whatever were to do that, how do you suppose the Left and the Right, You and Me, would view that?

I know, I know, the next few lines are pretty much the same old same old slippery slope-ism rational for being opposed to some outrage but where would this end?

Can I be forced to pay for Wars? Pay for Debt incurred that I opposed? Should the ability to object to Federal Regulation be limited to moral objections? What about profit driven objections?

Is it not feasible that an employer could effectively find all kinds of ways to get those who want to work for him to comply with his moral code? No health insurance if one smokes cigarettes or eats too much trans fat, or gets divorced, or has the wrong bumper sticker on his Chevy, or doesn't drive an electric Chevy, or drives a Government Motors Chevy, or I am sure you see where I am going with this.

I know my argument uses the outrageous to illustrate the absurd but for the love of Natures God. Less than a month of go, a state legislature was trying to force Doctors to insert a vibrating rod into the vagina of a woman before she could have a medical procedure that is completely legal under current law.

When it comes to that, achieving absurdity takes a fair amount of creativity.


Many of you are familiar with Mary Baker Eddy and the Church of Christ. They publish the Christian Science Monitor and have hundreds of thousands of the followers. The members of this Christian Church eschew the medical profession and believe that God will heal mankind's ills thru prayer. They refuse all forms of medical treatment and attention.

According to the position of some here (and in government) if your boss were to be a Christian Scientist (or profess to be) and profess a moral objection to medical treatment s/he could deny all employees medical insurance. Perhaps s/he could even fire you if you purchased the health insurance yourself.

Is everyone down with that scenario?

Web Link


The defenders of the radical right either cannot or will not admit that there is a difference between opting out, i.e., someone who for whatever reason chooses to not use the reproductive healthcare services available today from medical science and covered by their healthcare insurance, and preventing people from opting in, i.e., removing the reproductive healthcare services from insurance policies. The tortured nature of their defense and the silly arguments they use underscore the hopelessness of trying to convince them they have it wrong.

For example, they argue that employer's should not be forced to provide insurance that covers reproductive healthcare if the the emloyer does not believe these services are necessary or proper. However, employee healthcare insurance is an earned benefit, which means that employees are paying for the insurance not the the employer. So this argument really means that I should get to tell my employees how to live their lives, what things they can purchase with the money they earn working for me. I doubt that the radical right fanatics who think this is OK see that this is Big Brother totalitarianism or exactly what they profess to abhor.

Abe Lincoln was reported to say that one man's right to extend his hand reached out to another man's face. In this case the radical right which now dominates the Republican Party want to extend their hand's reach to include your doctors office and bedroom. They are blind to how wrong this is on many dimensions. No one is being forced to do anything against their will or values if reproductive healthcare services are included in all healthcare insurance plans by law. No one is forcing anyone to use these services.

The apt comparison here is the black man who was denied the right to vote in the south because he could not pass a test proving that he was able to read; the test was in German not English. The poll judge defends this by refusing to admit that only blacks are given literacy tests in foreign languages.


“Right now the question is, is it right to force any employer, institution, or indeed person to pay for something, that they object to, based on moral grounds”

- - - First, I believe that,ideally, no employer and no person should have to pay for anything they object to – other than taxes and assessments necessary to fund the minimum amount of government and government services reasonably needed. Second, I don’t think that you have stated the question properly. We are not talking about moral grounds as such, we are talking about millennia long church dogma. Also. something that must – strike that, should – be taken into account when discussing the forcing of employers to pay for something that is against their religion or allowing employers to deny insurance coverage otherwise provided to employees who own guns are the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the Free Exercise of Religion. The Constitution guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear arms (but not the right to keep and arm bears). The Constitution does not say anything about free birth control pills – although I would be disappointed but not shocked if the Supreme Court said it did even though it does not. As an aside, the statistic that you cite is seriously flawed – that is another way of saying wrong --- but that is another subject.

“But where would this end?” - - - - - That is a reasonable question and one that the Supreme Court is going to have to grapple with. It is the kind of thing they do all of the time – pick flyspecks out of the pepper. The slippery slope argument is, of course, a fallacious argument – it is a classic fallacy. That anything that is done, if taken to extremes, WILL ultimately result in something very unhappy is wrong on its face. Nonsense, taking a step does not require taking another step. It is quite possible to take a step and stop – happens all the time. That does not mean, on the other hand, that unintended consequences should not be taken into account. Look, for example, at the question of homosexual marriage. If permitted, does it mean that polygamy must also be permitted? The answer is no, of course, even though arguments can be made to the contrary and the possibility of that happening should be taken into account. I suspect that, before too long, we are going to have to do some serious ‘splaining to the folk in Utah.

“No health insurance if one smokes cigarettes or eats too much trans fat, or gets divorced, or has the wrong bumper sticker on his Chevy, or doesn't drive an electric ------or I am sure you see where I am going with this.”

- - - - - Most of those things are being considered right now. I believe that some have been implemented. Many folk think it is quite proper to deny employment at all to fat smokers – the disgusting things. I think that is stupid, but I also think that if that is what an employer wants to do, the employer should be able to do it. If it is done, the employer will only be hurting itself and, in time, will likely come to realize that competitors are, to their benefit, snapping up the well qualified rejects. Again, slippery slope is a logical fallacy. If a church is not prevented from tailoring its practices to fit its dogma, it does not follow and is indeed silly to think, that an accounting firm must be allowed to fire employees who have politically incorrect bumper stickers on the vehicles they drive to work in. That would be stupid. If it were up to me, however, I think I would allow employers to do that if they wanted to – I would have to consider the First Amendment implications.

“When it comes to that, achieving absurdity takes a fair amount of creativity.”

- - - - - Yes, but there will always be some who meet the test.


- - - - Yes, but there will always be some who meet the test.

I look at it more like it's a challange. Thanks! Do you think anything said here is as absurd as a bunch of "Get Goverment Out Of My Doctor Appointment" types trying to pass a law requireing that Doctors force their paitents have a wand inserted inside their vaginas so as to take pictures even thought the Doctor says there is no need to?

The slippery slope argument is, of course, a fallacious argument – it is a classic fallacy.

When used as the only source to support one's position, I agree but it is a useful tool when evaluating what position to take. For example when making business decisions a smart leader spend some time consider unanticapatreed ramifications worst case scenerios. Do you remember when people were saying, (not you of course), that Public Option Health would inevitably lead to Nationalized Health Care with Death Panels and such might have practicing a little fallacious slippery slope-ism? Or maybey those who contended that bans on assult rifles are a threat to my yearly grouse hunting trip?


JCU, I wonder if you could provide a citation for the comment that is being bandied about by more than a few these days: That in having a fetal ultrasound, "paitents have a wand inserted inside their vaginas"?

Gosh, is this the normal ultrasound procedure?

I've had an ultrasound of this very area (not pregnancy related and if you really want to know -fibroids-). And nothing was inserted into any orifice. The fibroid was the size of, but did not resemble, a first trimester fetus.

Why are fetal ultrasounds okay (and happily anticipated) if you're planning to "keep it" yet touted in graphic language as an invasive procedure if you slipped up or decided you didn't "want" it? Is it somehow a human if you want it and "just a clump of cells" if you don't?


Barnus again starts with a false assertion and then argues with himself over where it will go.

Employers do NOT purchase healthcare insurance for employees. Employees purchase healthcare insurance either directly with money they earned by working or they have bargained with their employer so that healthcare insurance is compensation for their labor. In both cases there can be no doubt that the cost of healthcare insurance is entirely on the the employee and not on the employer. Barnus's continued misrepresentation of this fact undermines everything he says - it is all based upon fiction.

Healthcare insurance is a bet you make with a healthcare insurance company that you will need healthcare services. The insurance company is betting you will not need these services. You insurance only pays for services you actually use and no one is paying for services you did not use. Asserting that you are paying for someone else's services fundamentally misunderstands the contract you have with the insurance company.


Excellent point, Mr. Larimer. Employee health insurance is not a "gift," it is compensation in exchange for labor. Cease the labor and the compensation ceases right along with it. Employees earn their insurance.


@ Rosemary Potatoes

Here is a clinical video of a Transvaginal Ultrasound: -- Web Link

Here is a link to where the Republicans in Virgina tried to impose government between a Doctor and her patient: -- Web Link

...yet touted in graphic language as an invasive procedure if you slipped up or decided you didn't "want" it?

Some times the insertion into the vagina is desired, other times it is not. Think Making Love vs Rape. Just because women are known to enjoy vaginal insertion when that is what they want, it is never an excuse to impose the insertion as a requirement to obtain something.

Is it somehow a human if you want it and "just a clump of cells" if you don't?

Are you comparing a medical procedure to a human life?

Potatoes, I hate abortion. It is my opinion, one that I am about to be admonished to keep to myself per my Y Chromosome status, that the majority are performed for selfish reasons. Most often, in my opinion, the mothers and consenting fathers of aborted babies are shallow people that rate the inconvenience of 9 months pregnancy and a few thousand dollars in delivery costs too much to bear instead of at least giving the baby a shot at a life through adoption.* Most abortions, from informed opinion per conversations I have had with female friends and acquaintances, are dealt with in an appallingly casual manner.

But....

I think of the 13 year old girl impregnated by her Uncle.

I wonder about 45 year old women whose religion forbids contraception who desperately feel that they have had enough babies and find themselves a loser in the game of poke and hope.

I ponder on the 30 year old mother of two who might have a significant challenge to remaining alive if she were to bring a third baby to full term.

I wonder about the women who are raped or abused or who are mentally ill. Which leaves me in the uncomfortable position of either making choices for other people are allowing them to make them for themselves.

Per my Y Chromosome handicap, I know I am in no position to tell women what to do with their body and even if I did, I wouldn't want the responsibility. When it comes to women, the only thing I tell them is that the window has to be open if they want to sleep with me.

Anybody here read "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood? Scary book. Not so far fetched as it seemed 20 years ago when I read it.


re prenatal ultrasound: There are two types, topical and transvaginal. If you talk about them, you might want to be informed about them. If so check this non-political, medical information site: Web Link


When the bloggers who oppose including reproductive healthcare insurance coverage for women are not claiming that someone other than the insured women or her significant other is paying for her healthcare services, they are focused on either abortion of what they refer to as recreation. Most men and plenty of women know that reproductive healthcare is not exclusively about recreational sex or abortion. An odd focus for people who claim the moral high ground on almost any topic or political argument.


"- - - - - There is that 100 laws again. I searched for something on that - couldn't find anything. Help!

Barnus, a resident of Montara, on March 18, 2012 at 3:09 pm"

I apologize for not replying "Barnus". I overlooked your request.

This might help regarding the States passage Web Link


Rick Sanctimonious has rather cleverly out-maneuvered the democratic political correctness lynch mob.

From his web site:

" A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences."

Now, Rick Sanctimonious isn't just interested in what goes on in a woman's womb. He's also interested in the mental hygiene of both sexes.

I don't know... maybe my brain was damaged by watching a Lady Gaga video... So, if I'm mis-attributing what Supreme Court Justice Potter James said on porn, I'm truly sorry.

I know political hypocrisy, when I see it.


Speaking of "having a profound effect on the mind" I wonder if Mr. Santorum is going to discuss this scientific finding.

Web Link


Jim, you are entirely correct in noting that insurance coverage is not a gift. When provided by employers it is earned. It is part of a compensation package. If it were not provided, some other part of the package, probably salary, would be larger. Health care is a cost of doing business, and the total cost that can be absorbed to produce a product or service is finite. Employers have to consider that when deciding what type of plan to fund. Employees have to consider that when deciding what type of plan to lobby for. Every penny spent on a healthcare plan means a penny less in salary or provided in some other part of the package. Ergo, as I have noted, some employers and employees might well be unhappy about a part of a plan that would have no purpose but to fund some folk’s recreational activities. I have never suggested that a health plan should not fund birth control reasonably required for real, actual medical purposes.

Boney - - - - - Thank you for the link. From my reading of it (I did not check further) it seems to me that most or at least many of the provisions discussed go to money - who pays - and not access.


"Barnus" I have keyed up for you the purpose of the legislation being discussed. If you page through it I believe you wil find your conclusion as to money is in error. The only money bills of significance were to force insurance companies to not cover abortion.

But please, have a look for yourself.

Web Link


Health insurance is a part of the compensation package at our firm. New hires are offered salary, vacation time and enrollment in a health insurance plan of the company's choice. The plan changes from time-to-time, particularly the co-pay.

So yes, employees earn the health care we provide them, but our firm still chooses the plan and pays the premiums.


Employee health insurance is not a "gift," it is compensation in exchange for labor. Cease the labor and the compensation ceases right along with it. Employees earn their insurance.

The employer writing the check for the health insurance is merely a method of reducing taxation on both the corporation and the employee. What would be considered income to the employee and taxed at their federal and state level and the corporation as well as the employee would have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on that income.

All of this haggling over religious beliefs and health care coverage could be totally eliminated if the company would pay the premium amount to the employee in salary and then make a deduction from the employee's paycheck for the insurance premium on the coverage the employee selected. The employee could then deduct the cost of health care from their federal and state income taxes.

Surely no corporation would attempt to control where an employee spends their money, would they?


Thought this might fit in here somewhere: Web Link titled "Erin Burnett ‘annoyed’ she was used in RNC’s ‘War on Women’ ad"

From the piece, "When my father ran for Congress during a special election in 1969, the slogan he used was "Let's End Politics As Usual." And that still holds true today. Let's end this talk about a war on women and name calling ... and instead have substantive conversations about the real issues: like women's pay and reproductive rights."


"The employer writing the check for the health insurance is merely a method of reducing taxation on both the corporation and the employee. What would be considered income to the employee and taxed at their federal and state level and the corporation as well as the employee would have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on that income."

- - - - - True. I understand that efforts are mounted from time to time to close that "loophole"

"All of this haggling over religious beliefs and health care coverage could be totally eliminated if the company would pay the premium amount to the employee in salary and then make a deduction from the employee's paycheck for the insurance premium on the coverage the employee selected. The employee could then deduct the cost of health care from their federal and state income taxes."

- - - - - I don't think I understand. That may be a fine idea, but I am having a hard time understanding how that would change anything.

To me, the religious issue is not the only issue. But for the Constitution, which I dearly love, I consider it to be the lesser issue. What bothers me is the affording of still another entitlement to some at the expense of the folk. Not just any entitlement - but one that serves no purpose but to fund recreation - in a manner that will almost certainly result in the spread of disease that becomes more untreatable every day.


Is your problem with birth control coverage that you believe your insurance premium will increase if birth control pills are covered?


"Is your problem with birth control coverage that you believe your insurance premium will increase if birth control pills are covered?"

- - - - - Yes - or something like that - and I say that suspecting that you are laying for me with a set of numbers.

Somebody has to pay for it. Insurance buyers, taxpayers - somebody. It WILL NOT be paid for by the beneficiaries alone. The inclusion of the entitlement in insurance policies does not make it insurance - no one would buy such coverage except folk who will use it - therefore, the only proper premium for it is the cost of the benefit.

Perhaps you have thought about the problem with flood insurance. Insurance companies will not sell it because no sensible person would buy it unless the property to be insured is in an area likely to be flooded. A fire can damage property anywhere - so can wind - so can earthquakes, although some areas are more likely to see a quake than others. Floods damages property ONLY in flood prone areas. If you owned a property in a flood-free area - say a mountain top - and someone offered to sell you flood insurance or to add it to your policy for only a dollar a year - you would turn it down and save the dollar - safe in the knowledge that mountain top properties do not suffer floods - or if they do it will be because of something akin to the end of the world anyway.

The same is true of birth control pills. Nobody has to use the pills. No one would pay a penny for coverage for the pills unless they KNEW they were going to be using them. There would be no point in insurance companies providing the coverage unless the premium – the cost of the pills - plus the expenses involved - plus a reasonable profit were more than the cost of providing the pills. Therefore no reasonable person would buy the coverage.

I know that there has been much talk about free pills being a health matter - but that is smokescreen. Most policies already cover the pills if needed for a real health matter and if they don’t they can be amended to do so – for a premium charge - so this extension is only to cover the use of the pills to take some of the worry out of having fun. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is no reason why anybody but the folk having the fun should pay for it. The pills can be quite inexpensive. Worse, as I have argued, they do not, except in the case of committed couples, dispense with the need for condoms. If condoms are used, there is no need for the pills.


One other matter that hasn’t been covered: Fraud

All women of child-bearing age use some form of birth control or know women who do or would if it were free or cheap. If the pill coverage is provided in the manner it is in some instances and will be to a greater degree if the coverage is made universal as proposed, A woman who has no need for the pills or chooses not to use them out of concern over pumping synthetic hormones into her body – or for whatever reason, will be able to get them anyway free to her but at the expense of others and sell them or give them to friends or relatives. That being the case, we have to assume that will happen – often.


"Barnus", thanks for answering my question. The only reason I asked was in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion.

I think you will agree there are numerous benefits in a health insurance policy that some will not use. Few men will have a need for a mammogram yet they are now covered at no cost to the individual patient in all policies. Very few women will need a vasectomy but that as well is covered by health insurance policies. Smokers add a significant cost to insurance policies as well as being overweight. Those people are not charged additionally for their situations.

Why is it that birth control is raising all the furor?


This "conservative war on women" is about as valid and tangible as the "liberal anti-religous war on Christmas".

Move along... nothing to see here. I understand you are trying to rile up the voter base... but please, can you do them on the issues that really matter and/or in actual threat.


Trivializing this issue as made up defies reason.

Ninety eight percent of women in America have used birth control, over 90% of Catholic women have as well. Their personal reasons for using birth control are varied but without a doubt the primary reason is family planning. Policies favored by the extremist right that has dominated the nomination process for the Republican candidate for President want to deny insurance coverage to women for reproductive healthcare services and family planning.

Any policy that will limit, restrict, and make more costly a service and medical technology that has been used by more than nine out of every ten women in the US today, can not be shoved aside as a matter of religion or philosophy. The freedom that would be restricted is not the freedom of any women for whatever reason to choose to not use these services and medical technologies. Quite the contrary the freedom and ease of access to reproductive healthcare will be restricted to many women should these policies become law.

Employers who want to increase their profits by reducing the breath of healthcare insurance coverage their female employees receive as part of their compensation should be seen for the venal motivation behind this policy. If the employers who claimed a religious objection were willing to compensate the women they employee by the difference in cost to include these reproductive healthcare coverages in their insurance plan, then I would agree this is not a war on women. That offer has never been on the table as part of this debate nor has anyone who professes a religious motivation ever suggested that the cost savings possible in an insurance plan that eliminates these services should be passed along directly to the employees as fair compensation for their labor and services.

A policy designed to restrict only the rights and freedom of choice of women is a war on women, denying the obvious will not hide this truth.


The provision of free pills to facilitate fun has nothing to do with health care.

Family planning, while laudable, has nothing to do with health care.

If the concern is health care, the issue should be the provision of free or subsidized pills when they are needed for health reasons. Such coverage is provided under most health policies.

The impetus for requiring free pills to be provided under health care policies even though the pills are rarely used for health purposes is the creation of still another entitlement - an entitlement that is not needed by the entitled - and is purely political.


The provision of free pills to facilitate fun has nothing to do with health care.

Curios is it not that nobody says that about Viagra? Why is there no outrage over this? Why has the line in the sand been drawn with pills that women use?

Like pills for people who eat too much or require pills when accidentally shot while hunting. Like when people crash their mountain bike, or slam into a tree while skiing, or get skin cancer from sailing, or need pills to deal with excessive consumption of alcohol.

Family planning, while laudable, has nothing to do with health care.

Tell that to lady who has been pregnant for 27 out of the last 36 months and is faced with denying her husband sex because she feels that her body can't make that 36 out of the last 45 out of the last 60.

Tell that to the women who has painful menstrual cycles or other female ailments that can be treated by birth control medication.

So, it paying for pills that are meant to add to ones fun is objectionable, should I object?

I take care of myself so I don't need them, even at 50. I date women who take care of themselves so I don't need them. I don't need nothing to get an erection except a pretty woman. Am I subsidizing your fun? Should I be upset? How many of you out there find the subsidization of male sexual performance enhancement to be as objectionable as the subsidization of birth control for females?

Why am I not outraged that most if not all polices cover the recreational use of a drug that mostly compensates for years of tobacco, alcohol, and food abuse coupled with couch potato-ism? Why are legislators talking about passing laws that allow the employers to require that men prove they are having sex per the code of the employer?


What planet does Barnus live on? Free healthcare insurance? The Affordable Healthcare Act does NOT provide for free healthcare insurance. And by the way, since insurance companies set their rates based in part on the size of the risk pool, the Affordable Healthcare Act will lower everyone's healthcare insurance costs. It also insures those people with pre-existing conditions who have been denied insurance entirely or who find it priced so high that even Larry Ellison could not afford to purchase it.

The individuals who obtain healthcare insurance through their employment pay for it just like all the people who buy healthcare insurance directly. It is part of their compensation. How the costs are paid directly by the employer as a compensation benefit or entirely by the employee doesn't matter. No healthcare insurance is provided to individuals who do not work for the employer or who are not a child or spouse of the employed person. In every case the employee is paying for the healthcare insurance.

This is a good example of just how off the mark and distorted the apologists for the ultra-right's desire to tell everyone how to live their lives have gotten. Assuming that every use of birth control is for "recreational sex" is another good example of this extremism aimed at women. Perhaps Barnus or one of the other several apologists for the ultra-right will define what they consider to be "recreational sex" for the rest of us. Where do you draw the line Barnus? Is a medication for sore lip that enables a man to kiss is wife off limits too?

The path the ultra right is on will soon include medications for depression. After all why should the government demand coverage for medications that just make people happy? If Barnus cannot recognize the puritanical moralizing of his line of reasoning, he has plenty of company with other extremists in history. Some of them gave the world witch trials and the spectacle of burning heretics at the stake for enjoyments and attitudes the extremists didn't share.


In there effort to pass a bill to make it illegal to abort a dead fetus, The Georgia Legislature may have reached a new low.

No, not the bill!!!!! The comparing a woman carrying a dead fetus to a cow or a pig!!!!!!!

See and hear it for yourself Web Link


"Curious is it not that nobody says that about Viagra"

- - - - - I'll say that about Viagra. Tax payers and insurance buyers should not be called on to pay for other folk's good times.

Accidents are a different thing altogether. Nobody, except perhaps an occasional nut, intentionally gets shot or shoots somebody while hunting, or crashes their mountain bike, or slams into a tree while skiing, or gets skin cancer from sailing - certainly not for fun. Treatment of all of those injuries and conditions is real, actual medical care. Pills for alccholics are different still. I don't think I would provide the pills for the benefit of the alcholics, but I might for the benefit of society. Alcoholism, despite what you are told, is not a sickness or disease. Alcoholics do not have to get drunk - they do so because they want to.

As to the often pregnant lady - I think you answered your own point. In any event, if she wants to make her husband happy but doesn want to get pregnant - she can buy some pills - they are cheap.

"So, it paying for pills that are meant to add to ones fun is objectionable, should I object?"

- - - - - there are larger principles in play. It is wrong for government to interfere in peoples lives and religions as they are. Freedoms are being taken from the people. It is wrong for government to take money from some folk only to give it others to have fun with --- and thereby buy votes.

"Why am I not outraged -----"

Because you are just a laid back, go along to get along, soft and warm kind of guy. You should be outraged. Maybe you indulge in free happy pills?


"Curious is it not that nobody says that about Viagra"

- - - - - I'll say that about Viagra. Tax payers and insurance buyers should not be called on to pay for other folk's good times.

Accidents are a different thing altogether. Nobody, except perhaps an occasional nut, intentionally gets shot or shoots somebody while hunting, or crashes their mountain bike, or slams into a tree while skiing, or gets skin cancer from sailing - certainly not for fun. Treatment of all of those injuries and conditions is real, actual medical care. Pills for alccholics are different still. I don't think I would provide the pills for the benefit of the alcholics, but I might for the benefit of society. Alcoholism, despite what you are told, is not a sickness or disease. Alcoholics do not have to get drunk - they do so because they want to.

As to the often pregnant lady - I think you answered your own point. In any event, if she wants to make her husband happy but doesn want to get pregnant - she can buy some pills - they are cheap.

"So, it paying for pills that are meant to add to ones fun is objectionable, should I object?"

- - - - - there are larger principles in play. It is wrong for government to interfere in peoples lives and religions as they are. Freedoms are being taken from the people. It is wrong for government to take money from some folk only to give it others to have fun with --- and thereby buy votes.

"Why am I not outraged -----"

Because you are just a laid back, go along to get along, soft and warm kind of guy. You should be outraged. Maybe you indulge in free happy pills?


"Curious is it not that nobody says that about Viagra"

- - - - - I'll say that about Viagra. Tax payers and insurance buyers should not be called on to pay for other folk's good times.

Accidents are a different thing altogether. Nobody, except perhaps an occasional nut, intentionally gets shot or shoots somebody while hunting, or crashes their mountain bike, or slams into a tree while skiing, or gets skin cancer from sailing - certainly not for fun. Treatment of all of those injuries and conditions is real, actual medical care. Pills for alccholics are different still. I don't think I would provide the pills for the benefit of the alcholics, but I might for the benefit of society. Alcoholism, despite what you are told, is not a sickness or disease. Alcoholics do not have to get drunk - they do so because they want to.

As to the often pregnant lady - I think you answered your own point. In any event, if she wants to make her husband happy but doesn want to get pregnant - she can buy some pills - they are cheap.

"So, it paying for pills that are meant to add to ones fun is objectionable, should I object?"

- - - - - there are larger principles in play. It is wrong for government to interfere in peoples lives and religions as they are. Freedoms are being taken from the people. It is wrong for government to take money from some folk only to give it others to have fun with --- and thereby buy votes.

"Why am I not outraged -----"

Because you are just a laid back, go along to get along, soft and warm kind of guy. You should be outraged. Maybe you indulge in free happy pills?


"Curious is it not that nobody says that about Viagra"

- - - - - I'll say that about Viagra. Tax payers and insurance buyers should not be called on to pay for other folk's good times.

Accidents are a different thing altogether. Nobody, except perhaps an occasional nut, intentionally gets shot or shoots somebody while hunting, or crashes their mountain bike, or slams into a tree while skiing, or gets skin cancer from sailing - certainly not for fun. Treatment of all of those injuries and conditions is real, actual medical care. Pills for alccholics are different still. I don't think I would provide the pills for the benefit of the alcholics, but I might for the benefit of society. Alcoholism, despite what you are told, is not a sickness or disease. Alcoholics do not have to get drunk - they do so because they want to.

As to the often pregnant lady - I think you answered your own point. In any event, if she wants to make her husband happy but doesn want to get pregnant - she can buy some pills - they are cheap.

"So, it paying for pills that are meant to add to ones fun is objectionable, should I object?"

- - - - - there are larger principles in play. It is wrong for government to interfere in peoples lives and religions as they are. Freedoms are being taken from the people. It is wrong for government to take money from some folk only to give it others to have fun with --- and thereby buy votes.

"Why am I not outraged -----"

Because you are just a laid back, go along to get along, soft and warm kind of guy. You should be outraged. Maybe you indulge in free happy pills?


I know that post is brilliant, but I only meant to do it once. Blame the system for the other two.


Barnus may think he is "brilliant", but he has yet to explain why he thinks that healthcare insurance is free. It is not.

The people who have it pay for it with their money or as a barter for their services to an employer. Claiming that he, Barnus, or anyone other than the insured person is paying for the insurance and the services provided by the insurance to the insured, is a distortion of the truth. Preventing women from purchasing healthcare insurance coverage for services they want for their personal reasons and perhaps their medical condition is a war on women.


Maybe you indulge in free happy pills?

Well Barnus, that depends and it is funny that you should say that per my current predicament.

I had a double Hernia surgery two weeks ago. It was a workman's comp thing* and as it needed it to be done on the cheap, well, lets just say that I found myself on ambulance headed North into the gracious arms of the Daughters of Charity at Seton Hospital a week after said in and out surgery. Which I am sure you recognize the irony of per my views pertaining to Catholic institutions.

Anyhow, my Blue Cross kicked in for the second go around which was considerably more involved and required some field engineering on the part of my surgeon who's devotion to Allah would have most certainly made Herman Cain uncomfortable. They nuns sent me on my way after a week with a prescription for Vicodin.

Now, did I pay for these Vicodin or did my boss who paid for my insurance policy or did I in fact earn that policy per the agreement I made with my bossing exchange for my services.

So maybe you are right. Maybe the reason I am not outraged is because of free happy pills.

Mellow out Jim. When one starts going off on the The radical conservative right and their apologists... one sounds an awful like some silly Badger going off on those who support anything Obama.

Barnus was self deprecating when he claimed brilliance.

What would be interesting is to hear Barnus explain why he thinks that nobody has introduced any legislation regarding the subsidization of men's fun pills?

Seriously Barnus, other than obviously smart ass bills offered by women legislators around the nation, why hasn't any institution on conservative male of note made this connection?

None of this stuff is a war against women or a war against religion. Both slogans are meant to put the other side in an uncomfortable politico position.


And on and on and on

Web Link


“Barnus may think he is "brilliant", but he has yet to explain why he thinks that healthcare insurance is free.”

I don’t know where you got the idea that I think that health care insurance is free. Certainly not from anything I said here or anywhere else for that matter.

Health care insurance is expensive and the more things that get loaded into it, the more expensive it becomes. Free birth control pills not needed for health reasons have no business in health insurance policies. They raise the cost of health insurance for every one just to make it a bit less expensive for some to let the good times roll.

As I have pointed out – passing out free pills not needed for any purpose but carefree recreation, as nice a thought as that might be, is not insurance. It is another entitlement at a time when entitlements are breaking us. Further it is one that will do more harm than good. Further, it is an entitlement that no one really needs. It is just nice to get something for free.

----------------------------------------

“Preventing women from purchasing healthcare insurance coverage for services they want for their personal reasons and perhaps their medical condition is a war on women."

As far as I know no one has expressed a wish to prevent women from buying any health care insurance that is available and which they want to buy --- as long as they pay for it and don’t demand that others pay for it for them. It is true, as has been noted, that that employees pay for their employer provided insurance as the coverage is part of a compensation package. But --- the cost of insurance – to all insurance buyers – is increased when coverage is added for the benefit of only some. It makes sense to add coverage to health insurance policies, even if only a few will need the added coverage, if the coverage is provided to pay for legitimate health needs – to save lives or ease the suffering of the sick, halt and lame. It makes no sense whatsoever to add coverage which serves no purpose but to allow some folk, at the expense of others, to save a few dollars while having fun. That is wrong.

Please understand that anything paid for by way of insurance costs more than the same thing would cost if insurance is not involved. The costs of underwriting and sales and claims handling and maintaining office space and taxes and more and more have to be added to the bare costs of whatever the insurance will pay for – and a profit figure has to be added to the total to determine the premium. No sensible people would buy health insurance to cover birth control pills if they had to pay the full cost themselves, as it would be far cheaper to buy the pills.


Well at last an honest statement from Barnus. He opposes reproductive healthcare insurance for women because he believes it will make his insurance policy cost more. An insurance policy is a bet that you will need the coverage and the insurance company bets you will not. On average they win because healthcare insurance today in America is an extremely profitable business.

Barnus is also arguing that because the risk is shared, the total cost would be less without the cost of managing the bet and the profit made on the bet that is aggregated over the total set of bets. Barnus is not just waging a war against women here, he is waging war against anyone hedging a peril. I doubt that he wants the federal government to management the whole process at zero profit like they do today with our military. Does Barnus want to replace insurance with a government based single payer system?

Does Barnus include stock market options, money markets, etc. in the hedges he opposes on a cost basis or is he only waging war against healthcare hedges for women?

If Branus’s goal where to become a reality for everyone, i.e., no healthcare insurance for anything, then anyone who is unlucky to get sick or worse, i.e., a really expensive illness, for example, needing a heart transplant like former Vice President Dick Cheney just received, would be required to pay the full price or just not get well. If someone crashed into your automobile and put you in the hospital and out of work for a year or two due to your injuries, then without healthcare insurance or the bet you make with workmen’s compensation insurance the total cost would be on you.

Conservatives like Barnus aren’t just waging war against women’s needs and rights, they are waging war on everyone. By the way, his cost argument on healthcare insurance is wrong too. Sharing the risk is part of the Affordable Healthcare Act, but better preventive care is an equally important aspect of it along with measures to make the entire system operate more efficiently.


What's the use? I give up on expecting you to understand what I say. You do not seem to want to understand.

"Well at last an honest statement from Barnus." Apparently you believe that name calling and dishonest disparagement is the way to make your point. Shame on you. I have never made a dishonest statement on TalkAbout. I have been mistaken - wrong - but not dishonest. Shame again.

Try this one --- Government does not manage things efficiently. You cannot make something more efficient by adding layers of bureaucracy.

The War on Women is a bad joke.

Once again - free birth control pills used only to allow sex for fun without fear of conception is not health care. It is not reproductive health care As proposed, it is the creation of a new entitlement - an entitlement no one needs and which will result in the spread of disease. It is anti-health care. It will make people sick - sterile - impotent - dead.

It is sad that you tout it.


Barnus,

you said,

"Government does not manage things efficiently"

Mr Larimer clearly disagrees with you. Here is some ammo to use against all the advocates of Big Government, and the concomitant efficiencies of Big Gov.

Budget-- No budget for 1989 days, rough estimate. Analogy, if your house was 3 stories tall (with a basement) and filling up with sewage to the eiling of the 3rd floor, Would you elect to (1)pump it out, or (2) raise the ceiling? Our Govt chooses to raise the ceiling. Not too bright.

Housing-- If half America pays no taxes, should every American deserve a house? Our Government thinks so. Freddie and Fannie are disasters. (Larimer also believes that every "American" deserves an education, a job, a car, transportation, a new improved ipad, and health care) You may want to ask, Who Pays?

Women's Health (and men's health and children and pet's health and undocumented worker's and aliens health and Hunger game participants, et al) Who pays for all the above.

Mr Larimer's topic is clearly far more than about "The Conservative War on Women and Women's Health". This Topic is about obama 2.0.

I vote NO.


Barnus, here are your words, "Health care insurance is expensive and the more things that get loaded into it, the more expensive it becomes. Free birth control pills not needed for health reasons have no business in health insurance policies. They raise the cost of health insurance for every one just to make it a bit less expensive for some to let the good times roll."

If you are not arguing that additional services for everyone will drive up the cost of your healthcare insurance for you and that you object to that, then what are you saying?

If you want to exclude birth control for this cost reason, why should anyone believe that you will stop there? To keep the cost low why not exclude other expensive healthcare services, for example, cancer thearpy, organ transplants, etc.?

If you are just selecting the added cost of healthcare services for women, why isn't this a war on women?

You are making a simple libertarian argument here that every man and woman should be on there own for these expenses, but you don't seem willing to own up to it. Why not?


Which leads me back to one of my questions. If birth control is meant for fun and we don't want to pay for other peoples fun, should anybody be required to cover accidents that arise from having fun? I don't want to pay for fools who fly gliders upside down, ride bicycles on El Camino, surf Mavericks, drive convertibles, smoke anything, eat animals, don't spend an hour in church on Sunday, or anything else that offends me.

Well, should I, as an employer, force my employees to prove they don't indulge in fun that I find objectionable before I will pay for health benefits?


Logic is thrown to the winds and it just gets sillier and sillier.

"If you are not arguing that additional services for everyone will drive up the cost of your healthcare insurance for you and that you object to that, then what are you saying?"

- - - - - I do object to that - and everyone should in this instance. The price of health care will be driven up for a purpose that has nothing to do with health care. Free birth control pills for recreational purposes is not health care - it is an entitlement that has nothing to do with health care. It is not needed - birth control pills can be very inexpensive. They can also be expensive. This is just a guess, but I'll bet that when they are free, nothing but the most expensive will do.

Is it wrong to believe that the cost of health care should not go up so some folk can enjoy themselves a bit more cheaply? If so, why?

It seems to me that the cost of anything should be kept as low as reasonably accomplishing a goal will allow. The goal of health care insurance is to make it possible to be able to meet catastrophic health care costs and, arguably, a component designed to prevent conditions that will result in catastrophic health care costs is in order. Free birth control pills will have the opposite effect. They will discourage the use of condoms which will in turn result in the spread of disease.

"To keep the cost low why not exclude other expensive healthcare services, for example, cancer thearpy, organ transplants, etc.?"

- - - - - I can't believe that this has to be explained. Cancer thearpy, organ transplants, etc. are all health care matters. They involve treatment of conditions that, untreated, will lead to suffering and death. Free birth control pills do not treat anything. They do not prevent disease - they help to spread disease. How on earth can anyone compare treating cancer with paying for fun?

"If you are just selecting the added cost of healthcare services for women, why isn't this a war on women?"

- - - - - AGAIN --- free birth control pills is not health care. In any event, I would oppose any subsidization of folk's good times - particularly affordable good times that don't need to be subsidized and the subsidization of which will do more harm than good. I think that it is wrong for policies to cover viagra not needed to treat some physical condition.

There is no war on women.

"You are making a simple libertarian argument here that every man and woman should be on there own for these expenses."

If "these expenses" means free birth control pills for recreational sex - of course. Are there no expenses that men and women should be personally responsible for? Here, I am simply opposing an un-needed entitlement that will do more harm than good and which has no purpose other than to buy votes --- "Vote for me and I will give you more free stuff."

-


John Charles, I hope you are on the road to recovery. Those nuns are really nice folk, if a little bossy at times, aren't they?

There is a difference between accidents and intentional, calculated activity.

Still, I think that some of the activites you mention deserve a closer look - mountaineering and rock climbing, for example. perhaps folk who wish to go off on a mountain trek knowing that a change in conditions or a wrong turn might result in an expensive rescue effort should be responsible for the cost of the rescue. If hikers wish to take on Ranier, for example, perhaps they should be required to obtain a permit, and the permit should be issued only on the showing of a bond or policy guaranteed to cover any necessary rescue costs.

The insurance companies would love it, the park service would love it, and the cost would probably not be prohibitive.


Doing better every day though I some how lost my rock hard six pack.

The Nuns, Doctors, Nurses, Service Personnel, Techs, and every single person I dealt with at Seton was Angelic. I can't say enough how impressed I am with everybody there and every single aspect of the experience.

It sucked no doubt, (at least it did after they switched me from Morphine to Vicodin which reminds me of a Grateful Dead joke), but I was paying attention most, (they did a spinal thing-a-ma-jig and I woke up during the surgery, way cool), of the time. The whole experience put the Health care issue in a different light for me. We do have a lot to lose.

I am not the best businessman but I spent part of the time pondering on how the hell all of what was going on around me was coordinated and paid for. I was violently ill and in pain when my sister took me to Coastside Seton. They did a great job of getting me stabilized and determining that I needed an ambulance ride, (My First but no siren), over the hill.

On one side of me in the Daly City Seton emergency room was a elderly lady who was not cooperating and didn't speak English. They got her an interpreter. On the other side was a cute Asian girl who had freaked out on Meth. I was spacing on Morphine and something they gave me to stop the nausea.

Anyhow they made drink something akin to sour half and half mixed with orange juice, lit me up with a cat scan, and came back with the most humorous exchange of the whole ordeal.

ER Doctor, "I thought you said you had dual hernia surgery."

I say. "Yep."

ER Doctor, "Why then do you have such a nasty hernia?"

Twelve hours later they dissected, resected, field engineered a fix, and sewed me up. I recommend the spinal method for pain control, I can't tell you how weird it was conversing with the Docs while the wrenched on my innards. Felt like Spock telling McCoy how to do the the job. They wouldn't get me a mirror so I could watch. Go figure.

I am a bit perplexed. The first surgery was done at an In and Out in Los Gatos. It was a workman's comp thing so it was done on the cheap. The assembly line feel to the whole thing was itself instructive but I thought everything was done professionally if not with the care I found at Seton.

Unfortunately not it seems. Or maybe s**t just happens. Don't know.

What I do know is this. I was more impressed with the attitude of my surgical team the second time around. I do think I received a higher standard of care.

But what made the difference was the sincere level of empathy I experienced at Seton. I mean from every single person, including the wonderful Tibetan woman who made sure I was OK over a dozen times on a sixteen hour shift she worked, the Hindu woman who cleaned my room, the Irish Nurse, Mary, who laughed at my theory on how to apply spirituality on a daily basis*, the Hispanic Security Guard who told me a dirty joke, the Filipino Head Nurse named Peaches who kicked ass to get me checked out on a Saturday when nobody could find a Doctor to sign me out and probably a hundred other people who I never met.

People who did their jobs in a manner that no amount profit could motivate.

No doubt, we have a lot to lose. A question is, how do we preserve it and provide access to it to everybody.

The truth is, everybody has access to it and somebody will pay for it. Those who won't or can't pay for insurance cost me money and threaten my access to it. That is a fact. If I had no insurance, (I doubt the Meth Head did), I still would have gotten that care and somebody would have paid for it.

There were people in that hospital recovering from poor choices they had made. They ate too much, drank too much, smoked tobacco, or treated their bodies poorly. Some who had babies who couldn't afford them too as a result of recreational sex. Babies we will all pay for for years and years in some cases.

Do I want to live in a society where every risk is quantified and we are charged a premium for taking them? Or am I willing to accept that freedom often results in folks making choices that I wouldn't have and subsidize their risky ideas of fun with the expectation that they will subsidize my ideas of risky fun?

And what is the answer to a fundamental question. Is forcing me, either through law or economics, to pay for the care of those who live irresponsibly and/or won't purchase health insurance all that different than forcing me to pay for my own mostly inevitable need for health care up front with insurance premiums?

We do have a lot to lose.

There is a lot to fix.

A Conservative is somebody who is willing to tolerate that which is broken in order to preserve that which works.

A Liberal is somebody who is willing to put at risk that which has been proven to work in order to fix that which is obviously not right.

Anybody who contends otherwise is a Fundamentalist Wacko Nut Job Master JCU

*Nurse Mary, who immigrated to America in 1969, took me for a lovey stroll around the 10th floor. Like all the Nurses I dealt with, Mary shared a Terrance and Phillip like preoccupation with my passing of gas, thus the stroll to get things moving. We discussed a few topics, she laughed at my ObamaCare joke about the barf bags that looked an awful lot like a condom for a man with a liberal estimation of his manhood, and somehow got to my theory on how to apply spiritually to the world around us.

If a stranger does one a favor when one really needs it, one owes the world 10 favors. -- Kwai Chang Caine

She thought the wisdom to be profound and inquired as to who this Kwai Chang Caine person was. I told her about Kung Fu.

I love the way Irish women laugh.


Barnus wants to exclude medications that he deems are only used for recreational proposes despite plenty of evidence that his key target for this exclusion, birth control medications for women, have many medical uses well beyond preventing pregnancy. Would he also ban medications for diabetes that enable diabetics to eat foods that are pleasurable because that too is recreational?

There is certain degree of mean spiritedness behind many of these arguments. No one wants their life extended by a medical technology only to suffer, so should we also exclude treatments and technologies as they might lead to pleasure for those lucky enough to get them and to live a bit longer? The idea that medications that can be used while doing something pleasurable or recreational ought to be banded is down right silly. This would include just about any medication that makes people feel better or allows them to participate in activities that someone like Barnus might claim are solely recreation in nature.

Barnus can draw his line to exclude care for women, but he has not offered his list of forbidden medical care for men, so it seems reasonable to conclude he is making war on women.


Lovely essay, John Charles. Your experience has obviously had as profound effect on your thinking as on your body.

You have put your finger on the nitty gritty issue - How do we maintain the first rate medical care available to us while finding a way to see to it that everyone gets medical care. Not necessarily the same medical care, but bottom line essential medical care. We can't let people suffer and die for lack of essential care, but we can, in my opinion, let them suffer a case of sniffles if they won't take responsibility for buying their own sniffle juice.

I think it can be done. I actually have a plan that is a bit too involved to set forth here, and which will be moot anyway if the SC allows the afordable care act to go forward - which I think they might do.

If so, our first rate care system will be destroyed --- and --- there will be nothing that government cannot make us do or prevent us from doing --- the busybody's dream come true. We will no longer be a free people - we will be subjects. I don't know how much that will affect me - but my grandchildren will grow up in a different world, and my world will just be a Camelot like tale.

Pity.


I prepared a long paen to thank JCU for his summary, but it disappeared into the ether.

Anyway, Barnus nailed it, I too, worry about the future if it is under obamacare.

I have been to scores of hospitals in USA, and have found much to like. I fear more Gov control of health care.


Hey JCU, I just happened across your posts on your unfortunate medical condition and fix. Ouch. We've always tried to tell you to stay away from the heavy ones. Maybe now you'll heed the message.

In all seriousness, sorry to hear about your 'situation' and glad you're OK. Now you'll have to forgive me here, but"...though I some how lost my rock hard six pack." C'mon now; it us you're talking to. Glad they didn't take your sense of humor.

Hope you continue to improve.


...so it seems reasonable to conclude he is making war on women.

No, not even close. No different then resorting to accusations of a lack of patriotism per ones view on any particular security issue.

I disagree with the slippery slope notion that requiring people to pay for what 80% of us are willing to pay for and all of us are entitled too is a threat to baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. I also have seen two different ways of delivering health care.

The first where the insurance company dictated assembly line surgery and pushed Laparoscopic options as they are thought to be the most cost effective in that they get one back to work on the average of 8.86* days sooner. I must admit embarrassment for not investigating that which the company doctor was telling me had never gone wrong in 10,000 plus procedures.

The second was more driven by what the Doctors and Nurses and I felt was best for me per my predicament. Sure profit was a motive, they asked if I had insurance, but once they had me, they were going to fix me, and they were going to treat me right doing it.

Anybody who has worked in any organization knows that getting everybody to remember the mission when doing their job is a dang hard thing to do. I suspect the people who create and maintain an environment that gets folks to do their jobs in such a professional and empathetic manner work incredibly hard.

Is it valid to worry about Government getting involved in any decision one makes? Yes, your dang right it is. Look out how laws against recreational drugs, sodomy, the practice of Aboriginal Religions, and such have turned out.

Is it productive or even accurate to portray anybodies position as a War on Women or a War on Religion? Please!, that sort of chant is for children and the rubes who need a slogan to pass for thinking. Every bit as silly as are the notions of a War on Drugs, War on Terror, and Culture Wars.

--- there will be nothing that government cannot make us do or prevent us from doing ---

Nah. We let that Gennie out of the Bottle some time between when we started Fluoridating water, provide socialized elder care, and when Jimmy Carter instituted Selective Service Registration for 18 year old males because the Godless Commies were oppressing radical monotheists in Afghanistan.

I fear more Gov control of health care.

Me too, more then before but still not afraid of ObamaCare.

*Or something like that.


@ George -- Web Link

Now you know the real reason I don't hang at Cameron's!


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium