Reproductive Rights & The War on Women

[Livewire]

Over the past few weeks and months, a focal point of controvery is the coordinated attack on women's health care & reproductive rights by the US House of Rerepresentatives and Conservative led State legislatures across the country.

Several states, such as Virginia, passed increibly tough legislation regarding abortion - that a woman must subject to an invasive Ultrasound before getting said abortion, among other things. Also, deep House budget cuts into Planned Parenthood, Title X, and the like have drastically reduced women's access to reproductive-oriented healthcare and life saving HIV/Aids/Breast/Ovarian cancer screening procedures.

Should the government provide and cover for the aforementioned contraception and healthcare screenings? Why or why not?

Also, is there any merit to the 'War on Women'? Is this really to cut the federal budget, and therefore the deficit, or is this an ideological jab at a Democratic base for political gain?


Discuss, and back up your points.

Other Readings:


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-james-a-kowalski/war-on-women_b_1339079.html

https://ideas.time.com/2012/03/08/whats-behind-the-war-on-women/

Doonesbury Editorial Cartoon

https://blog.chron.com/heartsandmin...uss-about-doonesbury-and-the-american-family/

 

[TRIFORCE89]

First off, full disclosure: I am pro-choice, although I do find the act unfortunate (albeit sometimes necessary). I don't like it as a form of active birth control (I've got no qualms with other contraception though. All for it). I'd rather it be strictly reserved as a last resort and for emergencies and unfortunate situations. But, I think it should be legal and that women be able to make that decision on their own.

Late-term abortions on the other hand, I am entirely against outside of medical emergencies and don't think should be allowed otherwise. You don't just discover you're pregnant at the end of six months. At 28-weeks, if it were born prematurely at this point it would have a 90% chance of survival. That in one room doctors are trying to save a premature baby and in the other room (not literally) they're destroying one of the same age is just mind-boggling.

Okay, so with that said...

With the invasive legislation, on the one hand you do usually have some sort of scan before you remove something through a medical procedure. On the other (more likely and realistic) hand, that's clearly not the intention of this legislation. Its point is to deter something that is legal. I don't want to say it's malicious, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen the health of the individual (unlike if you were try to deter smoking). So, no, I'm not for it.

Not for cuts to woman's health care clinics either.

Should the government provide coverage? I don't know. I'm Canadian and not super familiar with the specifics of health care in America. If it meets whatever the criteria is, then sure. If not, then no? I don't see what would make it different than screenings for males - if those are covered... I have no idea. XD

The biggest thing at the moment that's weirding me out is the Sandra Fluke stuff. People claiming that tax payers would be paying for contraception. I don't see how. Yes, it is government mandated insurance. But so is house insurance and car insurance and those are private insurance policies. The same applies here. I don't see how that argument holds any ground. I don't think an employer should be able to limit health care coverage based on their morals and personal beliefs. If you take a different scenario... say your employer only likes holistic medication. Should he be able to deny you coverage of life-saving traditional forms of treatment? No.

 

[jpp8]

Late-term abortions on the other hand, I am entirely against outside of medical emergencies and don't think should be allowed otherwise. You don't just discover you're pregnant at the end of six months. At 28-weeks, if it were born prematurely at this point it would have a 90% chance of survival. That in one room doctors are trying to save a premature baby and in the other room (not literally) they're destroying one of the same age is just mind-boggling.

You really can't do "pro-choice" partway. You can't have choice "with restrictions". Sure, no one discovers that they're pregnant just that late into their pregnancy, but a woman should still have a fundamental right to her body and a legal and safe abortion, regardless of the time period. There are more factors for why a woman would want a late-term abortion other than not wanting the baby and not knowing about it. Such as an unexpectedly turbulent financial period that could not support a(nother) child, peer pressure from others to carry it to term before deciding to get the abortion, or, most importantly, couldn't make timely arrangements to receive the abortion before hand. In any case though,

The cases where late-term abortions occur (2004. Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) are incredibly sparse. They account for little over 1% of abortions performed. Outlawing late-term abortions would not persuade them to give birth to the child but instead find other methods to get that abortion regardless of legality. Keep all abortion safe. Keep all abortion legal. Keep women in complete control of their bodies. All of this regardless of your personal beliefs on the matter. That's what it means to be pro-choice.


Also, I feel the "war on women" is a last ditch efforts from republicans to divert attention from the recovering economy, possibly the key issue of the upcoming presidential election, and change the central issue to traditional family values and Christian morals. What better way to pander and fire up their base than by victimizing financially and sexually independent women who want to, with their feminazi agenda, destroy families and morality in this country as we know it? (The answer is to bring up the LGBT agenda.) Nobody talked about all this stuff before the economy got better. It was all "where are the jobs" and "pass the keystone pipeline [despite environmental risks]". The moment things undeniably got better with a strong stock market, a revived auto industry, and 22 straight months of job growth, BIRTH CONTROL IS AGAINST MY RELIGION, OBUMMERCARE AND HIS SOCIALIST AGENDA IS ATTACKING MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION. That's how this whole "war against women" thing comes off to me: Using women to advance their own political agenda.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

You really can't do "pro-choice" partway. You can't have choice "with restrictions". Sure, no one discovers that they're pregnant just that late into their pregnancy, but a woman should still have a fundamental right to her body and a legal and safe abortion, regardless of the time period. There are more factors for why a woman would want a late-term abortion other than not wanting the baby and not knowing about it. Such as an unexpectedly turbulent financial period that could not support a(nother) child, peer pressure from others to carry it to term before deciding to get the abortion, or, most importantly, couldn't make timely arrangements to receive the abortion before hand.

And so? Late-term abortions don't work the same way as normal abortions. A common argument is that they should be able to decide, even that late, if they don't want to go through labour or not.

But, with a partial-birth abortion you are going into labour. You're induced into labour and then give an early birth. With the baby then just left to squirm till it dies. Hence my comment earlier that in one room you're saving an early baby and in the other you're killing one of the same age. It is different than a regular abortion. If the common knowledge is that it's not a human until it is born.... well, now it is born. So, what gives?

If you're going to go into labour and give birth anyway, then just go the full nine months and give it up for adoption. Or early, as you would with a partial-birth abortion, if its medically alright to do so, and then still give it up for adoption. Why destroy it?

And sure you can be pro-choice with restrictions. I think it has valid uses and should be legal but shouldn't be abused. On a lot of political items, I usually take bits of both sides and end up at the grey middle area. Compromises. I try not to deal with absolutes.

France and Germany, the countries with arguably the best health care systems in the world, ban late-term abortions (although they do so at different weeks). They might be allowed there in the case of medical emergencies (which I think is fine), I'm not sure. And yet, they allow normal abortions. Are they not pro-choice countries?

EDIT: For further clarification, while I may object to late-term abortions it is simply not a voting issue for me. There are bigger issues to deal with, and I usually vote fiscally. I'm not big on after-the-fact bans. Do it right the first time, or leave the legislation as is.

Also, I feel the "war on women" is a last ditch efforts from republicans to divert attention from the recovering economy, possibly the key issue of the upcoming presidential election, and change the central issue to traditional family values and Christian morals. What better way to pander and fire up their base than by victimizing financially and sexually independent women who want to, with their feminazi agenda, destroy families and morality in this country as we know it? (The answer is to bring up the LGBT agenda.) Nobody talked about all this stuff before the economy got better. It was all "where are the jobs" and "pass the keystone pipeline [despite environmental risks]". The moment things undeniably got better with a strong stock market, a revived auto industry, and 22 straight months of job growth, BIRTH CONTROL IS AGAINST MY RELIGION, OBUMMERCARE AND HIS SOCIALIST AGENDA IS ATTACKING MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION. That's how this whole "war against women" thing comes off to me: Using women to advance their own political agenda.

Yup. The Republicans are reaching for straws. It comes up to some degree every election. Riles up the base for some reason, but hopefully never becomes a real election issue.

 

[Esper]

Is this really to cut the federal budget, and therefore the deficit, or is this an ideological jab at a Democratic base for political gain?

It's neither. It's these ultra conservatives showing what they truly think about women.

These laws are scare tactics designed to stop as many abortions as possible. That is fact. The politicians behind them don't seem to care if they are medically unnecessary and that women who are going through with abortions are probably already going through a really tough time. Do they really think that women don't know what abortions do and that's why they need sonograms shoved in their faces? Politicians need to step out of medicine and let doctors and individuals decide what's best for them. Especially politicians who otherwise love to talk about how oppressive government is.

But really all of this is just proof that conservatives don't respect women. I mean, look what Rush Limbaugh has said about Sandra Fluke. If you don't know about this, Fluke is a law student who was denied a chance to speak at a Republican-controlled hearing that was meant to address contraception, etc. and with her removal went the only female voice on the issue so she eventually got a chance to speak separately and made an argument for the need for universities, etc. to cover birth control. Limbaugh, who doesn't quite seem to understand how some forms of birth control work, equated this to prostitution and called Fluke a **** on his radio program. He later proposed that any woman who used birth control via their health insurance should record themselves having sex so he could watch it.

If you want more proof that they are heartless there is the upcoming renewal of the The Violence Against Women Act which provides money to help stop domestic violence. It's usually not an issue, but for some reason Republicans are saying they don't want to support it anymore because of how it's "expanding" to include "political" stuff. You know, the old argument of big government. Of course the changes in the Act are mere clarifications, like yes, it still is domestic violence if the people aren't married, and so on. Any sane, rational, thoughtful person could see that this isn't a bad thing to have clarification on, but the Republicans are either too stupid to realize that or they do realize it and they just don't care to take any extra steps to help women.

I can also add to that something that Wisconsin Republican Don Pridemore said, which is that divorce is bad under any circumstances, even domestic abuse, and that abused women should just try tor member the good days before the abuse and maybe they'll fall in love again. "If they can refind those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help."

 

[TRIFORCE89]

But really all of this is just proof that conservatives don't respect women. I mean, look what Rush Limbaugh has said about Sandra Fluke. ... Limbaugh, who doesn't quite seem to understand how some forms of birth control work, equated this to prostitution and called Fluke a **** on his radio program. He later proposed that any woman who used birth control via their health insurance should record themselves having sex so he could watch it.

Well, I consider myself a (progressive) conservative. So, I don't agree with that first line at all.

What he said was absolutely laughable. You don't take a pill every time you have sex. That's not how it works. What he said made no sense. Plus, it's private insurance. So, what the hell is his problem? He is simply an idiot and always has been. A loud, ignorant mouthpiece who routinely professes garbage that damages the reputation of folks like me who simply just want things better managed. And he's creepy (seriously wtf? at the record yourself and post it on the Internet stuff)

I can also add to that something that Wisconsin Republican Don Pridemore said, which is that divorce is bad under any circumstances, even domestic abuse, and that abused women should just try tor member the good days before the abuse and maybe they'll fall in love again. "If they can refind those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help."

That is simply disgusting.

 

[Esper]

Well, I consider myself a (progressive) conservative. So, I don't agree with that first line at all.

My apologies. This is just something that's been bothering me for the last year or so. I know I was generalizing and I should not, but I'm frustrated at how prevalent some of these crazier ideas have become among the right wing without many conservatives challenging them (or only halfheartedly challenging them).

 

[twocows]

I support a woman's right to choice in any and all situations. Anti-abortion legislation is immoral, costly, short-sighted, and completely unacceptable.

As for increasing the cost of obtaining potentially life-saving procedures, that's downright disgusting. My congressman (Bill Huizenga) supports this sort of crap, and I will absolutely not be supporting him in the next election.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

As for increasing the cost of obtaining potentially life-saving procedures, that's downright disgusting. My congressman (Bill Huizenga) supports this sort of crap, and I will absolutely not be supporting him in the next election.

It is kind of disturbing how far along the debate has gotten this time around. It pops up every election cycle for some reason, but this time it seems to have legs. Which is worrisome. The worst of it is that their argument is based almost entirely on false information and ignorance.

This was a social debate years ago. It was settled. It doesn't have to be reopened from a legislative perspective. If society as whole changes their opinion for some reason, maybe. But arbitrarily as they're trying to do, no.

 

[Livewire]

Good news, everyone!

Arizona has now introduced legislation that allows an employer to ask what you're using your birth control for! Because that has SO much to do with the economy and jobs.

 

[Esper]

And in Idaho they've proposed legislation that would require a woman to have an ultrasound in the place they're getting an abortion, which could add another $200 to the costs of something that might already be really expensive to someone without much. But the worst part about it is that as part of this proposed law they would include a list of places that provide free ultrasounds, most of which will be religiously-backed anti-abortion "crisis centers," and none of which will be places that actually provide abortions so they wouldn't even count under this new law - they'd just be places they try to confuse you with so they could get another chance to browbeat you with how awful it is to get an abortion.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Good news, everyone!

Arizona has now introduced legislation that allows an employer to ask what you're using your birth control for! Because that has SO much to do with the economy and jobs.

*facepalm*

I think we're going backwards

 

[Livewire]

*facepalm*

I think we're going backwards

There's nothing partisan about it. The republican party ought be ashamed of themselves. Bigger and bigger government. This is outrageous.

 

[Mr. X]

Wait a moment...

Am I thinking of the wrong party? Because I thought that the republicans were against larger government.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Wait a moment...

Am I thinking of the wrong party? Because I thought that the republicans were against larger government.

With the Republicans it seem to be more control... but with less staff

 

[Shiny Celebi]

Good news, everyone!

Arizona has now introduced legislation that allows an employer to ask what you're using your birth control for! Because that has SO much to do with the economy and jobs.

Wow I cant even believe that, what an invasion of privacy. D:

 

[Livewire]

Wait a moment...

Am I thinking of the wrong party? Because I thought that the republicans were against larger government.

Larger in the sense of bureaucracy, or larger in the sense of its scope?

Republicans claim to want the government out of people's lives. Then, they do things like this. I just don't get the logic.

 

[doesn't matter]

This is all amusing since feminism is what has been waging war about women. It has inflicted upon them unwed motherhood, divorce, slavery to unsatisfying jobs, high rates of breast cancer, infertility, and sexual disease; demographic decline and children who are unhealthy, neglected and depressed.

But lets all just ignore that and focus on those nasty misogynistic Republicans and on getting that female vote.


I think this image summarises everything quite well though.

Larger in the sense of bureaucracy, or larger in the sense of its scope?

Republicans claim to want the government out of people's lives. Then, they do things like this. I just don't get the logic.

The Republican party is pretty much the same as the Democrats, except that they just want a slightly smaller government (and I'm sure that's all rhetoric anyway). Both major parties are just crap anyway, and you shouldn't really listen to what either of them say.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

But lets all just ignore that and focus on those nasty misogynistic Republicans and on getting that female vote.


I think this image summarises everything quite well though.

Except that it doesn't. The government wouldn't be paying. It is private health insurance.

That the public would be paying is a very loose argument that the right is spinning. The logic being that due to there being a government mandate on health insurance, that everyone's premiums will therefore rise. You're paying... but it's not the public paying. It's not the government. It would work the same way as mandated car and house insurance.

Here in Canada and other "socialized countries", the insurance offered from your employer or that you purchase on your own is supplementary. Not everyone has the same private insurance, but due to the public plan everyone at least has the same standard as a base. In the States, the mandate is a step in the right direction, in that it provides health care, but it's not "socialized". Without the public option, there is no base standard. Instead, that's what they're trying to do with the private plans. What's offered by your employer is all the same; a standard. The same standard coverage regardless of where you are employed. And you'll be able to purchase additional insurance on your own afterward if needed for things that aren't covered.

So, the actual debate is if your employer should have a say in your quality of health care - not the government. If you ignore the "controversial" birth control debate, and use another example... say you work for an employer who finds traditional medicine morally wrong and only wants to offer a plan that deals with herbal and holistic medicine, would that be appropriate? No. But the same logic applies, that your employer should be able to exclude stuff they morally object to. Perhaps those against it would have a leg to stand on if they spun a different argument. Maybe, if it should be part of the base plan at all? Or if it should supplementary. That's a fair debate to have. Instead of that it is okay but that your employer can modify the base standard to fit their own morality. Same plan for all, or for nobody. Sorry.

Also, on the bulk of these plans Viagara is already covered. What's the common medicinal use there? Birth control pills frequently have one, but for some reason that's a problem.

This is all amusing since feminism is what has been waging war about women. It has inflicted upon them unwed motherhood, divorce, slavery to unsatisfying jobs, high rates of breast cancer, infertility, and sexual disease; demographic decline and children who are unhealthy, neglected and depressed.

Men also have unwed fatherhood, divorce, unsatisfying jobs, infertility, and sexual disease. Why should we suffer alone? XD

 

[doesn't matter]

Except that it doesn't. The government wouldn't be paying. It is private health insurance.

That the public would be paying is a very loose argument that the right is spinning. The logic being that due to there being a government mandate on health insurance, that everyone's premiums will therefore rise. You're paying... but it's not the public paying. It's not the government. It would work the same way as mandated car and house insurance.

Here in Canada and other "socialized countries", the insurance offered from your employer or that you purchase on your own is supplementary. Not everyone has the same private insurance, but due to the public plan everyone at least has the same standard as a base. In the States, the mandate is a step in the right direction, in that it provides health care, but it's not "socialized". Without the public option, there is no base standard. Instead, that's what they're trying to do with the private plans. What's offered by your employer is all the same; a standard. The same standard coverage regardless of where you are employed. And you'll be able to purchase additional insurance on your own afterward if needed for things that aren't covered.

So, the actual debate is if your employer should have a say in your quality of health care - not the government. If you ignore the "controversial" birth control debate, and use another example... say you work for an employer who finds traditional medicine morally wrong and only wants to offer a plan that deals with herbal and holistic medicine, would that be appropriate? No. But the same logic applies, that your employer should be able to exclude stuff they morally object to. Perhaps those against it would have a leg to stand on if they spun a different argument. Maybe, if it should be part of the base plan at all? Or if it should supplementary. That's a fair debate to have. Instead of that it is okay but that your employer can modify the base standard to fit their own morality. Same plan for all, or for nobody. Sorry.

Also, on the bulk of these plans Viagara is already covered. What's the common medicinal use there? Birth control pills frequently have one, but for some reason that's a problem.


Men also have unwed fatherhood, divorce, unsatisfying jobs, infertility, and sexual disease. Why should we suffer alone? XD

I though the debate in America currently was about whether or not the government should subsidise birth control and that birth control has to always be covered by insurance as it was recently declared by Obama that "access to birth control is a human right". One or the other. Both do force people who otherwise would not pay for birth control to do so. Yeah, America has a weird system.

It's not that loose at all. The government forcibly increasing demand doesn't mean that services will get cheaper - they'll just get more expensive.

I see though, fair point. I guess I have to do more reading on the issue myself.

hahaha mate, I'd rather as little people as possible suffered.