Posted by: danielfee | March 7, 2012

Why Would Any Woman Vote for a Republican?

This election season has brought to the forefront the contempt that the Republican Party has for women and women’s rights. Which is why I ask the question, “Why would any woman vote for a Republican?” I am not just referring to the upcoming presidential election. As a woman, why would you vote for a Republican for your Senator or Congressperson? Why would you vote for a Republican as your Governor, State Senator or State Representative? Granted there is some percentage of women, maybe as high as 20 to 25%, who are perfectly happy being subservient to their husband or male companions because this is the easy way. They don’t have to think about or make difficult decisions for themselves. They defer this responsibility to their man or men in general. This is not an uncommon personality type, nor does it apply exclusively to women. The personality type is defined as an “authoritarian follower”. The authoritarian follower is one who is submissive to established authority. The term submissive in this case means to accept almost without question, and many times to defend against their own best interests, the statements and actions of “established authority” figures. People with this personality type tend to gravitate towards right-wing conservative politics and religious groups. It is the hierarchical structure of these organizations which attracts them to these groups. So I understand why women who have this personality type will support and defend the Republican Party’s legislative efforts that undermine women’s rights. But what about the rest, the majority of women; why would you even consider supporting a Republican and their anti-women agenda for any elected office?

We hear a lot of rhetoric coming from the political right about “individual freedom” and “personal responsibility”. But when it comes to putting this in practice, it appears that this is only applicable to men and only applicable when it comes to economic issues. As a person who does actually believe that “all men are created equal,” meaning men in the generic sense and not just males, and that “Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” I find it appalling when elected officials attempt to restrict or take away rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution of any particular group. But we have seen a significant increase in legislative efforts to restrict rights, particularly for women and gays, since Republicans have gained control of many state legislative and executive offices. For many years these efforts have flown under the radar of the national media, since most of these regulatory changes are considered “local issues.” But when the same restrictive laws are adopted in state after state they become a national issue.

Thanks to Virgina Governor Bob “transvaginal ultrasound” McDonnell, the issue of restricting a women’s right to an abortion, which is a legal medical procedure regardless of how you may personally feel about it from a religious or moral perspective, has landed on the front page. But Virgina’s proposed law, which would require any women seeking an abortion to first undergo a transvaginal ultrasound (insertion of a probe into her vagina) without her consent as a prerequisite to obtaining a legal medical procedure, is not a one-off event by one over-zealous state. Virgina may have gone that extra step, but the number of anti-abortion restrictions that have been passed by the states have skyrocketed in the last couple of years. Ironically, one of the loudest complaints that was heard from Republicans during the health care debate on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was that the government was trying to get between you and your doctor. As a result of the contentious debate and the heated summer of town hall meetings, the Republican Party made substantial gains at both the national and state levels. In the first half of 2011, according to a study released mid 2011 by the Guttmacher Institute, states had enacted 162 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights. They included 80 abortion restrictions which include a mix of provisions such as requiring counseling and waiting periods, gestational bans after a specified number of weeks, limiting coverage in health plans that are to be provided on exchanges, in four states (KS, NE, OK, and UT) it restricted abortion coverage under all private health insurance plans, and restrictions on the use of medications used for abortions. In addition they have enacted laws that cut funding for family planning programs and target providers with various restrictions with some states, such as Virgina and Kansas, imposing strict building code requirements that apply only to abortion clinics. There is one common denominator with all of the new anti-abortion restrictions; they are occurring in states that have Republican majorities in their legislatures and Republican governors. So the same people who were screaming loudest about Obamacare coming between you and your doctor have inserted the government between a women and her doctor. In Virginia they literally proposed that a government mandated probe be inserted into a women’s vagina.

But it is not just abortion rights that are under assault. It is the entire issue of contraception that is being attacked. There has been a small group on the extreme far right that has always opposed birth control on religious grounds ever since Griswold v. Connecticut was decided by the Supreme Court in 1965. In that case the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law which made it a crime to use or assist anyone to use “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” Although the law was almost never enforced, there were many who believed that it was state-mandated intrusion into personal lives, left open to arbitrary enforcement so they wanted it to be removed from the state laws. In order to create a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the law, Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (how ironic), along with a physician from the Yale School of Medicine, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven. The Court’s decision was based on a persons fundamental “right to privacy”, even though the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution. Conservative critics have argued ever since that the Constitution does not provide for a “right to privacy” although they claim to be the champions of individual rights and freedoms. The question most people fail to ask when debating the “right to privacy” in the Constitution is what did the word “privacy” mean in 1787? Maybe it was because the common use of the word “privacy” or “privy” referred to the room or outhouse that served as the toilet and the Founding Father’s didn’t think it was necessary to write into the Constitution that everyone had the right to go to the “privy” (aka bathroom). No matter how you choose to read the rest of the Constitution, and as I read it there are many rights and provisions in the Constitution that would be rendered meaningless if a person did not have the right to privacy, the Ninth Amendment should make it perfectly clear to everyone that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So just because the words “right to privacy” don’t appear verbatim, it does not mean that it is not one of the rights retained by the people. However the religious fringe groups that have been opposed to contraception since the 1960’s have now moved into the mainstream of the Republican Party. Or we could say that the Republican Party has moved to the fringe. The abortion issue has been the gateway argument into the entire contraception issue, because those opposing the use of contraception have up until now shied away from direct discussions on birth control. You may recall back in April 2011, Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, made his infamous statement on the Senate floor when he said that abortion is “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.” Later his staff clarified that “the remark was not intended to be a factual statement.” In reality, only 3% of their work is related to abortions. But recall that Senator Kyl’s statement was made in defense of the Republican Party’s willingness to shut down the Federal government over the issue of funding for Planned Parenthood, even though other Federal laws already prevent the use of any Federal dollars being used for abortion services. Although they would never admit to it, I suspect the real reason for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood is that they are major providers of contraceptive services especially for younger and poorer women. After Senator Kyl’s “not intended to be a factual statement” was ridiculed by many, especially late night comedians, the discussions surrounding Planned Parenthood quieted down for a short time. That was until the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced it had changed its policies and would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings. After years of working with Planned Parenthood, the Komen Foundation changed its policy shortly after a new senior official, Karen Handel, was hired. Handel was an outspoken critic against abortion and Planned Parenthood during her failed run as a Republican for Governor in Georgia in 2010. The backlash and criticism against Komen was swift and loud, and within a few days Handel resigned claiming that she had nothing to do with the change in policy.

The day following Karen Handel’s resignation from the Komen Foundation, a group of 154 Congressmen, 149 Republicans and 5 Democrats sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) protesting the mandate that all insurance providers that want to sell their insurance through the insurance exchanges must include preventative health services for women including contraceptive methods and counseling without a copay. The timing of this letter is a little more than coincidental when you consider that HHS announced this requirement way back on August 1, 2011. The congressional letter coincided with the protests from some Catholic officials that the mandate to cover contraception services would violate their freedom of religion by making them pay for services which they teach are immoral. Never mind that the proposed rule already had a “conscience exemption” which covered religious organizations and that a reported 98% of Catholic women have used some form of birth control against the church’s teaching. The Catholic bishops wanted any religion-affiliated organization to be exempted from providing any type of contraception coverage in their insurance policies. So even if it was a religion-affiliated university or hospital who was a major employer of people of differing religions that was engaging in general commerce, they wanted a general exception from labor laws that apply to all other employers. To address the concerns of the Catholic organizations, President Obama directed that the rule be modified so that the religion-affiliated employers would not have to pay for the contraception services. The insurance companies would instead be responsible for paying for these services. Why would the insurance companies agree to pick up the cost for contraceptives? Because that would be much cheaper for them than to pay for all the medical care necessary during a pregnancy. The President’s compromise satisfied the head of Catholic Charities and most practicing Catholics, however some of the extremists still object to the fact that anyone will be providing contraceptive services to women based on their personal religious beliefs.

To prove the point of their extreme agenda, Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, scheduled a hearing entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama administration trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” It was really a hearing of all male congressmen discussing with an all male panel women’s reproductive health care and birth control, trying to masquerade as a protection of religious freedom. Anyone who happens to agree with the accommodation made by President Obama, such as the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities, Catholics United, or a host of other Catholic groups that praised the White House and women were all shut out of the hearing. Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who was prevented from testifying at Congressman Issa’s hearing was attacked by Rush Limbaugh, the conservative commentator who gives voice to a large percentage of the conservative base, because Ms. Fluke later provided her testimony at a forum (not a Congressional hearing because the Republican-controlled House would not permit one) held by Democrats. Mr. Limbaugh went on a rant for three consecutive days and called Ms. Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”. His rationale, if you can call it that, was that she wanted the government to pay for her birth control, therefore if she wants to be paid for having sex, that makes her a “slut” or “prostitute”. He then went on to say that if we, meaning the taxpayers, are going to pay for your birth control then we want you, meaning Ms. Fluke, to video tape your sex life and put it on the web so we can watch. The following day Limbaugh went on to say that if Ms. Fluke, or women like her, could not afford their birth control then maybe they should have less sex. Whether or not he was trying to be funny in some warped way, Limbaugh’s comments demonstrate a total ignorance about how birth control works and demonstrated that religious freedom has nothing to do with the argument. The first flaw in Mr. Limbaugh’s argument is that the government is not paying for the birth control. The HHS rule is that insurers need to include women’s health care coverage in the insurance policies that will be sold on the health care exchanges. Note the key word is “sold”. That means people, not the government, will be paying for the insurance policies that cover these services. In some cases that means an employer who offers health insurance as a benefit to their employees will be paying for the insurance. Apparently Limbaugh forgot about that individual mandate he hates so much that requires people to pay for their own health care insurance. But in an even more stunning display of ignorance, Limbaugh suggests that in order to reduce the cost of her birth control Ms. Fluke should have less sex. It seems that Limbaugh thinks that the birth control pill works like Viagra and that each time a women has sex she has to take another pill. Therefore, in his flawed logic, if a woman has less sex she will need fewer pills and that will save her money. The excuse that is always given when Limbaugh makes outrageous statements is that he is just an entertainer who says outrageous things to get attention. But he also gives voice to a large portion of the males that make up the base of the Republican Party. Elected Republican officials will not criticize or condemn Limbaugh for fear of backlash, and when one does on rare occasions, they are on his show the next day apologizing for their “misstatement.” Women need to ask themselves, are these grossly misinformed men like Mr. Limbaugh, his listeners, or those testifying at Congressman Issa’s hearing the ones who should be making decisions regarding women’s heath care?

But Representative Issa’s little “war on religion” dog and pony show was nothing more that a little grandstanding for the religious right-wing. The real threat to women and their health care was occurring in the U.S Senate. Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, and his co-sponsored Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, proposed a bill which would allow “any” employer to deny coverage for “any” preventative or essential health care coverage (not just birth control) if that employer claimed a moral or religious objection. In effect, the Blunt-Rubio amendment, which they were trying to attach to a transportation bill, says that all employers get to decide what is moral for their employees. The bill would also allow individuals to opt out of coverage if they object on moral or religious grounds. This might sound reasonable on the surface but it undermines the basic principle of insurance which involves the pooling of risk for all possible medical needs of all the enrollees. If men and women past their child-bearing years decided to opt out of insurance coverage for maternity services, then the policies for young women would become prohibitively expensive. Just in case you thought that Senator Blunt was out there on the fringe by himself, he had 37 co-sponsors of the bill, all Republican except for Ben Nelson of Nebraska who can always be counted on to give the Republicans cover to claim it is bipartisan. The amendment was ultimately defeated with all but one Republican voting for it.

Not to be left out of the debate over contraception, the Republican presidential candidates also weighed in. Mr. Romney was asked if he supported the Blunt-Rubio amendment during a radio interview. His answer was “No, the government should not get into that issue. It is between a married man and women to choose what to do with contraception.” But in true Mitt Romney style, within three and a half hours he was on another radio show saying “of course I support the Blunt-Rubio amendment”, thus completing his mitt-flop in record time. What is interesting to note is that Marco Rubio, the co-sponsor, is often mentioned as one of the top choices for Vice President if Romney should win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum, the other leading Republican contender, has long-held positions and preached that he doesn’t believe in birth control or about the “dangers of contraception” and has even expanded those views into attacks on the “evils of prenatal testing and how it leads to more abortions.” In a stunning display of ignorance, Mr. Santorum has rambled on at length about the number of unwed mothers and “children being born to children”. Never mind the fact that more women are choosing to have children later in life and can make this choice because they use birth control. If Mr. Santorum got his way and contraception was prohibited, do you think the number of unwed mothers and the age of the mothers would go up or down? Women need to ask themselves if they want one of these guys to be their President.

But the Republican attacks against women are not all about sex and women’s heath care. The very first bill signed into law by President Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which extended the statute of limitations for allowing women to file an equal-pay lawsuit. The bill was originally passed by the Democratic House in 2007 but blocked in the Senate because every Republican Senator voted against it. In 2009 the Democratic House again passed the bill, and this time with the gains that Democrats made in the Senate, they were able to pass it with the assistance of 3 female Republican Senators. Every male Republican Senator voted against providing women with an opportunity to have their day in court. A subsequent bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which provides for equal pay for equal work, was approved by the House but blocked unanimously by the Republicans in the Senate.

Early this year, the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee held up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, because not one of them would agree to vote the bill out of the committee. The excuse was that they were not opposed to the bill as a whole, they just did not like the provision that gay women and undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse were also covered under the bill. So I guess in their opinion it is acceptable to beat up gay or undocumented women?

And it is not just happening at the Federal level. In states where they have Republican controlled legislatures and Governors, they have been aggressively adopting laws that make it harder for women to get an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. They have attempted to redefine rape. In Georgia they submitted a bill redefining the language related to rape, stalking and domestic violence. In South Dakota a proposed bill would make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion. In many states, as well as in Congress, they have or are proposing cuts in funding for family planning services, food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers and kids. There are so many attacks against women occurring at the state level it is impossible to list them all, but the most absurd is probably the Indiana State Representative Robert Morris who attacked the Girl Scouts as a “radicalized organization” that promotes abortion and the “homosexual lifestyle.” Wow; how does someone reach this conclusion about an organization that teaches life skills to young girls and sells cookies? Representative Morris may have backed away from his criticism after the ridicule he received, but did he change his opinion? Women need to ask themselves if these are the type of people they want representing them in their state’s government.

The same is true for many national Republican officials and pundits who will make outlandish statements, and in many cases won’t even apologize or back away from them. Such as Fox News commentator Liz Trotta who said that women in the military should expect to be raped because they are working in close contact with men. Or Representative Alan West, Republican of Florida, who was speaking to a group of Republican women when he told them they must “lock shields and strengthen up the men who are going to fight for you” and that they needed to let the women on the other side who have been “neutering American men and bring us to the point of incredible weakness – to let them know what we are not going to have our men become subservient. That’s what we need you to do. Because if you don’t then the debt will continue to grow.” This is the same Congressman who sent a very nasty email to fellow Florida Representative and Chairperson of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who just happens to be the Congressperson for the district Mr. West actually lives in), because he perceived that she had slighted him when she said during a debate on the House floor, “the gentleman from Florida who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as I do, is supportive of this plan that would increase cost for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable for a member from South Florida.” Representative West’s email called her “vile, unprofessional, and despicable.” It also said she was a “coward,” “characterless,” and “not a lady,” and demanded that she “shut the heck up.” Then, of course, there is Rush Limbaugh who for years has routinely referred to women who speak out on behalf of women’s issues as “feminazis.” Attacking Ms. Fluke, by calling her a “slut” and “prostitute” for speaking out on women’s reproductive and health issues, is nothing new for him; just more crude.

Across the board, Republican-elected officials at all levels of government and their spokespeople and pundits on TV and radio continually display a lack of respect, civility and in many cases outright hostility towards women. The “so called” mainstream media continually acts as if both sides are the same when it comes to outrageous statements and misogynistic behavior. This may be out of fear that if they point out the misogyny coming from the Republicans they will be labeled as “liberal.” But the truth is that both sides are not the same. One side has an agenda that pushes to equalize rights and gives women the freedom to make their own decisions, and the other has an agenda that would eliminate these rights and wants to make the decisions for women. So I ask again – why would any woman vote for a Republican?

 

 

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Hmm, how do you actually draw the connection that all women who are opposed to abortion must be subservient types? A lot of women are, all on their own, opposed to abortion for whatever reason. A lot of woman don’t view abortion as a “right.” Although I myself don’t support limiting abortion I often find myself in my house arguing the pro-life stance; my husband is a staunch supporter of the right to choose. (We like to spar, heh heh.) As a female who has given birth, I feel abortion is an issue as a society we should never stop questioning and talking about and revisiting. If we ever become a society that stops considering the unborn, we will have lost quite a bit of our humanity, IMO.

    The contraception thing is a lame, cheap red herring. Rush Limbaugh is a doofus. I am telling you there is a quiet, growing group of us who are tired of being spoken for by blowhards. Their is more to the republican position than these two issues.

    The political scene is very frustrating right now, but I’m not going to vote for a dem just because of these issues. Unless that dem is someone I think is great as an individual and will perform well overall. Mayor Michael Coleman is the best thing to ever happen to the city of C-bus, for example—last fall I happily pulled the lever for him and plan to keep on doing it for as long as he wants to do his job! To put it another way: I’m a United Methodist. At any given time I may or may not be crazy about the individual on the pulpit in my church. I’m not going to turn atheist because of that one individual, nor would I necessarily leave a church community because of one or two people. My fundamental views aren’t going to change. For me it’s the same with politics—I’m not going to fall in love with all that the left stands for in this country because of a couple of issues that are historically used as political volleyballs at election time.

    FWIW I pulled the lever this week for Ron Paul. Despite his anti abortion stance, I believe he stands for liberty for all people. He has a very unique perspective, and spent his first career caring for women and children. That means something to me. He seems to have character. Also, something to really really consider is this: we vote these people to represent us. US. Not to carry an ideology. When you think the whole abortion/contraceptive thing to its proper conclusion, clearly if rights were to be taken away from us ballot initiatives would pop up all over this great union of ours—then the people would have the say directly. In sum, no matter who gets elected, those rights aren’t going anywhere, and we are the chumps wasting our time worrying about it!

    • Shannon,
      I didn’t draw the connection that all women who are opposed to abortion must be the subservient types. A person, male or female, can be very passionate in their opinions with respect to abortion, contraception or any other issue without being subservient. They can advocate, preach or attempt to persuade others any way they want in order to try and convince someone else to agree with their position. However, once they cross the line of not allowing other individuals, who may have a different opinion, to make these very difficult personal decisions for themselves and are advocating for the government to use the force of the state to take away another individuals right to make their own choice, then they are being submissive to an established authority and I would say they fit into this personality type. With an issue like abortion it may be easy for many to fall into this submissive personality type for this one particular issue because of their strong feelings, even though that might not apply for other issues. The true test of believing in individual freedom is to advocate for someone else right when their choice is something with which you strongly disagree.
      I don’t agree with your assessment that contraception is a “cheap red herring.” It is the next logical step in the “right to life” movement which is why you are seeing it surface now. Their first step is to have all abortions banned and then the next step is to ban all contraception use. Twenty years ago the anti-abortionist were on the fringe, but today they are the mainstream of the Republican Party. Today the anti-contraceptionist are on the fringe but are moving rapidly to the center of the party. How many Republican leaders or elected officials did you see step out and say this discussion of contraception is crazy? I think they are afraid to address it directly because they sense that a significant portion of the Republican base (these would be the submissive personality types) would support the government banning both abortion and contraception. To the contrary what you saw them do is rush to support these fringe positions under the guise that it was an infringement of religious freedom to have contraception covered in an insurance policy.
      I have no problem with a society questioning and talking about the moral and religious issues of abortion or contraception. But once that moves into legislating them it has crossed a bright red line. If a lot of woman don’t view abortion as a “right”, then I would submit that these are the women that fall into the submissive personality type. I can’t think of a more fundamental right than to choose what happens to your own body and if you want to have children. You obviously don’t fall into this group if you “don’t support limiting abortions.” That is the core of the pro-choice position so I am confused as to why you would argue the pro-life stance with your husband when you both have the same position. Unless it is just for sport.
      I am glad to hear that there is a growing group of you (I think you mean RINOs) who are tired of being spoken for by blowhards like Limbaugh and others. But until the Republican leadership and elected official step forward and denounce guys like Rush and make it clear that these are not the party’s positions, then they do represent the mainstream position of the party. Did you see Rick Santorum denounce Limbaugh? No, he dismissed the issue as Rush just being an entertainer. Mitt Romney just said he wouldn’t use those two words. But that leaves one to believe the position is fine with Romney, just don’t use the words “slut” or “prostitute.” The blowhards are the ones defining the positions of the party. It was sad to see someone like Senator Snowe of Maine decide not to run because of the pressure coming from the right-wing. The moderate Republican is almost extinct.
      The political scene is very frustrating right now only if you are a Republican. If you are not a Republican there is no frustration. Sure there are a few on the Democratic side who don’t think Obama has done enough on certain issues or didn’t do them fast enough, but in general there is no major dissension. The frustration is occurring as a result of the split personality that has long existed in the Republican Party. On one side you have the social conservative evangelicals and on the other the country club financial elites. They are fighting over the control of the party and Santorum and Romney are the perfect depiction and spokesmen for this fight. But then in the middle are the angry Tea Party folks. They claim that they are not concerned about the social issues, but they go along with evangelicals on issues like abortion and contraception, and they are pissed off about the government bailouts of the financial elites, but then they go along with them on deregulating the markets which had a big part in creating the need for the bailouts. It seems they just hate government and want the size reduced. They also want taxes reduced even though they are at 60 year lows. But then they will support an expansive government that intrudes into peoples personal life. It is no wonder they are confused over which direction to go, which adds to the frustration.
      I understand that your fundamental views aren’t going to change. But what do you do when the fundamental views of the political party or church to which you belong change? If your church became more evangelical and began preaching dominionism, would you stay with the church and adjust your fundamental views, or would you look for a new church that were more in alignment with your fundamental views? No one says that to support a Democrat that you have to fall in love with all that the left stands for, because it is not an all or nothing proposition. The question is, since we only have two parties, which is more in alignment with the greatest number of my views? One has to prioritize and give greater weight to those that are most important. If individual liberty is at the top of the list, which may be why you went for Ron Paul, then how can you support a party that is constantly pushing legislation that restricts the liberty of women? Don’t kid yourself into thinking these are just a couple of issues that are historically used as political volleyballs at election time and then get dropped afterwords. One of the points I was trying to make in my article is that it is more than just election rhetoric because if you look at what is happening at the state and federal levels they are passing many laws on these so-called volleyball issues. It does matter who gets elected. Rights are going away, particularly at the state level and will continue to do so if we don’t worry about it. If what was proposed in Virginia, literally the government inserting itself into a woman’s most private parts, doesn’t prove that people need to worry than I don’t what will make them worry.
      Dan

  2. Shannon – the democratic party has always worked to stop the disenfranchisement of the underprivileged. As a woman and a methodist shouldn’t this be of greater concern to you than the economy? Once we put money ahead of the well-being of other human beings we have “lost quite a bit of our humanity”. IMO. The war on women is not about just “abortion” or just “contraception”. These things are simply representative of the painful reality – many men do not believe that women are able to make decisions that are good for them and their families. 1 in 6 women in this country are raped, molested, or sexually assaulted. These things weaken our society by keeping women busy trying to either heal or heal others. As a survivor of molestation and rape I was disturbed to realize that my promiscuity as a teen was just a common side effect of abuse. Men our taught to objectify women and it happens every day on billboards and magazine covers. I’m sick of women telling me that they’re “trying to be good” by not eating a cookie. We are being conditioned to believe that if we can’t maintain a skinny shape and just the right complexion then we are “failing”. What’s worse is that we have been recruited by men to make other women feel badly about themselves when they can’t live up to social expectation. These things are subtle but they are all part of the same disease in this country. Abortion is a side effect of a society that teaches women that they can only be virgins or sluts. We don’t talk about sex with our girls in an honest way and we teach our boys that they just can’t control themselves … and they don’t have to cuz it’s the “girl’s” job. I don’t care if you vote republican as long as you are working to educate boys and girls away from self-loathing and the traditional definitions of “femininity” and “masculinity”. We are battling things much greater than gas prices in this country and I would ask that you educate yourself severely about these matters so that when you pull that lever you are working for our independence from objectification. Everything is tied together and we need more feminists who say no to being marginalized by middle aged white men. You can be anti-abortion as long as you are pro-human (even the “sluts”).

    • “You can be anti-abortion as long as you are pro-human (even the “sluts”).”
      You obviously didn’t read my post. It’s okay, most people don’t.

  3. One other thing that has always bothered me about the GOP agenda is that they are so concerned about the unborn, but then they work at cutting away any support for the child once it’s born. If they eliminate birth control as well, we’ll have more children born into poverty. Where’s the logic in that?

    I just don’t get it.

    • Have you ever listened to Randi Rhodes? She has a saying about this that is appropriate, “love the fetus, hate the child”

      • Yup! I listen to Randi whenever I’m in the car at the right time. She coined the phrase, but I felt the contradiction long before she was on the air (or was that before I found her?) Whatever. I (heart) Randi Rhodes. She’s one smart lady.

      • Yes she is and she does her homework. She is also a South Florida girl. I found her back in 1994 during the OJ trial on her old West Palm Beach station.

  4. so the first step of the right is to ban all abortions and then ban all contraception…wow…you really are the epitome of the brainwashed liberal…no wonder you listen to Rhodes…. the bottom line is you have swallowed an orchestrated false narrative driven by the left wing media and pawns like Rohdes who also has no problem vilifying conservative women who don’t agree with the liberal agenda. If liberals are such the compassionate one’s then how can they stand by the slaughter of the most defenseless of human beings? The fact you are overlooking is abortion is not done out of medical necessity, by Planned Parenthood’s own stats it is done 90 % of the time because a pregnancy is unwanted. Abortion IS birth control of the most heinous kind. Margret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood started the service as a means of eradicating undesirable races; her own words from her autobiography ,and that agenda continues today.That is why Planned Parenthood is located predominately in poor minority neighborhoods.. When women can get abortions FOR FREE, and can obtain birth control with a $5 prescription at Wal Mart, Walgrens, etc…explain HOW these services are being denied in this day and age? They are not. But this entire “War on Women was fabricated by the left wing media and the Democrats in Congress, because Obama started a war with the Catholic church by violating their first amendment right. They had to change the narrative and create this fabricated “war” because they have nothing to run on this year. A health care program that has driven up premiums when they said it would not, (that two-thirds of Americans want repealed because it will bankrupt the nation) record unemployment, record national debt that puts Bush too shame, trillions in bailouts for their wall street whores, record gas prices? You see there is a far greater WAR being fought here, it is the FIRST and most fundamental right in our Constitution, Congress shall not pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or endorsing a religion. You see, when the government can pass laws that dictate religious institutions violate their beliefs and force religious institutions to provide a product and service that they have NEVER provided because it contradicts their religious doctrine; then there is NO freedom or liberty that is safe from destruction. The freedom to BELIEVE in what you want to believe in was the first right because it is the most important and fundamental right, Our Founders understood that true liberty and freedom was not granted by a King or Government but was a God given right…But religious hating liberals only believe in a separation of Church and state when it is used to take away religious freedoms rights.

    • Patriotpress4usa,
      Do you deny that the right-wing is openly advocating for the over turning of Roe and wants all abortions to be banned? I am not overlooking the fact (assuming your statement is true) that “abortion is not done out of medical necessity, by Planned Parenthood’s own stats it is done 90 % of the time because a pregnancy is unwanted.” It is irrelevant to individual freedom and the right that every woman has to make her own choice. Why she reach that choice is not my business, nor yours. It is theirs alone. You obviously have some very strong anti-abortion opinions and you have a right to express them as loudly and obnoxiously as you like. But once you, and the elected official you support, move from advocating to legislating then you have crossed a line and are infringing upon the rights of others. A true patriot knows that one must defend another’s right to make their own choice even if that choice is something we personally detest. Weather you are a Jew supporting the rights of Neo-Nazi groups use of anti-semitic speech or a pro-lifer that should be supporting every woman’s right to make her own decision on abortion.
      With respect to the rest of your comment, it is just collection of the same old right-wing conspiracies, straw man arguments and playing the victim that we hear over every issue. The first is the old canard about the liberal media and anyone who doesn’t accept your logically flawed argument has “swallowed an orchestrated false narrative driven by the left wing media.” I reached my conclusion that the right-wings first step is to ban all abortions by witnessing all of the laws at the state level and the efforts at the federal level that have been implemented to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to obtain a legal medical procedure. I also listen to the pro-life movement advocating for judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade. And I read their statements that they want all abortions banned, even in the case of rape and incest. Do you deny that this is happening? I reached my conclusion that the next step is to go after contraception by actually listening to Rick Santorum and the positions that he advocates and then by watching him get the majority of the Christian Evangelical support so far in each primary. Then I watched a debate over what basic health care services are to be included in a health insurance policy that is to be sold (please note that people have to buy it, it is not a give away) on the exchanges get turned into an apocalyptic war against religion. This is why I say it is moving rapidly into the mainstream of the Republican Party. And finally, at the beginning of my article I pointed out that there is a personality type, which has been defined in studies as an “authoritarian follower” (which can be both male and female) that will be submissive to an established authority. I even provided the context for the term “submissive.” I don’t know you, but my first guess is that you might fall into this personality type. But somehow you immediately cast yourself as the victim and claim that I am “vilifying conservative women who don’t agree with the liberal agenda.” Pointing out that there may be 20-25% of women who would willing give up their rights over their own body and allow the government to take that decision away from them, is what you call “vilification?”
      Dan

      • you HAVE given up your right to your own body…it’s called Obama care…you have handed the health care of your body over to your government. And you think that is liberty? You speak of personal liberty but then praise a government system that will have the final say in your health care? Do you think when you are refused treatment by the government you will be able to sue over their decision? NO. If your insurance carrier denies you care can you challenge that decision? YES. Do ALL Republicans want Roe repealed? NO. Do women have NO access to contraception, or abortion and need the government to step in and MANDATE access and that I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? There is no such condition that exists here. I kbnow for a fact my sister has had 3 abortions and gets medical insurance and diopesnt pay for it…I agree, you ladies can do whatever you like with your vagina’s, and have a legal right to slaughter your unborn children, but that doesnt mean I should pay for it with my taxes. Tell me where in the constitution the federal government has that right to mandate such products or services? The issue you keep trying to side step is this was never an issue over Republicans trying to deny women health care. That is the fabricated meme from your Obama-phile media. This was an issue over the Democrat Congress violating the churches first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs according to their doctrine. Even the biggest retard in the administration, his own VP, knows Obama screwed up by picking a fight with the catholic church during an election year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmReKwQAbq8 THey had to turn the argument around to save their asses. Sandra Fluke is an activist. She was not approved to speak at the conference Issa had scheduled. She was deliberatly switched at the last moment because Democrats said their ‘approved’ witness had become unavailable. This is all documented on video during the hearing. Fluke was denied because she has NO credentials or expertise in woimens health care, and had NO credentials in reproductive rights. he was presented as a 22 year old law student and she was IN FACT a 30 year old graduate and long time activist. This was a nothing but a stunt that blew up in Democrats faces…

      • Patriotpress4usa,
        It is obvious from your rant that you do not understand what the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is and how it will operate. First, I need to correct both you and Gunta. Gunta, you do not have “GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE (aka Medicare).” What you have is “GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE INSURANCE (aka Medicare).” There is a very big difference and it not correct to say that Medicare is government run health care. We do actually have a true government run health care system and it is called the V.A. The government owns the hospitals. The doctors and nurses work for the government. This is what a government run health care system looks like. Interestingly, the veterans that use this system (including my father) are very happy with it.
        So Patriot, when you say “you HAVE given up your right to your own body…it’s called Obama care…you have handed the health care of your body over to your government”, that is a blatantly false statement. Obamacare did many things, such as allowing parents to keep their kids on their policy through age 26. This way young adults can get insurance at a reasonable rate while they are starting out. It also prevents insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions or resending a policy after someone gets sick. It partially closed the donut hole for seniors on prescription drugs. It also requires the insurance companies to spend at least $0.80 of every dollar on actual health care. But the biggest provision, and the one that seem to get your panties in a twist, is the establishment of health care insurance exchanges and the mandate that everyone must buy health care insurance. The exchange will be made up of private health care insurance companies that are offering their policies on the exchange. In order for them to be placed on the exchange they must cover some basic requirements. This is where women’s reproductive health care comes into the discussion. Will these services (including contraception) need to be included in this base policy being offered on the exchange. The individual mandate requires that everyone must carry health insurance and if you opt not to then you will pay a fine. You do not have to buy your insurance on the exchange. If you receive your health care insurance as part of your compensation package from your employer, they must offer a plan that covers the same basic services. They can get it through the exchange or self-insure as long as they meet the minimum requirements. You or your employer still get to select which private insurer that you want to use. How you can jump to a conclusion that this is a “government system that will have the final say in your health care” is beyond me. You still select your doctor, you and your doctor decide what medical procedures are needed and the insurance company you selected will make the payments.
        As far as paying for an abortion with your “tax dollars” this is a totally bogus argument. Since the 1970’s the Hyde amendment has been in place which prevents the spending of any federal tax dollars on abortion services. That has not changed. In a round-about way you might be able to argue that some small portion of the money you (or your employer) pay to an insurance company would get used for abortion or contraception services. But this is no different that the argument for us non-smokers to claim that some small portion of our premiums go to paying for lung cancer treatment for people who choose to smoke. But that is the entire premise of insurance, distributing the risk and cost over a large pool.
        I have not side stepped the issue that “this was never an issue over Republicans trying to deny women health care.” Go back and read my original post again. I specifically addressed the Blunt-Rubio amendment that would allow any employer for any “moral” or “religious” reason to exclude any coverage they determined. All but one Republican Senators voted for this amendment. It was not specifically limited to just religious institution. So don’t get indignant when someone calls out the Republicans for what they are actually proposing and voting for. It is not a “fabricated meme from your Obama-phile media.” This was never an issue over the Democrat Congress violating the churches first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs according to their doctrine. They can practice their beliefs all they want, they just cannot impose them on others. Churches do not have to cover these services for their church employees. However, if religious organizations want to step out side of their church operations and engage in commerce then they must comply with labor law just as every other employer. They do not get to pick and choose which laws they like and which they don’t. If it is that offensive to them then the should refrain from getting into that business and stick with preaching in church. The silly thing about this entire”attack on religion argument” is that Ms. Fluke was testifying that the student insurance that Georgetown requires them to purchase does not cover contraceptive services, but the insurance that the faculty and employees of Georgetown receive does include it. It would seem to me that if this was really a religious argument that not one Catholic university or hospital would have contraception covered in their insurance policies. But that is not the case so it undercuts the entire ”attack on religion argument.”
        Dan

  5. you accuse me of straw man arguments and use them yourself. Be careful of using such absolutes in your arguments…”ALL” are for or against something…you have lost the argument right there…

    • I am perfectly happy with my GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE (aka Medicare) as would most people be if they understood what Obamacare tried to provide. Then again I don’t listen to your right “wing media and pawns”.

      Another flaw in your world view is the abortion debate. If you’re against abortion, then you ought to think about this latest move by the GOP to eliminate birth control. Contraception and education have done much to decrease the number of abortions in this country. Why are so many of the states under GOP control passing laws to eliminate contraception? And you still ignore the question about who is supposed to take care of these children once they are born.

      • Who takes care of teh children once they are born??? Seriously? Who took care of you? Im assunming that would be teh woman who gave birth to you? ….please provide your sources because according to the most recent census data, abortion
        rates increased and the Guttmacher institute is a liberal think tank not conservative… http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4304111/pdf … the most prominenet increase being teens and minorities..
        http://theweek.com/article/index/210966/the-rising-abortion-rate-3-theories …But that is exactly the agenda behind Planned Parenthood – to abort minorites -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7IUzjN3pY …. you see Margret Sanger was a fabian Socialist who believed in eugenics theory just like Hitler. This is teh REAL agenda behind abortion…eliminating teh poor, and minority classes…and you liberals suppport this evil ideology. so tell me where is the “GOP’s latest move to eliminate contraception and make it illegal”? I cant wait to hear that one…Because I will tell you wht the next agenda is of teh so called comapssionate left pro abortion mob…killing the newborn: http://patriotpress4usa.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/stop-the-multiplication-of-the-unfit-pt-2/ …and you think conservatives are despicable….ha! But then again Hitler hjad teh same ideals on poulation control and racial cleansing and he was also a Socialist just like todays Democrats…

    • Patriotpress4usa,
      It appears that you misunderstand what a straw man argument is. The use of the word “all” in my comment did not refer to “all people” that are on the pro-life side. It was a reference to a position that is being advocated, and has been supported by the four remaining presidential candidates, that “all abortions” be banned, even when it is a result of rape or incest. Are you denying that this is true? So once again you set up a straw man claiming that I said “all Republicans” want to repeal Roe, then you ask yourself questions to knock down that straw man.
      Dan

  6. Sorry… I have a tendency to keep it short and simple (thus occasionally inaccurate). I thought about including VA as an example, but only after hitting the send button. I also should have called MediCare a single payer system, which it is more or less. Personally that would have been my choice for Obamacare, but there was no way that was going to get past the insurance lobby.

    I stand corrected.

    • Gunta,
      I understand. The media is generally lazy and will not spend the time to distinguish between health care services and health care insurance. We hear it so often that we all fall into that trap, especially when we are speaking. I try to make sure I am more precise when I write. I realized that a single payer system would never get throught Congress but I would like to have seen a Medicare buy-in option included. I think we could have gone a long way to addressing the cost of health care insurance and boosting funding for Medicare by letting younger and healthier people buy into the Medicare system. At one point Joe Lieberman floated this idea and soon as it looked like people might support it he quickly turned on his own idea.
      Dan

  7. Danny, you are a mensch and a nice guy, and I appreciate your thoughts. It means something to me that you are one of our few cousins who actually pays attention to me, and that means something especially now that I have no parents.

    But the tone on this thread is just something else. I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue any of this. I never fit in anywhere politically so I’m pretty much used to it. When my intelligence is insulted (not by you) my desire to continue the conversation wanes. Ditto for the inflammatory language, no matter where it comes from. Leaning right doesn’t mean I’ve lost the ability to think critically or to have compassion. I don’t march to anyone’s drum: I neither tune in to Fox nor to MSNBC. I do not get my news from Rush Limbaugh or Mother Jones. I don’t wish to limit anyone’s access to an abortion if she needs it for whatever reason, but I won’t wave a banner and elevate that to the lofty status of being a “right.” I take exception to the person on the thread making insinuations about what I “should” believe based on my religion, and anyone else making any kind of assumption based on their own generalizations. I don’t judge any issue through the wash of a political party lens, I prefer conversation to defense of talking points, and I just have the simple belief that the government should be a safety net and not a nanny. Who will I vote for this fall? Probably no one at all.

    Also, again Dan, thanks for doing a close reading of what I actually wrote.

    I think I’ll stick to daydreaming to your pretty travel pictures…

    • Shannon,
      You will like the travel photos from my next trip. We are going to China soon. If the tone of the thread bothers you we can continue our discussion with messages through facebook (after Lent) or via email. I am interested in learning more about what you consider to be your fundamental values and how you see the two parties lining up with them. I am also interested in what you think falls in the social safety net and what crosses the line into a nanny state. What I hear are the leaders and loudest voices in the Republican Party arguing that programs I consider to be part of the safety net, being what they consider to be part of the nanny state. FYI, I know you sneek a peek at Shep Smith on Fox and nobody gets news from Rush. Real news is a foriegn concept to him. 🙂
      Dan

      • Lol Shep is eye-and-ear candy; he could read the phone book in that southern gentleman drawl and I’d tune in

  8. so Danny is an expert on Obamacare and has read the entire 2000 pages…yea right. Danny the parents IO know are not thrilled at having to pay for their kids healthcare when they are 26+ years old…time to get a life and a job Skippy. The government mandate to employers and the general public will cause 2 things to happen: first, it will be cheaper for employers to dump the employees on to the government insurance system, than provide a descent health care policy for the company…private enterprise will not be able to compete. Second, to fine the individual for NOT wanting to buy a health care policy is the most fascist form of government control. The Federal government will make criminals out of ordinary citizens who simply do not wish to purchase insurance for themselves…You seem to be operating on the fallacy that having the government take over health care will result in some great Utopian health system that everyone can use and no one will pay for….the delusion of the left wing, that “services” are “FREE” …newsflash Skippy…Socialism fails because eventually THE MONEY RUNS OUT! To ignore these facts is to ignore history.You may be able to get some kind of magical ALL Inclusive policy that doesn’t discriminate against pre-existing conditions, HOWEVER GETTING TREATED for that condition will be a whole other ball game Skippy… Canada, the UK, have long long long waiting lists for critical care when it comes to cancer and other life threatening illness, not too mention their government wont give you cutting edge drugs and treatments because of COST. I suggest you read Dr Eziekiel Emmanuel’s doctrines on govt. run health care and the rationing of critical health services. He is the man who provided the structure of Obama care and is also the pioneer in RATIONED HEALTH SERVICES…his entire career is built around it….OBAMA CARE is a death sentence and government run population control….it is Fabian Socialist eugenics in its finest form and you are too young and stupid to even realize it.
    In January, 2009, Dr. Emanuel published a paper in the Lancet [Persad, Govind, Alan Wertheimer, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.” The Lancet 373 (Jan 31,2009): 423-31]. In it he argues for the use of a “Complete Lives Systems” method of allocating care. It is how THE GOVERNMENT will EVALUATE exactly what kind of health care you deserve based on how IMPORTANT you are to society based on age, social status, and the current condition of your hgealth…From the abstract:

    …” We recommend an alternative system–the complete lives system–which prioritises younger people who have not yet live a complete life and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

    In defending this approach against charges of ageism, Dr. Emanuel claims that because everyone was young once, prioritizing the young over the old is not discrimination:

    Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different states rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.

    This system also treats human beings as commodities, evaluating their lives as “investments”:

    Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.

    Lifesite News reports that in a Hastings Center Report, 1996, Emanuel also spoke of denying care to the disabled:

    In a separate 1996 article for the Hastings Center Report, Emanuel spoke about rationing care away from those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens” to the non-disabled, adding “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

    This is the ideology that will be guiding the Health Benefits Advisory Council in the current health care reform legislation.

    …NOT EVEN THE OBAMA administration is running on or trumpeting their GRAND accomplishment of government health care…but you obamaphiles want to use it as his crowning achievement…good luck with that kiddo….You are a delusional fool …

    • Patriotpress4usa,
      First, I should thank you for being a perfect example of an irrational right-winger that will embrace any conspiracy theory that the right-wing media puts out. I wasn’t sure, until your last comment, where you were getting them from and why all of your comments have such an angry tone and tend to ramble. So you are a big Glenn Beck fan? The “Fabian Socialist eugenics” conspiracy theory was the tip-off. Plus the angry over the top rhetoric, capitalizing certain words so that we know you are shouting, and the gratuitous name calling are typical traits of Beck fans. Beck may not be your only source but he comes through clearly in the content and style of your comments. You do more to drive away rational and reasonable Republicans (those you like to call RINO’s) than any liberal could do with their arguments. Thanks.
      I find it humorous that Republicans like to complain about how many pages a bill contains. I guess every proposed bill, even for very complex subjects, should be limited to 3 pages just like the one originally proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson for TARP. Just give him $787 billion taxpayer dollars to spend however he wanted with no strings and no oversight. Hey, but it was only 3 pages so it must have been good, right?
      There are so many inaccuracies and misstatements in your comment I am not sure where to start or if I should even waste my time responding. Although I doubt it will make any difference or cause you to research or rethink any of your positions, it may be of some value for other readers. So here we go.
      The Federal government will not “make criminals out of ordinary citizens who simply do not wish to purchase insurance for themselves.” There are no criminal charges associated with the payment of a fine. If someone chooses not to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare insurance and wants to freeload off the taxpayers and those who do purchase insurance, then they will pay a fine to offset some of their cost impact on the system. We live in a society where if you have an accident or medical emergency, emergency services will show up and provide initial treatment and then transport you to a hospital for further treatment. Unless you are advocating, and maybe you are, for a change in society to one where the emergency service shows up at an accident scene or when someone is have a heart attack or perhaps some other unknown illness, they first ask for an insurance card and then call your private insurance company to determine if the services they are about to render are covered under your policy. If you don’t have insurance, or forgot to carry your papers with you, or your insurance company decides that don’t really want to cover that procedure then I guess you can just die. But hey, at least you will die knowing that you didn’t live under the “most fascist form of government control.”
      Your statement that “the government mandate to employers and the general public will cause 2 things to happen: first, it will be cheaper for employers to dump the employees on to the government insurance system, than provide a descent health care policy for the company…private enterprise will not be able to compete” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Affordable Care Act. It did not create a “government insurance system.” It requires each state to set up an insurance exchange where private insurance companies will be able to sell their policies to individuals and companies. The exchanges will require the “private” insurance companies to offer policies that cover a minimum baseline of services and will allow consumers to compare policies. What a radical concept, to give consumers choices and make private companies compete for their business. How you conclude that I “seem to be operating on the fallacy that having the government take over health care will result in some great Utopian health system that everyone can use and no one will pay for….the delusion of the left wing, that “services” are “FREE”, is beyond comprehension and total non-sense. If Obamacare’s exchange requirement results in cheaper health insurance great. That is was the goal and why it is called the Affordable Care Act.
      Your little rant about socialism and the Canadian or UK healthcare systems demonstrate that you do not understand the basic fundamentals of what was passed in the Affordable Care Act. It is just hyperbolic rhetoric to create fear and confusion for those that are uninformed. It obviously worked on you.
      I have read “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” by Persad, Wertheimer, and Emanuel. Have you,or are you just repeating the little snippets that Glenn Beck shared with you? If you have read the paper, the first thing you would notice is that it is an evaluation of the ethics of the existing systems that are used in the allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines. They proceed to go through the advantage and disadvantages of each of the 8 principles that are currently being used. They evaluated the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) point system, the Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) allocation system and the World Health Organization (WHO) disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) allocation system and then concluded that because none of the systems satisfy all ethical requirements for a just system they proposed an alternate system that was a blend incorporating five of the principles with a sixth being used in some emergency situations. But you would never know this from the selectively edited quotes that you cite. Such as, “… We recommend an alternative system–the complete lives system–which priorities younger people who have not yet live a complete life and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.” The … in the quote means there is something in front that may be significant to the quote. Which of course there is, and it states “Because none of the systems satisfy all ethical requirements for a just system, we proposed an alternate system: the complete lives system.” Then, that little dash (-) in your quote means there is something in the middle that was removed. What was removed is “This system incorporates five principles” and refers the reader to a table. You have then jumbled the rest of the quote rearranging the order and failing to note that there is a reference number. That little number [5] is a clue to the reader that they should look for the reference that was used for this quote. If you had bothered to check it would have told you that it came from a 2006 article titled “Who should get influenza vaccine when not all can?” So this entire quote, as selective and jumbled as you presented it, is about what order to give out flu shots when there are not enough vaccines. But that doesn’t sound scary enough. So omit some info and take it out of context to punch it up a little.
      The quote “Even if 25 year-olds receive priority over 65 year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” didn’t come from Dr. Emanuel as you stated. Look at that reference number [16] and it will tell you it was from D.W. Brock in a 2004 paper titled “the misplaced role of urgency in the allocation of persistently scare life-saving organs.” But hey, why put these quotes in context or attribute them to the correct person when your goal is to scare people into believing the government is undertaking a “Fabian Socialist eugenics” program. Now that sounds really scary.
      I don’t know if you were being intentionally dishonest or if you just cut and pasted these quotes from some right-wing site and didn’t bother to check there accuracy. But it takes a lot of nerve to say to me “You are a delusional fool … or you are too young and stupid to even realize it” when you buy into these conspiracy theories and will repeat them without verifying them. FYI, I am in my mid 50’s and have a degree in engineering. I have had my own business for more than 20 years and have provided healthcare insurance for my employees as a benefit. So I pay close attention to these issues.
      Finally, it Mr. Danny to you. Only my relatives can call me Danny.
      Dan

      • Sorry my bad

  9. Danny ….you are a delusional liberal…”right wing media?” ha…where does that exist? ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ALL OF HOLLYWEIRD…left wing zealots like yourself….you are a panto-“meme” of the MSNBC Marxist white house idiots…you regurgitate NOTHING that even your President wants to run on as an “accomplishment”, proving just how brainwashed you are kiddo…have a good life “Danny” boy….if you really are 50 and an engineer…you really are one stupid fucker kiddo…good luck with your historically proven failure of an ideology you piece of garbage Socialist…do us all a favor and move to Europe where you can live your delusional Utopian dream with the rest of the Marxist failures and leave my Republic and my Constitution alone…join your collective Skippy…free Americans dont need you…

    • In my original post I asked the question “Why would any woman vote for a Republican?” For any of the women out there who have read through the comments posted by patriotpress4usa to this article, I have another question for you. Do you want to belong to and support a political party that is being dominated by guys like him? Do you want decision about your body and healthcare being made by guys like this? I know that not everyone in the Republican Party is as delusional, rude, angry and filled with hate as Mr. patriotpress4usa, but these guys use to be part of the far right fringe when George H.W. Bush was president and now they have moved to the center of the party. Lead spokesmen for the conservative movement, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, consistently show the same disdain and lack of respect for others rights and opinions. They will also go straight to the name calling, such as Rush did with his “slut” and “prostitute” comments against a woman who committed the sin of speaking in public and saying something he disagreed with. He never did address the content of her comments, but instead he attacked her personally. Elected Republican officials are afraid to speak out against these angry voices for fear of being challenged by a Tea Party candidate even further to the right. Take a closer look at the Tea Party members of Congress that were elected in 2010. Some of them may be a little more polished in their presentation but the anger, hatred and conspiratorial delusions still come through loud and clear. Do we need more of these people or fewer of them in Congress and our State offices to close the partisan divide and address the country’s problems? The 2012 election will be decided by women. You will be the key swing demographic. So I would really like to know “Why would any woman vote for a Republican?”
      Mr. patriotpress4usa, I am going to leave this last comment of yours up so that everyone can see for themselves that you are unable to carry on a civilized debate without devolving into name calling and swearing. My prior response addressed your misstatements and conspiracy theories point by point. You obviously could not reply with a rebuttal that challenged any of my points on a factual basis, so you resort to personal insults and attacks. Any future comments from you will be blocked or taken down.
      Dan

      • Yup… best bet is not to feed the trolls….

  10. Just a comment from Krugman’s blog why it’s a waste of time talking reason to those brainwashed on the right…..

    March 19, 2012, 9:18 AM
    The Mighty Wurlitzer in Action
    Read the comments on today’s column and you’ll find many, many references to the alleged fact that the estimated cost of the ACA has risen by a trillion dollars — which happens to be a complete lie.

    The remarkable thing is how quickly the lie has become part of what everyone on the right knows. And even if some of the people citing this “fact” could somehow be convinced that it wasn’t so, they’d brush it off, because there’s such a pattern of liberal duplicity, demonstrated by lots of other supposed facts — all of which are also lies.

    This is the reality of modern American politics: a large and cohesive bloc of voters lives in an alternative reality, fed fake facts by Fox and Rush — whom they listen to out of tribal affiliation — and completely unaware that it’s all fiction.

    It’s also, by the way, why attempts at outreach by Obama will fail. Even if he gives the GOP 95 percent of what it wants, these voters will never hear about it; they will still know, just know, that he’s a radical bent on destroying America.

    • Gunta,
      It is true that you cannot reason with an irrational person. Karl Rove explained it to Ron Suskind years ago that we live in what they called the “reality based community” and that we will judiciously study the facts to reach a conclusion. He said this wasn’t the way it worked anymore. He said they were the actors and they will create their own reality which we can then judiciously study. They have spun their own alternate reality and created an alternate set of what they call “facts”. The people who have bought into this alternate reality are the ones that will argue that Rush was just defending freedom of religion by calling Ms Fluke a “slut”. There is no connection but in their reality if you don’t agree with their position on contraception then it is an attack on religion. He was attempting to destroy the messenger personally to drown out her message because it will resonate with the majority who still live in the reality based community. While you can never convince the “dittoheads” with reason, they are not the target audience. It is the people in the middle who don’t pay much attention to politics that you hope to show the difference between reality and “alternate reality”.
      Dan

  11. […] Why would any woman vote for a Republican? […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: