Once Republicans have killed off all the wimmens, who do we target next?

The BBQ Pit
81

Rush on the subject of Planned Parenthood, April 9th:

"What’s a few dead babies between friends? I mean that’s really where we are here, folks, in discussing the pending government shutdown. We’re talking about pennies, in addition to everything else. We are more than happy to fund Planned Parenthood. The Democrats are more than happy to fund Planned Parenthood, but they will shutdown this government if there is a rider to the continuing resolution that funds the military at war in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So it’s fine to pay Planned Parenthood. In fact, the regime is insisting on it, and they’re calling this women’s health. Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrats are out there describing this as a Republican assault on women’s health. Or alternately they say that the Republicans are focused on the usual social issues that the independents don’t care anything about. But what it boils down to is what’s a few dead babies between friends? "

82

That was well played, I’d like to say.

Ultimately, and I have this discussion with my dad about once every six months, it’s a fight between “principles” and “desired outcomes”. Take, for example, teen pregnancy and STD rates.

Studies have been done that indicate that STD rates and pregnancies go down with higher levels of sexual education and contraceptive access, and go up with lower levels of education and contraceptive access, and go up with higher levels of abstinence education.

So what it boils down to is this: You can stick to your principles (kids should be having less sex, and we should be doing everything in our power to discourage it–wait, why are they doing it anyway, and unsafely at that?) or you can compromise your principles to accomplish the desired outcome (give teens education and contraceptives, and their pregnancy/STD rates go down). I’m even sympathetic with your idea that it’s a cultural problem–but you’re not going to change culture by removing access to abortions/condoms/education, those things are basically orthogonal to that.

There is a class of Tea Partier/Republican who, as said above, equate “planned parenthood” with “abortions on demand” and thus want to shut it all down. Or equally bad, they equate it with “useless entitlement spending” because they don’t understand what benefits it gives our society and what overall costs it lowers (Being cheaper to provide a condom and instruction than it is to provide WIC, or cheaper for a cancer screening than medicaid for an indigent woman who needs a double masectomy). This class of person is exemplified by my dad, who I must emphatically say is NOT a stupid man–he’s been running a general store and making a profit in an economically shattered town of <250 people for over three decades now, with a 3500sq ft custom hilltop house and a loaded Suburban and Silverado 3500HD in the driveway. But he isn’t informed enough to know anything about Planned Parenthood’s actual mission and accomplishments until someone like me tells him.

Federal Government Republicans, now, I expect them to know. So that means they’re either pandering to the base (knowingly decreasing health care options for disproportionately women, in a way that won’t accomplish their long-term pragmatic goals anyway, presuming those goals are “fewer abortions, lower government spending”) or criminally stupid (making issue of stopping funding to an organization when they don’t know what it actually does). While “wanting to kill women” is certainly hyperbole, it’s uncomfortably close to the mark (at least if you’re a pragmatic conservative).

While I guarantee we’d disagree how desirable this is, it goes back to “pragmatism” vs. “results” above. It’s fine to want to push our culture back to a more socially conservative one, but please think about what you’re actually doing before you shut down the institutions that shield people from the worst of the consequences. As has been pointed out many times, teens are basically stupid and horny, and they are poor at evaluating risk–even in the face of current STD rates, they have not stopped having sex. Making those rates even higher (by killing planned parenthood and the contraceptive/condom supply for many) isn’t going to make them stop. Change the culture first.

83

Just to put a cherry on this, which I can’t agree with more, there have been, nationally, 351 bills to restrict (or outright destroy) access to abortion since January. 351 since January.

That includes numerous bills requiring everyone seeking an abortion to have a “guided tour” ultrasound, something which has never been proven to reduce the number of abortions, but increases the cost by roughly $300.

That includes a bill that requires a 3 day waiting period after initial consultation with a doctor, in a state that has 1 facility where abortions are performed, and 1 doctor who comes from another state 1 day a week to perform them, which means 2 costly and time consuming trips across the state and an additional week (minimum) of waiting for any woman seeking a termination. Every additional week increases the risk of complications, and can of course time a woman out of eligibility to terminate at all.

That includes bills in at least three states ending all abortion access at 20 weeks, which is well before the point of viability. None of these bills includes any exception for pregnancies in which the fetuses are found to be non-viable or gravely anomalous at the 20 week mark (when most women have a major screening ultrasound) or later, meaning that women could be required to carry a fetus for up to five months knowing that there is no chance that it will survive outside the womb or will be born with such significant birth defects as to have no chance of living a life of any length or without pain and costly and invasive medical assistance just to survive.

That include bills with no exceptions for victims of sexual violence; in Idaho a legislator said pregnancy resulting from rape was evidence of the hand of God at work, in Illinois a legislator said women will lie about being raped in order to get abortions.

That includes a bill with no exception for victims of incest if their rapist doesn’t live in their house. Father you don’t live with rapes you and gets you pregnant? Tough, give birth to your own sibling.

That include bills which provide no exception for the health of pregnant people in question. (Life yes, health no. So if pregnancy will only cripple you rather than kill you, too bad for you.)

That includes a bill that includes an exception for victims of rape, but only if that rape was violent. Roofied? Awakened from a dead sleep with a man a foot taller and 150 pounds heavier on top of you and unable to struggle? Too bad for you.

That includes a bill which would allow emergency room physicians to refuse to treat a woman for any condition, even one that would kill the woman, if that treatment might cause harm to the fetus she’s carrying. Because it’s more moral to walk away and let the woman and the fetus both die.

Someone tell me again that this is about a culture of life. Tell me again that there’s some respect for women at the heart of these proposed pieces of legislation. Tell me again that the Republicans believe in liberty and freedom and smaller government. And I will tell you that you are nothing but an absolute liar.

84

Smartest picture ever?

Since conservatives oppose policies that would reduce STDs & teen pregnancies, I tend to think you’re lying.

I think the way to think like a conservative is to start with the idea that women having sex for pleasure and out of wedlock is a great moral evil. Then their ideas and policies make more sense. Baby making within a marriage? That’s OK.

85

Ah, but that fetus is considered a good Republican while it’s in utero. Once delivered, it becomes a potential burden to the state and no Republican wants anything to do with it. How dare it be born and take up time, space and resources?

Reps are dreamers, god bless 'em. A potential life is much more satisfactory dream material than an actual child with their needs for food, love, water, and warmth.
These past few days, watching the ridiculous circus that is our Gment has cemented my utter contempt for the GOP and conservatives in general. The GOP does not care about women or women’s health; it does not care about balancing the budget in the slightest–it was just fine to drive up that deficit when we were killing foreigners in their own lands, but provide health care to poor women? Fuck 'em!
If just ONE Rep politician would stand up and speak the truth: that Roe v Wade will never be overturned because at heart the GOP could not care less about it, but instead uses it as a weapon to bloody the Dems, I’d have a modicum of respect for them. It’s the overweaning sanctity covering such deep hypocrisy that nauseates me.

86

I was just thinking that! I read that and said “That there is the most down right orthogonal thing I’ve seen all week!”. And no two ways about it, nosir!

87

Just the thought of that has made me swear off sex for the rest of my life.

88

Republicans also tend to dismiss the difficulties of pregnancy as being nothing much, because they value the male input----one has to wonder if they believe in humunculi or something. Bill O’Reilly once had the temerity to dismiss the concept of pregnancy-caused illnesses and death: http://mediamatters.org/research/200610160007 Women, however, are just containers for the all-important fetus----which the Repubs dump once the umbilical cord is cut.

89

Or as Barney Frank once said, "“For Republicans, life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

90

Its traditional to follow such an oath by enrolling at Baylor.

91

I’m about to hit you, but remember it’s because I love you.

92

Do you have a cite for that last proposition? The academic studies that I’ve seen (some cites are in my above post) indicate, generally, that abstinence education is either not harmful or even somewhat helpful relative to no sex ed (although much less effective than other forms of education).

Abstinence only education isn’t optimal, but at the same time we should be fair – it isn’t the devil.

93

I read recently that an astonishing amount of political rhetoric is “taunting,” and that combined with self-congralutory rhetoric and shameless crowd pleasing comprises nearly everything politicians say. “Both sides” if you will, are guilty of this. And it’s not surprising. What IS surprising, or should be, is how much the population joins in the taunting.

94

Here’s the story: http://theweek.com/article/index/214053/how-senators-spend-27-percent-of-their-time-taunting-each-other.

95

:eek::eek::eek:

Wow. That’s even more disgusting than I thought.

Screw every last one of those lunatic legislators. With no abortions allowed even if pregnancy results. Even if they get severe hyperemesis or pre-eclamptic.

The viewpoint of so many of their fellow human beings as nothing more than liars, potential babykillers and ultimately nothing more than vessels is sickening. I have news for you anti-abortionists: like many other women I’ve had to make some very difficult reproductive decisions so far. Not a single one of them was made without serious consideration. I’ll tend to my morals, my uterus and my conscience. You need to treat me like an autonomous human being and mind your own fucking business.

96

Not if a notional Republican attempt to defund Planned Parenthood would directly result in the deaths of women, no. Anyway, I’m not supporting any such claim, I’m just making fun of yours.

So, what, I’m supposed to make your point for you? I don’t think so. If the board is indeed “full of whingebags” who believe Republicans are “evil through and through”, surely you could rack your reptilian brain to come of with a name of one. Just one. Here, I’ll spot you Der Trihs. I’m pretty sure he fits the bill. Now, maybe you can find a couple dozen more, at which point you might begin to have a legitimate claim that the board is full of such people, even if a couple of dozen out of tens of thousands of board members makes it a rather weak claim.

97

Republicans believe that people are capable of making sound decisions which will not only benefit themselves, but will benefit society as a whole, if only The Gummint will not interfere in those decisions.

Unless, of course, those decisions are about something like having sex. Who to have sex with. Who to MARRY. And what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. Then, you see, people (or at least women) are incompetent to make such decisions, and must have very restrictive laws about what they can and can’t do.

98

I’m consciously echoing SA at this point, so I’m not terribly interested in cites. It’s at the “I’ve read it somewhere, I’ll dig it up if it’s really relevant”–but even given the sub-optimality you’ve cited, it’s not relevant to my point.

99

How complicated is this? This has been going on for nearly forty years, since Roe V. Wade became law. Add what Repubs say, assess what they actually do, and add in the results of policies they vote for: defunding an organization that prevents abortion, promoting anti-contraceptive policies such as conscience clauses, which apparently afflict only pharmacists confronted with women presenting prescriptions for EC or BC yet never men who want Viagra, and add in all the policies which make it onerous to have, feed, clothe, and raise children: like, say, the cuts in this year’s budget. They say they love baybeez. Their actions, however, cause harm to fetii, women, children, and those baybeez they say they love so very much. I don’t know about you, but the last person who should have a child is a woman who doesn’t want one for whatever reason, and more power to her if she uses and wants birth control. Birth Control prevents accidental pregnancies. Ergo, fewer abortions. How come Republicans so often vote for the exact policies which have the opposite effect of their stated ambitions?

100

goes on Amazon for yet another irony meter, dammit