The Conservative War On Women

From an earlier article back when Texas was just planning on slashing the state's family planning funding from $111 million to $37 million:

The state estimates nearly 300,000 women will lose access to family planning services, resulting in roughly 20,000 additional unplanned births. Texas already spends $1.3 billion on teen pregnancies — more than any other state.

In San Antonio alone, unplanned children born to teens would fill 175 kindergarten classrooms each year.

And just so it's clear this really isn't an attempt to balance the budget, but rather an assault on contraception:

The goal is to get government money out of the abortion process, and if contraceptive services have to suffer a bit of collateral damage in the process, so be it. When The Texas Tribune asked state Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Nacogdoches), a supporter of the family planning cuts, if this was a war on birth control, he said "yes."

"Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything — that's what family planning is supposed to be about," Christian said.

Family planning clinics are routinely referred to by many Texas Republican legislators as "abortion clinics" even though none of the 71 family planning clinics in the state that receive government funding provides abortions.

NathanialG wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Texas cuts its own state run women's services because they passed a law to avoid giving money to Planned Parenthood:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...

I really need to win the lottery or otherwise get rich, so I can pull a Maddox-style "For every dollar you cut from Planned Parenthood, I'm going to donate three."

I was wondering if part of their intent with this law was to intentionally remove the funding for their own programs. Is that too Machiavellian?

I'm certain the intended conversation is this -

Concerned Party: "If you do this, women's programs in other areas will suffer because of what you did."

Texas Legislator: "No, ma'm, see, it's not what we're doing. It's the Federal government that's cutting the funding in response to what we did. Blame them. The evil Federal government!"

This way, they get a two-fer on some of their favorite memes: Both "abortion factory" and "the federal government is bad!"

Edwin wrote:

I am speechless.

I am so pleased to know that an elected representative thinks a state-mandated rape bill is just great fodder for humor about not getting laid after a long day at the Virginia Legislature.

From the 1920 RNC.

IMAGE(http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/02/suffragettes_medium.jpg)

Edwin wrote:

Albo

Your tax money at work.

I am pretty sure that the conservative agenda is to exhaust all of America's outrage reserves in the hopes that more modest proposals like shivgee bumfights in televised thunderdomes will be acceptable alternatives to funding for public schools.

Paleocon wrote:

I am pretty sure that the conservative agenda is to exhaust all of America's outrage reserves in the hopes that more modest proposals like shivgee bumfights in televised thunderdomes will be acceptable alternatives to funding for public schools.

Stop opposing education you future hater!

Damn you, Paleocon! You made me a conservative.

Paleocon wrote:

I am pretty sure that the conservative agenda is to exhaust all of America's outrage reserves in the hopes that more modest proposals like shivgee bumfights in televised thunderdomes will be acceptable alternatives to funding for public schools.

As if we could trust Big Government with our bumfights!

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am pretty sure that the conservative agenda is to exhaust all of America's outrage reserves in the hopes that more modest proposals like shivgee bumfights in televised thunderdomes will be acceptable alternatives to funding for public schools.

As if we could trust Big Government with our bumfights!

I moved my bumfights overseas for tax purposes, because Obama's bumfight-killing regulations make it impossible for me to succeed in our once-fine nation.

As Bill Maher recently put it, albeit without the shivchee referece:

Bill Maher wrote:

Unemployment is down, confidence is up, the DOW is 5,000 above Bush - or, as Republicans put it, let’s talk about gay people and abortion!

Wanted to link right to the site, this was fantastic.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/251...

Remember that lady, Sandra Fluke, who wasn't allowed to testify before Congress about Obama's contraceptives policy?

Well, Limbaugh just called her a slut and a prostitute.

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

It is a war on women. All this sh*t has nothing to do with babies, it's about making women subservient again.

Limbaugh wrote:

She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."

Another advertisement for the need for better sex education in America. You need birth control. That's it. There are slightly different types, but they all fulfill the same purpose. If you have a lot of sex you still need normal birth control, there isn't a super expensive "Birth Control+: Slut Grade!" out there that she can't afford.

Malor wrote:

Remember that lady, Sandra Fluke, who wasn't allowed to testify before Congress about Obama's contraceptives policy?

Well, Limbaugh just called her a slut and a prostitute.

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

It is a war on women. All this sh*t has nothing to do with babies, it's about making women subservient again.

No, Rush. That makes her a bitch since she'll sleep with anyone but you.

Well, it's to be expected he'd think that way, since he normally has to pay for sex. And has to go to Thailand to get the kind he really wants.

Malor wrote:

Well, it's to be expected he'd think that way, since he normally has to pay for sex. And has to go to Thailand to get the kind he really wants.

Please don't go spreading rumors about Rush in Thailand. It was the Dominican Republic.

Yonder wrote:
Limbaugh wrote:

She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."

Another advertisement for the need for better sex education in America. You need birth control. That's it. There are slightly different types, but they all fulfill the same purpose. If you have a lot of sex you still need normal birth control, there isn't a super expensive "Birth Control+: Slut Grade!" out there that she can't afford.

Is there really no way to convict Rush or any of these *self-censored* of some form of malicious spread of misinformation or hateful speech? So often it seems to me that your First Amendment is in direct opposition of slander or libel laws.

Unfortunately, slander and libel get a little fuzzy when you're talking about opinions.

"I'm just asking questions."

I guess that "anyone can refuse any procedure for moral reasons" bill is dead.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess that "anyone can refuse any procedure for moral reasons" bill is dead.

That's a shame; I was looking forward to cases of people dying on the operating table because their Jehovah's Witness employers wouldn't cover blood transfusions on moral grounds.

Headline: GOP Vows To Fight On After Defeat On Birth Control

I can't link the photo I saw under the headline, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of chicks in the crowd of middle-aged white guys making this vow. How long are they going to play this game before they realize it's going to kill them in a country where more than half the births are out of wedlock? The 1950s aren't coming back, dudes.

This is an issue, like gun control for the democrats, where political reality just tells you to give up and move on.

At least gun control has grassroots support. This birth control nonsense just seemed to come out of f*cking nowhere.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

At least gun control has grassroots support. This birth control nonsense just seemed to come out of f*cking nowhere.

And I heard somewhere that there is an amendment to the constitution about a right to bear arms, but I've never heard of an amendment about a right to deny women health care.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess that "anyone can refuse any procedure for moral reasons" bill is dead.

That's a shame; I was looking forward to cases of people dying on the operating table because their Jehovah's Witness employers wouldn't cover blood transfusions on moral grounds.

Uh, well... A more valid hypothetical would be getting a bill for the transfusions after you're all better but okay.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess that "anyone can refuse any procedure for moral reasons" bill is dead.

That's a shame; I was looking forward to cases of people dying on the operating table because their Jehovah's Witness employers wouldn't cover blood transfusions on moral grounds.

Uh, well... A more valid hypothetical would be getting a bill for the transfusions after you're all better but okay.

Gee, you're right. It was a clearly serious hypothetical, after all. Would you prefer not covering vaccinations for children if your particular sect disagrees with it, or perhaps refusing to pay for medical visits for women if they arrive at the doctor's office with their head uncovered?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess that "anyone can refuse any procedure for moral reasons" bill is dead.

That's a shame; I was looking forward to cases of people dying on the operating table because their Jehovah's Witness employers wouldn't cover blood transfusions on moral grounds.

Uh, well... A more valid hypothetical would be getting a bill for the transfusions after you're all better but okay.

So you're saying that it's preferable that Jehovah's Witness employees have to suffer through bankruptcies because of their uncovered medical bills and spend years in legal hell getting their heads above water again than having someone religious understand that their precious beliefs shouldn't be forced onto everyone?

He didn't say that, he just kept the hypothetical situation within reason. There was no justification or defense in that statement.

That said, if there is no defense or justification I'm not sure why it matters. If it's still awful then who cares?