We only have to talk about it because it still exists. And I find that more ridiculous than adressing a serious problem.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't find the discussion ridiculous, but the fact that it is still an issue.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh right, the wording made it sound like you considered it to be a stupid discussion because there was no War on Women.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Calling it a war is completely over-exaggerating compared to real women's rights debates in the 1900s.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I agree, hence the quotations around it. I just don't know a term to encompass the wave of anti-feminist policy being introduced. But regardless, it doesn't make it seem any more appropriate or achromatic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, I know. I wasn't disagreeing. It was more directed toward people who use that term seriously.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fuck Santorum.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Even more than him, I find it really disturbing to think of how many people had to back him and his opinions in order for him to get where he is.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There is no war on women. The birth control mandate was a religious freedom issue, not a women's rights issue. And the bill that would require an ultrasound before an abortion isn't being passed...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry sir. Let's control your reproduction habits, give you less pay than your opposite sex counterparts, and make you more likely to fall victim to sexual harassment in the workplace, and see how you like it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The birth control issue IS a woman's rights issue, because it directly affects women's health, no one is forcing religious people to take birth control so it has nothing to do with religious freedom. It was bad enough that the trans vaginal-ultrasound before an abortion was trying to get passed in the first place. Also consider the funding cuts to planned parenthood which is one of the largest providers of women's health care. In South Dakota republicans want to make it legal to kill abortion doctors. Republicans want to pass a bill that would allow doctors to let a woman die rather than give her an abortion. They also want to cut nearly a billion dollars in funding to low income women who are pregnant/have babies and need food and other aid, so yeah they want to force women into having children but then they don't give a fuck about actually helping them. In Kansas they have repealed domestic violence laws. In Georgia republicans want to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain still remain "victims." There are more examples, it does seem like a war on women.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

@1702276 (UmmmmUmUmUmUmmmmmmm): Sir? I'm an 17 year old girl. The contraception mandate was a religious rights issue because it would require Catholic universities to provide birth control. I'm from Virginia, but I still totally agree with you on the ultrasound requirement. Lawmakers seem to think that abortion is a decision that is taken lightly. Personally I'm pro-life, but I see the merit in both sides of the argument, and making a painful procedure even more invasive is totally unnecessary. Plus, in the private sector, people provide a range on the salary that theyre looking for. I know know for a fact that as a college graduate, I would ask for less than a man providing for a family of four and probably even another boy my age.  And the government isn't Planned Parenthood's only form of income. Who's to say that the Red Cross or other health organizations wouldn't make up the difference made from government cuts? While it obviously wouldn't be the same as the budget that the government gives them, most organizations are being forced to make cuts. Legal to kill abortion doctors? Can i get a link to the article or news broadcast?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers And again it's not forcing religious people to take birth control it is not limiting their freedom at all birth control is used to treat many many medical problems not just preventing pregnancy and it should be between the woman and her doctor how to treat her medical problems. Because planned parenthood is already an established organisation that has the history and infostructure to provide these services, there is no reason to cut their funding and give it to someone else (most of their funding is from the government btw). And republicans have made no secret that their reasons for wanting to cut funding for planned parenthood is because they provide abortions (3% of their services). Holy shit I would NOT be happy to receive less pay for the same job as a man :|

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's not forcing people to take it, but forcing institutions to provide it. And while that's practical in a lot of places, it doesn't make sense to require birth control from organizations that are blatantly against it, and always have been. I'm not saying cut all funding, but the government could cut some and Planned Parenthood would still be able to operate. They're more likely to get donations (and do) from private companies or even people than a lot of other agencies. But I agree with you that it's pointless to hate them over abortions, because they provide a lot of other important health services. Then ask for more! Or work for the government! And that whole thing in South Dakota is creepy, I'm sure both parties would agree. But radicals don't make up the whole party, and a bill like that would be all over the news if it gained any sort of momentum.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My issue with the contraception debate is that it is clearly not a religious issue, but a gender issue. No one is debating whether insurance companies should still provide Viagra to men, even if they are not married, despite most religions being against sex outside of marriage. On top of that, there are no alternative uses for ED medication, while (I am not positive on this statistic) somewhere around 55% of BCP users take them for non-contraceptive reasons. I can personally attest to that, having been on it for the last year despite being a virgin because my period would give me debilitating migraines. Even more than that, it's not forcing the institution to provide directly, but provide a health insurance plan where their employees could be covered for it. That's just a comprehensive part of health coverage for women. Everyone has to pay into things that they may not support, but that doesn't mean I can just not pay taxes toward wars or subsidies that don't agree with my personal philosophies.

by Anonymous 12 years ago