So they yanked out all the coverage for male reproductive health, too, right? Viagra? Prostates?

[omega minimo]

Vasectomies? Urinary issues? Testicular cancer? :wow:

[FLDCVADem]

1. Federal dollars don't pay for abortions now

and federal dollars won't pay for abortions after this bill has passed.

What is different? Why all the hysteria?

[omega minimo]

3. Oh nice use of the word "HYSTERIA"

:evilfrown:

[FLDCVADem]

4. If the shoe fits n/t

[katandmoon]

7. Because those fucking restrictions are so misogynistic and religion-based and WRONG

[FLDCVADem]

9. Agree

And they're the same restrictions that have been in place for 30+ years. My point is that people are being dishonest about what this bill does and doesn't do. Outlawing abortion? Outlawing abortion coverage in insurance? Bullshit.

Not a single thing vis a vis federal coverage of abortion is going to be different the day this bill takes effect than it is now. But people are acting like this is banning abortion.

Like I said, bullshit.

[omega minimo]

12. Yours is the dishonesty and bullshit.

Why do you think the language is in the bill?

[FLDCVADem]

14. You've made the claim

so prove it.

What in this bill changes ANYTHING regarding federal funding for abortion? Who won't be able to get an abortion because of this bill that can get one now?

[omega minimo]

18. what claim have I made? don't try to pull that SHIT!!

Don't play word games. You're on thin ice as it is :evilfrown: YOU back up YOUR "claims." YOU answer the question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7274491

[FLDCVADem]

24. You're claiming that abortion coverage is being yanked

as if federally funded abortion coverage is currently available - it's not.

Why the false claim?

[omega minimo]

27. I am?

:scared:

[VanW]

15. NOW is calling this a "sweeping anti-abortion law".

Those are their exact words.

[FLDCVADem]

17. Of course they are

But they won't put forth a single fact based argument that proves their point, just like no one on DU does.

Lots of screaming about how this changes everything, but not a single fact based example. Perhaps you'll be the exception.

[omega minimo]

20. Repeating your false claims proves nothing. Read the link. Then think.

You're the one screeching. Go away and educate yourself.

[omega minimo]

19. VanW "Maybe they've been overcome by uterine secretions and are no longer in their right minds."

Maybe you"re on the wrong discussion board. :puke:

[VanW]

21. That was a reference

to the other poster calling opponents of this bill "hysterical".

Sorry, a bit too sarcastic.

[uppityperson]

25. "Maybe they've been overcome by uterine secretions and are no longer in their right minds. "? WTF?

ah, now you edit to add :sarcasm:
Ah.

[VanW]

28. Sorry

Someone was calling opponents of the bill "hysterical". It was an attempt at sarcasm. I'll take it out.

[uppityperson]

23. However, it does change other things so why NOT abortion coverage?

[katandmoon]

26. I have news for you. For the first two years of Clinton's presidency, federal employees DID have

abortion coverage.

They can do it if they fucking want to.

They just don't want to! Obama is a fucking chickenshit on the subject -- talks big, but either takes no action to support his words, or displays an utter willingness to throw a woman's right to choose under the bus (just like on gay rights) in order to have a bill, ANY bill, to sign for his Hawaiian beach photo op.

Abortion is a medical procedure that affects only women, and it is thus expendable -- not just "birth control" abortions but abortions when carrying to term would endanger a woman's health. If not having an abortion would KILL her, only then is abortion covered, for an ever expanding group of women now.

And if you are a woman who can't afford an abortion, this bill is the same as banning abortion.

[omega minimo]

29. "And if you are a woman who can't afford an abortion, this bill is the same as banning abortion."

Speaking of his words: listening to Obama talk about women's rights has always been strikingly underwhelming, always using his noncommittal lingo and rushing right to reassuring whoever the opponent of women's rights are.

[omega minimo]

30. .

[omega minimo]

31. .

[debbierlus]

2. Yeah, where the hell is the seperate policy for all of that!

[laughingliberal]

5. Of course, they did.

:sarcasm:

That's another thing. How come we never hear from the Christofascists about this? Does it not bother them some men may use these drugs to facilitate adultery or fornication? Some may even use them in the commission of ...gasp...homo-sex-u-al acts. Can't be in keeping with their beliefs. We may need to let them know their tax dollars could pay for drugs that lead to all this wickedness.

[omega minimo]

10. It's a sin to spill the precious seed.

[leftstreet]

6. Anybody?

:shrug:

[Deja Q]

8. Teehehehehehe, "yanked".

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

11. Excised?

:yoiks: :spray: :wow:
..............:bounce::bounce:

[Cleita]

13. Alice, you need to stop eating those mushrooms. n/t

[Jamastiene]

16. No, they just wanted to make sure women weren't covered.

It's a fucking outrage.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. Abortion is a different issue than vasectomies, urinary issues, testicular cancer, or ED.

It should also be pointed out in all fairness, however, that abortion is a different issue than pre-conceptive birth control as well.

[omega minimo]

32. Of course it is, because the men in charge of these matters are not the one's who have the power

to give birth.


"It should also be pointed out in all fairness, however, that abortion is a different issue than pre-conceptive birth control as well."

On that point, it should also be pointed out that -- unless it is -- it's none of your business.

[Cleita]

33. Abortion is about women's health as much as those other procedures

you mention are about men's health, yet it's framed as a choice issue, not a medical issue. I haven't seen any billboards, protests or murders regarding vasectomies that are also a reproductive choice of men.