Silent thread opposing ANY legislation that sacrifices women's reproductive rights, health, & choice

[debbierlus]

No longer will we allow womens' bodies and reproductive rights to be utilized as a bargaining chip!

No longer will womens health be put up a the sacrificial alter of political 'compromise'!

ANY legislation that weakens womens reproductive choice and DISCRIMINATES against women will be furiously fought until ANY provision reducing womens right to choice and access to safe abortion services are removed.

I am extremely disappointed DU would even DEBATE supporting passage of the Senate bill after they included the Nelson discrimination amendment into the legislation.

This bill is a enslavement act to the radical right and corporations.

It is wrong. It can't be justified. And, if we can't hold our principle here, what then do we stand for? Anything? Anything at all?!

[Lars39]

1. ~

[debbierlus]

2. .......

[Donnachaidh]

3. wow -- un-reccers already?

I guess we're going to be pushed back into the kitchen, where we belong as chattel.... :sarcasm:

[debbierlus]

8. .......

:grouphug:

[mlevans]

195. As a liberal man who has cooked his family's meals for over 30 years

I would be most uncomfortable with any of you "chattels" in my kitchen. I would be equally uncomfortable with any legislation that would infringe on or curtail your natural rights. Senator Nelson and his ilk should be heartily ashamed.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

235. It's okay.....

...with 262 recs already, I'm sure the OP is still in the running for prom queen.

[Name removed]

272. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xultar]

402. ...and in your dictionary silent means what?

[DJ13]

4. .

.

[laughingliberal]

5. ...

[Joe Bacon]

6. :-(

[pleah]

7. .....

[Warpy]

9. This is why we can NEVER VOTE FOR ANTICHOICE DEMOCRATS

Yes, I said it. We can sit that election out and vote for the next candidate, providing the party runs one who respects the right of women to complete health care, including but not limited to contraception and abortion.

Sorry, guys, but this is the line I simply can't cross. It would be like voting for a pro slavery candidate in the 1850s because he was peachy on trade issues. I just can't do it.

Antichoice candidates are much more likely to side with the GOP on other issues, from civil rights for gays to labor issues to taxes. They are much more likely to be conservative in other, equally unacceptable areas.

We have to let the party know they can't run these conservative goons and expect to win. Maybe then they'll reconsider the practice.

[CrispyQ]

10. Well said & I totally agree.

Anti-choice candidates will never get my vote.

[debbierlus]

14. ..........

:hug:

[Blasphemer]

15. Indeed. never again... nt

[Bitwit1234]

16. Rahm....rahm... rahm picked the Dirty Dogs he should go also.

[defendandprotect]

dupe

and every should recognize that includes Hillary, as well --

Hillary is part of DLC leadership!

[defendandprotect]

299. dupe--

and every should recognize that includes Hillary, as well --

Hillary is part of DLC leadership!

[defendandprotect]

300. ALL of the poisonous DLC has to go --

and every should recognize that includes Hillary, as well --

Hillary is part of DLC leadership!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

194. "[Anti-abortion] candidates are much more likely to side with the GOP on other issues"

I'd advise you to check out two sites before making blanket statements on single issue matters:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

You'd be really surprised if you did the research.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

198. +1 n/t

[niyad]

203. spot on--I will NEVER vote for ANY candidate who is anti-choice, regardless of other positions, and

I do not care how others view that. anti-choice, and anti-war? guess what? you have still thrown half the population under the bus, and your other stands are irrelevant. if you don't care about my well-being, my rights, your other stands are so much window dressing. I refuse to vote for anyone who thinks my rights are less important than getting elected.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. .

[readmoreoften]

12. .

[leftstreet]

13. .

Is that a typo? Silent "threat?"

:rofl:

[Melissa G]

17. .

[Triana]

18. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

I'm standing.

[debbierlus]

28. .....

:toast:

[Neecy]

19. ,,,,

And you used the correct term for it: it's radical. Both Stupak and the Nelson compromise.

It's the most radical anti-choice measure to be enacted into law since Hyde. Even George Bush and his rubber-stamp GOP Congress didn't pass anything this radical on the issue of choice.

A Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democrat President will enact it into law: separate and unequal, horribly patronizing, insulting, disgraceful and shameful. And it was given away so breezily, with a flip of the hand in a SINGLE AFTERNOON. NO protracted debate. NO discussion. Just handed over, la-di-da with a little extra bit of 'quit yer bitchin' from the DU Pom Pom squad here.

So discouraging. Thank you for starting this thread. I'll never forgive and I'll never forget.

[peace frog]

83. ....

:thumbsup:

[Brickbat]

20. Thread.

[Starry Messenger]

21. .

[madmom]

22. !!!

:grouphug:

[WeDidIt]

23. So where was the threat?

Your subject line promises a silent threat.

Where's the threat?

[Goldstein1984]

"It is wrong. It can't be justified..."

It's undemocratic.

Progressives aren't splitting the party, we're being pushed out of it.

[enlightenment]

24. !

[Odin2005]

25. ...

[etherealtruth]

26. .

[katandmoon]

27. ...

[Little Star]

29. .

[MuseRider]

30. =

[AndyA]

31. Government needs to get out of America's bedrooms...

and spend more time checking what's going on in America's boardrooms.

[debbierlus]

45. .........

[defendandprotect]

150. It's simply more of the capitalist/corporate agenda . . .control over women/others . . .

If the corporates win this health care deform, you can be sure that

Social Security, Medicare and abortion will be next ---

all human rights will be reversed...

[maryinthemorn]

171. Get out of our bedrooms used to be reserved for Repugs. Times hace changed.

:scared:

[City Lights]

32. !

:grouphug:

[Dragonfli]

33. .

[WillyT]

34. ...

...

[rockymountaindem]

35. .

[G_j]

36. =

[LWolf]

37. .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Or, any legislator. KnR

[debbierlus]

39. ...................

:thumbsup:

[tekisui]

40. ~

[Captain Hilts]

41. .

[golddigger]

42. .,;'

[Lyric]

43. .

[Individualist]

44. ...

[TorchTheWitch]

46. What the fuck is the point to a "silent" thread???

These are so damn laughable. A thread full of nothing. Just WHAT is the point to a thread full of nothing being said???? Do people not realize how utterly stupid this is and how utterly stupid it looks????

[hayu_lol]

47. ... :^) ...

...

[TorchTheWitch]

49. good for you looking stupid

carry on

[debbierlus]

50. ....................

:spank:

[Neecy]

88. interesting user name there

[omega minimo]

135. It's the sound of countless women leaving to form new coalitions based on peace and justice .......

[EFerrari]

143. + 1

Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.

-- Rosa Luxemburg

[lib_wit_it]

144. It's like an un-anonymous poll. I can put myself on the record as in agreement with the OP in a

"'nuff said" kind of way. I like that. If you don't, then why not move along to another thread where you can call people stupid for more legitimate reasons?

The silent thread is cool--it takes imagination and cooperation and self-discipline. Too bad so many lacking in those things feel the need to fuck up the purity of the format.

Better luck next time.

[peace13]

340. ????? n/t

[Hydra]

48. Compromising our values for Candidates

Silly idea, isn't it?

[ZombieHorde]

51. |

[Tindalos]

52. .

[Hatchling]

53. ~~~~

~~~~

[KakistocracyHater]

54. I choose not to be an octoMom I couldn't feed that many ntake good care of

*

[Greybnk48]

55. !!!!

my heels are dug in on this one.

[Agony]

56. *

[stubertmcfly]

57. ~

[ldf]

58. !

[Libertas1776]

59. ...

[Beaverhausen]

60. .

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. *

[tilsammans]

62. ~ ~ ~

[racaulk]

63. .

[PuraVidaDreamin]

64. .

.

[Morning Dew]

65. .

[Thickasabrick]

66. ...

[me b zola]

67. ...

[Snarkoleptic]

68. mmm hmmm...clearing thoat.

[musette_sf]

69. .........

[kiva]

70. .

[girl_interrupted]

76. ......

[Lugnut]

71. ......

[we can do it]

72. (.)

[susanr516]

73. ......

[mascarax]

74. ...

[kcass1954]

75. .

[Dinger]

77. . . . .

[Nikki Stone1]

78. K & R!

...

[Chan790]

79. ...

[JohnnyHardhat]

80. Disgraceful bill

[EFerrari]

81. .

[DKRC]

82. ::

:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

84. .

[BlueJazz]

85. The one thing that truly amazes me is: If this Health Care Bill had a "Gay" provision...

..that stated that Gay rights would be lessened, ALL the Democrats would be screaming their asses off....but since it's Women who are having their rights lowered,,,It's "Acceptable"

Pure Bullshit....and every Women should be pissed as Hell.

[Neecy]

87. No, they wouldn't

Gays have already been used and abused by the Obama administration, and we were attacked pretty viciously here for raising the issue (and still are on occasion). This site used to be fairly progressive...now, not so much.

[debbierlus]

91. ++++++++++++++

[Le Taz Hot]

170. I beg your pardon.

I know of NO feminist that is not for equal rights for ALL. Don't be an idiot and fall for that divide-and-conquer bullshit. Don't play into their hands! Solidarity is the name of the game here. ALL of us stood together in our grief over Prop. H8. ALL of us are fighting hard to reverse it. Equal rights for ALL means equal rights for ALL. Period.

[BlueJazz]

173. I'm glad to hear someone say that.

[luckyleftyme2]

182. you won't see gays

reason its not a repuke bill; have you forgotten the hand under the stall? it was a right -hand! yuk yuk

[donheld]

86. '

[Howler]

89. Check....

.....

[MountainLaurel]

90. )-:

[rhett o rick]

92. IMPEACH RAHMBO nt

[Mnemosyne]

93. ...

[liberal_at_heart]

94. .

[roguevalley]

95. ... --- ... ---

[waiting for hope]

96. ~ .. ~

[Tx4obama]

97. HCR does NOT affect a woman's right to have an abortion - it only affects 'the payment' of one.

There is NOTHING in the bill that takes away A Woman's RIGHT to have an abortion.

The HCR bill restricts INSURANCE COMPANIES from using federal funds to pay for them.

You can TAKE YOUR OWN MONEY and go and have as many abortions as you wish!

Stop confusing the TWO SEPARATE issues!

I am a liberal democrat BUT I will never support using tax-payer dollars to fund abortions.


p.s. And I will not be silent when people are not telling the truth!

[chimpymustgo]

101. Pro-choice. Pro-woman. Anti-shit sandwich. I will not be silent when people are taking women's

rights away.

[Tx4obama]

117. I am a woman....

and we NEVER had the right for the government to pay for abortions - except in the case of rape, incest, and health of a woman, in that case those are covered under medicaid.

We have a 'right to have an abortion' we do NOT have a right to expect tax-payers to pay for them, period!

There are no rights being taken away from women.

[rd_kent]

119. Amen, sister.

Spot on!

[lib_wit_it]

145. BS "sisters." THe government isn't supposed to be giving money to churches either, but it does.

[defendandprotect]

153. Right ... we're now subsidizing the Vatican!!! Abortion is health care . . .!!!

[rd_kent]

206. I agree.

But only for non-elective healthcare. Abortions that threaten the life of the mother, or are cause by rape/incests, etc., is NON-elective healthcare and should be covered. All other abortions are ELECTIVE healthcare and as ALL elective healthcare is, should not be covered.

[Sparkly]

214. How are abortions in cases of rape and incest not "elective?"

And if they're "non-elective," then why is an abortion in the case of damage to a woman's HEALTH "elective?"

I think the terms "elective" and "non-elective" muddy the waters and judge women's choices.

[rd_kent]

219. I dont like having to use those terms either.

But there must be a way to differentiate between medically necessary and medically Unnecessary procedures.

[abelenkpe]

221. How about this scenario

You are carrying twins. One is developing fine. The other is not and threatens the life of the other one. What do you do then? Risk the healthy baby for the one that will not survive? Because this scenario isn't covered by the options you listed. Where do you stand in that case?

[rd_kent]

240. I stand by the decision made between the doctor and the patient.

[abelenkpe]

305. Thats cool

I'm just saying that that scenario isn't in the one you mentioned or is mentioned by most opposing federal funding of abortions. And if laws were worded as such it could result in those abortions not being covered, jeopardizing a babies life and causing financial hardship on the family that such a scenario (while rare) had to endure.

Life is messy and putting restrictions on abortion funding infringes on the rights of women. It is always a sad story when one has an abortion. Always. I've never known a woman who wanted to have one or who took the decision lightly.

And making abortion a part of the discussion of health care reform is a callous attempt to divide voters to the benefit of those seeking to derail reform.

[Tailormyst]

229. So do they have to report the incest or rape?

Does a judge need to conclude they are being honest? Does there need to be a conviction first? How many times should a raped and traumatized woman have to justify her choice to strangers and hope they give her permission to have a medical procedure?

Do you see where that slippery slope goes?

[rd_kent]

242. You have put up what is called a strawman.

And I will let you knock that one down all by yourself.

[Tailormyst]

246. No- I have asked you a legitimate question. Who gets to determine if it is rape?

A judge? The woman? Must there be a conviction? Must she report the rape to the police?

Please rd-kent, tell me exactly how you would determine if a woman was allowed to have an abortion due to rape.

[Sparkly]

250. Also, how is this "medically-necessary" or "non-elective" while others are not?

This shows that the prohibitions are about "Moral" Judgment of the woman herself.

[rd_kent]

251. When you take down that strawman and stop the personal attacks, we can continue.

[Lars39]

255. You still haven't answered the question.

[Tailormyst]

259. You are simply refusing to answer a legitimate question.

You don't even know the meaning of the term "strawman" that you keep tossing around when the questions get hard.

[rd_kent]

260. you need to look up legitimate, because you are anything but.

[Tailormyst]

262. Again you are refusing to answer a legitimate question on your position

[rd_kent]

276. Are you still talking?

[Tailormyst]

283. Answer the question.

[Scout]

331. he won't, he's run away n/t

[rd_kent]

338. No, I haven't. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

381. What about a woman's privacy?

She needs to prove she was a victim of rape or incest to get coverage of a legal medical procedure?

Bullshit.

[rd_kent]

399. That is a whole other argument.

Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[rd_kent]

205. Did anyone say that they supported that? Uh, no.

Thats called a strawman, and you can beat it all you want.

[hardtoport]

266. Agreed. I don't like my taxpayer dollars going to pay for

abstinence-only education, either, but I seem to be stuck with that since both parties are more than happy to piss me off in order to suck up to fundamentalists.

Someone needs to take the "planks " that make up the party platform and smack some people upside the head with them. I'm all for a big tent, just not one that's anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-business, and pro-war. That circus is already in town. Just follow the trail of elephant dung and it can be found easily enough.

There is a big difference between having diversity in our party and selling out everything this party stands for.

[Pisces]

103. Exactly, THE SAME AS IT IS NOW!!!!!! People just want to complain.

[defendandprotect]

268. "People" . . . ???? Or "women just want to complain" . . . ???

When you look at the fact that much of our male-dominated Congress voted against

Franken's amendment to overturn the "loophole" in the KBG contract where a number

of women have been raped and forced to negotiate with the company rather than being

able to sue them -- and where the males responsible for the rapes are NOT charged --

then you see something alarming!

That anyone who voted to maintain that "loophole" should still be serving in Congress

is astonishing to me!!

And these are the same males deciding on control over reproduction --

[defendandprotect]

275. "People" . . . ???? Or "women just want to complain" . . . ???

When you look at the fact that much of our male-dominated Congress voted against

Franken's amendment to overturn the "loophole" in the KBG contract where a number

of women have been raped and forced to negotiate with the company rather than being

able to sue them -- and where the males responsible for the rapes are NOT charged --

then you see something alarming!

That anyone who voted to maintain that "loophole" should still be serving in Congress

is astonishing to me!!

And these are the same males deciding on control over reproduction --



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/21-5#comment-1373771

[fascisthunter]

329. stop trying to delegitimize women's concern's for their bodies

it really is disgusting

[Cerridwen]

104. "...public funding has been a proxy for overturning Roe."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/1/gpr100112.html

[Starry Messenger]

106. And if you DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN MONEY

you are SHIT OUT OF LUCK! THANKS! When you need a replacement for that thing you call a heart, please don't use my money either.

[Tx4obama]

115. Women won the right to have an abortion, NOT the right for goverment to pay for it! n/t

[rd_kent]

121. Kapow! The truth will set you free! 100% CORRECT.

[EFerrari]

125. It's discriminaiton, pure and simple.

[rd_kent]

128. Really? In what way?

[EFerrari]

131. Do you seriously need it spelled out?

Why is this medical procedure being singled out? That's discrimination.

Restricting abortion access for low income women is stupid as well as discriminatory. The only thing it will do is result in more unwanted children, more back alley abortions and a handful of happy fundies.

Abortion rates go DOWN when women have good access to birth control and safe, legal abortions, not the other way around.

But oh, WAH, we can't demand that gobment pay for abortions! That would be EVIL. And we need that money for lobbyists and fucking bombs! WAH!

[rd_kent]

132. As another poster put it, you ave the right to an abortion, not the right to have the government pay

for it.

[EFerrari]

136. Right. It was bullshit when she posted it and it's still bullshit when you do.

[rd_kent]

207. Whats bullshit about that?

Not all abortions are medically necessary (some are and should be covered). DO you want to cover ALL medically unnecessary medical procedures?

[Sparkly]

217. "Unnecessary?"

Who decides what's "necessary?"

Birth control, viagra, and a TON of medical procedures and treatments are not "necessary" as life-saving measures.

[rd_kent]

233. We agree on many things.

I guess that decision is made between doctors and patients. The fact is that most abortions are NOT medically necessary. No one is saying a woman should not be able to get an abortion for any reason (I feel that a woman should be able to get one at any time for any reason). What many disagree with is using taxpayer money to pay for anything that is not medically necessary.

a TON of medical procedures and treatments are not "necessary" as life-saving measures.

But how can something be life-saving and unnecessary at the same time?


I agree that viagra, etc., should not be covered.

[Sparkly]

245. Okay...

Yes, the decision (and all such decisions) should be made by the patient in consultation with her doctor. That's the pro-choice position in a nutshell. So we agree on that.

Many "medically-necessary" abortions are not covered by legislation outlawing it except to save a woman's life, but not her health. However, as I said, MANY if not most medical procedures and treatments aren't about saving a patient's life, but preserving their health (if THAT, even, when it comes to Viagra etc., as you agree). And these are covered.

I'm not sure I understand your question about how something can be life-saving and unnecessary. I was saying that a lot of treatments are not necessary in order to save someone's life.

Finally, women are taxpaying citizens and deserve full access to legal procedures. Whether paying for insurance in full herself, or paying with some level of assistance through subsidies, or carrying fully subsidized insurance, access to legal procedures should be the same for all women. If the argument were about money, the cost of Ob/Gyn care and delivery is hardly a savings over abortion. It's most certainly about the "moral" issue, and that has no place in these restrictions unless ALL taxpayer expenditures undergo the same test. ("Should taxpayers pay for something with which they morally disagree?")

[rd_kent]

274. I think that the small place where you and I disagree is in the language.

Because it seems we are saying the same thing and mostly agree.

It's most certainly about the "moral" issue, and that has no place in these restrictions unless ALL taxpayer expenditures undergo the same test. ("Should taxpayers pay for something with which they morally disagree?")

I have no "moral" litmus test. I don't feel anyones "morals" should have a part in this decision.

Where my beef starts is where the line is drawn about the expenditure of taxpayer money for medically unnecessary procedures. That can be a wide range of things, from elective abortions (one's where the life of the mother is not at risk - incest and rape, IMO are risks to the mothers life) to nose jobs (some of them ARE medically necessary) to boob jobs (some them are also medically necessary) to mole removal (again, some are medically necessary). The fuzzy part is when you say "if a doctor thinks its needed, then its covered" then that same argument can be applied to ALL medically unnecessary procedures.

See what I am getting at?

[Sparkly]

279. Yes, so...

Until or unless this standard is applied to ALL so-called "medically-unnecessary" procedures, it should be applied to NONE.

(And in my view, it'll never be applied to ALL.)

[rd_kent]

292. Hey, look at that, we agree!

The system is broken and needs work. I hope we are on the way to fixing it.

[Sparkly]

298. Then you agree that legal abortions should be covered

until or unless all medical procedures have the same level of scrutiny applied re "Medical Necessity."

[rd_kent]

302. yup.

but I am for a strict application of that across the board.

[Tailormyst]

285. " incest and rape, IMO are risks to the mothers life"

Who gets to determine if the woman was raped? a Judge? a police report? How soon after the rape would it need to be reported for the woman to qualify as a rape victim?

These are real and legitimate questions. I would like an answer from one of you who are for limiting womens access to abortions.

[Sparkly]

291. Yes I should have responded to that specifically, too

I don't see how those are presumed to risk a woman's life, while others are not.

Key words: "In My Opinion." It's a matter of opinion, thus it's a matter of CHOICE -- whose "opinion" should prevail?

The woman's. Period.

[rd_kent]

301. Why the constant strawman?

I would like an answer from one of you who are for limiting womens access to abortions.

Who is advocating that? Not me, not sparkly.

[Tailormyst]

311. Answer the question rd-kent. Who gets to detirmine if a woman has been raped.

[rd_kent]

406. The dictionary does.

Rape is rape, I am against it. It has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.

[PeaceNikki]

380. But childbirth can be an "unnecessary" procedure.

[wickerwoman]

330. But by saying "this kind of abortion is covered and that kind isn't"

you are automatically setting up a system where somebody, somewhere is going to be making the decision besides the woman and her doctor.

Let's say I get accidentally pregnant and go to my doctor and get an abortion. Then I bill Medicaid. Somebody at Medicaid is going to have to sit down and ask me "were you raped? can you prove it?" "was it incest? can you prove it?" Am I going to have to show the police report as proof? And given how notoriously hard it is to prove rape in a courtroom already, aren't we either a.) creating a huge bureaucratic nightmare for women who are already in a shitty position to have to navigate through and/or b.) risking many women who are raped but can't "prove" it being forced to either have the baby, seek a back-alley abortion or face real financial hardship to obtain something that we all agree she is entitled to.

I don't think it's as easy to skip over this issue as you think it is.

529,000 women die in childbirth each year. Many more develop high blood pressure, diabetes, incontinence and a host of other medical problems due to pregnancy. Pregnancy is a serious, risky condition with a laundry list of possible complications (including excruciating fr*ckin pain and serious loss of income even in the best case scenario) and it's not something that anybody should be forced through to satisfy a complete stranger's moral agenda.

Who are we to say that abortion isn't "medically necessary"? I'll bet you could find a lot of procedures that are covered that are more dubious than paying $500 to ensure you don't pee every time you sneeze for the rest of your life.

[EFerrari]

223. Access to safe abortions is key to women's health.

That has already been explained to you.

[rd_kent]

238. Who is advocating blocking access to safe abortions?

Certainly not me.

[Tailormyst]

247. You are- You are advocating blocking access for poor women through financial means

[rd_kent]

254. No, I am not. But you can have a nice day. I am done with you. You are dismissed.

Buh-bye.

[Tailormyst]

264. You absolutely are- You have stated it clearly over and over again.

You are behaving like a coward who is running away because the questions became to difficult.

[rd_kent]

277. Again with the personal attacks and name calling.

Its against the rules, you know.

[Tailormyst]

282. Answer the question ! You stated rape would make it okay.

So you tell me what determines if she qualifies for an insurance covered abortion? A judge, a police report? How long would she have to report it? Would she need to show trauma to her body to show it was a "forced rape"? Its a simple question, so answer it. YOU are the one that used Rape/Incest in your argument.

[rd_kent]

287. Read the rules

:bounce: :hi:

[Tailormyst]

294. I have. Now try answering the question.

[Scout]

335. you need to alert on the posts if you think the poster is breaking the rules....

instead of just whining about it ...

are you afraid to let the moderators decide?

[rd_kent]

360. Is there something I can do for you?

and I did alert. But thanks for the unsolicited advice.

[Scout]

365. if you alerted and it wasn't deleted, then i guess the post was within the rules

you're welcome for the advice!

and as far as "is there something you can do for me" well, i'd rather not say.

you have a marvy day now, 'k?!

[rd_kent]

373. Ditto.

[EFerrari]

346. You absolutely are. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

220. Yeah. "Another poster".

:eyes:

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

134. If we are going to have gov't health insurance

then why restrict this one procedure? When you have to win the right to have a boner or a heart transplant, then do you want me to support the non-funding of that??

[Fla Dem]

359. However, if a woman has insurance through her employer, and

she is paying for that insurance, said insurance cannot cover abortions of any kind, medically necessary or not, if the government subsidizes that insurance in the least little bit. That to me is just wrong. I understand outright payment from the government coffers. But the actual gov't subsidy to the employer/insurance company is only so the employer/insurance company can provide affordable health insurance to the employees. The money does not in effect go to pay for the employees' insurance. Therefore it should not be considered paid for by the government.

[emald]

379. ahhh, but the gov can buy your viagra?? right?

[debbierlus]

107. You don't support tax payer dollars to fund abortions?

That was NEVER in the bill. The Hyde amendment already disallows public funding for abortion which is pure and utter bullshit.

This is in itself, completely and totally discriminatory because frankly, I don't want my tax money to pay for wars and a hundred plus other things on which tax dollars are spent.

Abortion is a legal procedure and it is OUTRAGEOUS that this specific service is denied funding (and therefore DECREASED ACCESS AND ABILITY) due to religious or personal beliefs.

This bill stops ANY private insurer that wants to participate in the exchange from offering abortion coverage.

Liberal democrat? What does that mean? You think it is liberal and democratic to selectively remove the funding (and therefore ACCESS) to abortion because you personally don't agree with it?

There is nothing liberal or democratic about that belief.

And, you are way out of line. Go have as many abortions as I wish with my own dollars? Where the hell are the mods?

[Tx4obama]

112. Wrong!

The bill stops ANY private insurer that wants to participate in the exchange from offering abortion coverage with the FUNDS THAT ARE SUBSIDIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Stupak wording was changed and besides it never prevented the ins. company not to offer it at all - only in the exchange with federal funds.

EVERY WOMAN IN AMERICA IS FREE TO USE THEIR OWN MONEY FOR AN ABORTION.

[Turk 182]

180. What about Viagra?

the gov't won't fund abortions but it WILL fund erections. How come?- oh yeah, I forgot- that's for MEN:spank:

[lib_wit_it]

146. Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you!

[EFerrari]

109. And what if you don't have the money, genius?

Yes, this bill restricts abortion access. And if you don't support equal access to abortion, then I have no idea what "liberal democrat" means to you.

[Tx4obama]

113. Women won the right to have an abortion, NOT the right for goverment to pay for it! n/t

[Cerridwen]

118. Yes, and people in America have the right to health care...

They can have as much health care as they want, they just have to pay for it themselves.

Keep digging.

[defendandprotect]

152. Health care is a human right and reproduction is a necessary commodity of that care . . .

Including abortion -- !!!

[EFerrari]

124. Restricting abortion access is restricting abortion access. Period.

[uppityperson]

126. Why should prostate surgery be paid for and not abortions? nt

[lib_wit_it]

141. ++++++!

[omega minimo]

137. Women won the right to reproductive health/privacy, not for the government to invade it.

[avaistheone1]

140. Why should poor women not have the same access to abortion as other women?

Why discriminate against the poor?

[Tailormyst]

184. I really fucking hate people who think like you.

I no longer have the energy to argue with people like you. I will do the same thing I do to the Anti-Choice zealots that protest constantly down the street from me and drive by this post flipping you off. Women, poor women, don't deserve to be punished because YOU think they are a slut, which is what this is truly about.

[rd_kent]

209. So you hate people that have rational thoughts?

[Tailormyst]

231. No- I hate Anti-choice assholes who feel they have the right to detemine womens health needs

Your views would force a poor woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, simply because she is poor. You don't care about the woman, or her reasons, all you care about is that the irresponsible SLUT pays for her mistakes, right?

What about rape victims? DO they have to report the rape before the pregnancy is found out to qualify, because you know most women never report it, right? How DARE you judge women like that.

Making abortion unaccessible through cost is ANTI-CHOICE !

[rd_kent]

309. Man, that is the biggest strawman I have ever seen.

You continue to make assertions that I have not made. You feel I have an opinion on something that I have not stated. You think I have done things I have not done.

What is your problem? You really seem to be projecting a lot.

For the last time....My position is that women should have the choice to have an abortion, for any reason, at any time.


How can I be any clearer than that?

[Tailormyst]

314. You seek to limit choice based upon income

Rich sluts can get one, poor sluts , well they are shit out of luck right? And before you say you didn't call anyone sluts, let me tell you that your moral judgement on allowing it for rape or incest makes your judgement about pregnant women quite clear. There are good ones and bad ones in your view.

I will ask you again. Who determines if that poor woman was indeed raped and would therefore qualify for a covered abortion.

It's a simple question.

[rd_kent]

318. I seek to limit choice FOR NO ONE!!!!! Why is that so hard to understand?

YOU are the one saying I am trying to do something I am not. For fucks sake, lady, what does it take to get through to you?

[Tailormyst]

324. But you do seek to limit choice for those to poor to afford one if needed

You have said it time and time again. You don't want Ins money going to pay for abortions except if its something you would call medically necessary, including rape and incest. I have asked you over and over who gets to decide if a woman was raped and would therefor qualify for a "medically necessary" abortion. Would her word be good enough or would she have to prove she was really raped?

One of the RW tactics for years to try and pass anti-abortion laws has been to say " oh well rape or incest wouldn't count" but they try to skim over the portions on how a woman is deemed legally to have been raped. often times they tried to require that a woman report the rape before she could possibly know she was pregnant, to weed out what they considered immoral women who would just say they were raped to get past the law.

This is why I am asking you to clarify.

If you say "no ins coverage for abortion unless they were raped" then it stands to reason someone would come up with a set of regulation to determine if the woman was raped.

[rd_kent]

332. Well, that would be a whole other argument, now wouldnt it?

Rape is rape. I am against rape. need I say more? You want me to speculate on what someone may or may not do, or what someone may or may not think. I cannot and will not do that.

Now seriously, I think we have beaten this horse enough.

[Tailormyst]

339. What I am asking you is "who gets to decide if a woman has been raped"

Who gets to decide if she is covered by insurance for that abortion. Does she need to go in front of a judge, or file a police report, or is her word good enough. I assure you that some sort of wording regarding what is or is not a rape would be put into it. Even Nelson wanted to make sure that exception were only for "forced rapes" whatever the fuck THAT means.

[tbyg52]

202. It's a legal medical procedure.

If government is paying for any legal procedure, it should pay for all.

[rd_kent]

210. So you want ALL elective procedures to be paid for?

You sure about that?

[EFerrari]

224. How shallow is that argument?

[rd_kent]

234. Not shallow at all. Your post, however, is.

[EFerrari]

263. Yes, it's as shallow as possible. Abortion is not like a tummy tuck.

That should be obvious. And stigmatizing abortion access as this train wreck of a bill does sets women's health back decades.

[Tailormyst]

278. Thank you for all your posts on this

It's one of those "never back down even an inch" issues for me. You know if we do, the slide backwards will never stop.

[EFerrari]

347. Women's bodies are the front line of the battle against the right wing.

It's like that everywhere and America is no different.

You're right. Not an inch.

[rd_kent]

327. Ahh, but some of them are.

Many abortions ARE like a tummy tuck, done because the woman chooses it, for whatever reason. I am ok with that, women should be able to get an abortion at any time for any reason. I just feel that not ALL abortions should be covered with taxpayer money. There is a difference between have the choice and having it paid for. I support paying for all MEDICALLY NECESSARY abortions (those that threaten the mothers life, and those due to rape or incest) All others, IMO, can be considered medically un-necessary procedures and should not be covered with public money. This has nothing to do with WHY the woman got pregnant or WHY she wants an abortion, I don't care. Its here choice.

I also think that ALL medically un-necessary procedures and treatment should NOT be covered with public money. I am very consistent about that.

[EFerrari]

343. No, Virginia, an abortion not EVER like a tummy tuck. n/t

[tbyg52]

227. I wouldn't feel abortion was particularly "elective"

if I were pregnant and didn't want to be. As for the reason I didn't want to be, that would be my business.

[rd_kent]

236. On that, you and I agree.

You should be able to get an abortion at any time for any reason.


What I disagree with is using taxpayer money for a medically unnecessary procedure. That includes not just medically unnecessary abortions, but a wide range of "elective" procedures and treatments, including viagra, etc.

[Tailormyst]

248. Who gets to decide what is medically necessary?

A politician? A minister? A judge? Or do you think perhaps we can trust women to make the right choices about their own bodies, REGARDLESS of their income levels?

[tbyg52]

253. Putting the government in the position of deciding which are "necessary."

A woman and her doctor. Period.

[rd_kent]

258. Again, we agree.

But by that rationale, if a doctor and a patient deem that some other procedure is necessary, then that too should be covered by taxpayer money?

[tbyg52]

289. As has been mentioned elsewhere, IT"S NOT A NOSE JOB! nt

[Sparkly]

295. They are.

If a doctor and patient see something as "medically necessary," or even just desirable in some cases, then it's covered.

[Tailormyst]

232. IT IS NOT A FUCKING NOSE JOB

[rd_kent]

237. Who is saying it is?

But an abortion that is not medically necessary is akin to a nose job in that taxpayer money should not be used to pay for it.

[Tailormyst]

241. What is medically necessary is between a woman and her Doctor. PERIOD.

No one else has a right to interfere. Not you. Not anyone.

You are carrying water for those who seek to end a womans right to make decisions about her own body based upon your own fucked up religious ideals.

[rd_kent]

249. You need to back the fuck up.

No one else has a right to interfere. Not you. Not anyone.

On that we agree. I have been very clear about that.

You are carrying water for those who seek to end a womans right to make decisions about her own body based upon your own fucked up religious ideals You can kindly go fornicate with yourself.

I tire of these strawmen and baseless accusations you keep slinging at me. Perhaps you should check your poutrage at the door and decide to have an intelligent discussion based on the positions I actually hold.

Please point out where I advocated ending a womans right to make decisions about her own body. I'll wait.

If you had bothered to spend more than a day on DU before attacking longtime members, you would notice I am an atheist, so I dont have a "fucked up religious ideal", so I will leave that to you.


You have shown, through your posts, that you are only capable of personal insults, name calling and willful ignorance of state positions and accepted definitions. You are no longer worthy of my time.

Have a nice day.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

280. Your insistance on personal attacks and insults have left me no choice.

I tried to explain it to you. You should read the DU rules page. I have alerted the mods.

There may be a pizza in your future if you keep it up.

[Tailormyst]

286. Please answer the question put to you about your stance on abortion in regards to rape.

[rd_kent]

290. Abortions due to rape and incest SHOULD be covered. Clear enough?

Thats my position, there is nothing more to discuss. I am done with you, so please, have a nice day.


Also, please, read the rules, before you get tombstoned.

[Lars39]

293. You still haven't answered her question.

And threatening someone with a tombstone is alertable, too, btw.

[rd_kent]

306. I am not threatening anyone

I have explained, on several occasions, how she is violating the rules. Continued violation may result in getting banned. That a fact, not a threat.

[Tailormyst]

310. I am not violating any rules by asking you to answer my question

[rd_kent]

316. ugh, youre like a broken record.

[Tailormyst]

317. Answer the question rd-kent. Why is that so tough?

[rd_kent]

321. Its rd_kent, not rd-kent. You really do have a comprhension problem.

And I have answered your question, just not to your liking. Thats just too bad.

[Tailormyst]

326. You have not answered the question. Not once.

[rd_kent]

336. No, you just dont like my answers, and thats ok.

Now, have a nice day.

[Tailormyst]

341. Since you claim to have answered it already, answer it again for me:

In cases of rape, who decides if the woman qualifies for an insurance covered abortion. Does she have to somehow prove she was raped? or is her word good enough?

[Tailormyst]

297. Who gets to determine if a woman has been raped? I keep asking you !

[rd_kent]

304. You keep asking for a fight.

Whatever I post, you are going to argue, most likely with personal attacks, insults and a willful ignorance of what my position actually is.
I will not waste any more time on you.

[Tailormyst]

308. It is a simply question to clarify YOUR postion, yet you refuse to answer it.

[rd_kent]

312. I HAVE clairfies my position, several times.

But you refuse to accept it. That is your problem, not mine.


For the last time....women should be able to get an abortion, for any reason, at any time.

Got it?

[Tailormyst]

313. No you have not. You seek to restrict access financially unless medically necessary or rape/incest

I have asked you repeatedly who determines if a woman was raped?

[rd_kent]

319. Again, with putting words in my mouth I did not say.

I SEEK TO RESTRICT NO ONE ACCESS!!!!!!!

Jesus H Christ on a cross, you are dense! How many time do I have to say it...I support a womans right to choose an abortion at any time for any reason! How is that limiting access?

I really am done with you.

[Tailormyst]

328. Restricting it through financial means is still restricting it.

[rd_kent]

405. So, by that rationale, if foodstamps wont buy cheetos, is that restricting access to cheetos?

[PeaceNikki]

408. Yes. Cheetos are not a "right" to which access has been guaranteed by SCOTUS

based on the rights of privacy.

[rd_kent]

409. But food IS a right. Are cheetos not food?

My point is that one CAN get cheetos ANYTIME they want, but the government is not going to pay for them. The government WILL pay for basic, life sustaining food though......The ACCESS to cheetos is still there, just not the right to have them paid for.

See my point?

[PeaceNikki]

410. Yes, food is and you can still buy food with food stamps.

Cheetos as a specific food is not an explicit right specifically deemed so by SCOTUS. Access to abortion is.

Your point is not really a point at all.

[rd_kent]

411. Sure it is, you just do not want to see it.

The analogy of access to food and what food the government will or will not pay for is exactly the same as access to abortions and what abortions the government will or will not pay for. ACCESS is available to all, what the government will PAY for is restricted. Those are two totally separate issues.

If you cannot see that, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss.

[uppityperson]

120. And why should that one type of health care be singled out?

[omega minimo]

138. What gives you the right to treat women as second class citizens or even less than that?

This bill restricts women's rights to reproductive health and privacy in as many ways as the fucking bastards who want to eliminate their right to abortion could manage.

You are the one "not telling the truth."

[pecwae]

177. Where've I heard your statement before?

"You can TAKE YOUR OWN MONEY and go and have as many abortions as you wish!"

Sounds a bit like imposing religion on personal reproductive freedom.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

191. "I am a liberal democrat BUT I will never support using tax-payer dollars to fund abortions."

"I am a water molecule but there will never be any hydrogen in me!"

[BrklynLiberal]

322. It only affects the right of a POOR woman to have an abortion..so it's OK..?????

x(

[wickerwoman]

342. Let's put it this way:

Let's say you had a ten pound kidney stone which the doctor told you you were going to have to pass in *excruciating* pain over the course of three days. And let's say a procedure existed where they could give you an injection and dissolve that stone meaning you would not have to be in excruciating pain (and risk high blood pressure, diabetes and incontinence.)

Do you think for one second that that procedure would not be "medically justified" and paid for under the new health care bill?

And if I'm living hand to mouth, homeless and on food stamps, I can't "take my money and have as many abortions as I wish." If I live in an area where no doctors perform abortions because they aren't covered, there's no way I can travel out of state to have one. So my options remain back-alley or have an unwanted child (or steal the money to have the procedure).

Your refusal to pay for this procedure would inevitably cause hardship, pain and even death for thousands of American women. Please don't pat yourself on the back for supporting a "right" which means nothing without access.

[BrklynLiberal]

354. +100

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

351. oooooh. So as long as you can afford to pay for it yourself, it is ok....

What a crock.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7288905&mesg_id=7288982

[PeaceNikki]

383. It restricts ACCESS to abortion.

That's the truth.

I don't want to pay for "elective abortions".

I've seen a fairly good number of DUers say this.

Why not?

It's not about the money, is it? It can't be. If these pregnancies go to term, the cost of prenatal care and delivery far exceeds the cost of termination.

Let's be honest, it's about your opinion of the procedure. It's about your beliefs. Why is it OK that you factor your opinion of this procedure into HCR? And more importantly, why is it OK to use HCR to restrict access? Because that's what Stupak and DFLA really want. And, if the desire really is to reduce the number of abortions, why not mandate the coverage of contraception in the bill?

[saracat]

98. Amen

[Cerridwen]

99. .

[foxfeet]

100. .

[Ichingcarpenter]

102. ....

[Guilded Lilly]

105. .......

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

108. .

[dana_b]

110. .

[Kool Kitty]

111. .

[daleanime]

114. ...

[GreenArrow]

116. ...

.

[rd_kent]

122. Uh, can I talk now? How long do we have to be quiet. This is getting to be stupid.

[Lars39]

123. Got a uterus yet?

[rd_kent]

129. So I guess that means I can talk now. So now what? Do we discuss something new or talk about

this lame thread?

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

215. Neither, and you are breaking the rules.

[pecwae]

178. Why do you care?

It's obvious that women's reproductive freedom, especially poor women, means nothing to you. Go start your own thread telling women to STFU.

[rd_kent]

385. Why would I do that?

I have not told anyone to STFU.


And reproductive freedom is very important. I am 100% for a womans choice, for any reason, at any time. I just dont want to pay for the abortions that are not medically necessary, along with a WHOLE HOST of other procedures and treatments (viagra, for example) that are not medically necessary.

[Oldtimeralso]

127. ...

[rd_kent]

130. Sorry, I farted.

[ima_sinnic]

167. it is noted that you have absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute

and highly recommend that everyone copy my example of boycotting your meaningless, time-wasting, disruptive look-at-me-I'm-such-an-asshole posts by using the Ignore function.

If a troll posts shit but nobody reads it, does it even exist?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. No. no. NO! You can't alert on ignored posts!

That's how so many trolls survive for so long -- they don't get alerted on!

[rd_kent]

218. Are you calling me a troll?

I have been here nearly as long as you. I could make the SAME argument about many of YOUR posts I disagree with.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

222. Actually no, it was completely generic, but hey, if the shoe fits...

[rd_kent]

230. The shoe may fit you, but my feet are WAY bigger than that.

I love the way you back peddled out of that one.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

256. It's a known fact that I apply that principle. I posted that sentence a gazillion times.

I hardly even have an Ignore list. Don't think you're so special.

[rd_kent]

284. You are more than welcome to add me to it.

or you can just not respond to my posts. The choice is, and always has been, yours.

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pecwae]

179. Nevermind.

It isn't worth responding to this type of idiocy.

[rd_kent]

384. You are right about that.

This thread is 100% idiocy.

[omega minimo]

133. "if we can't hold our principle here, what then do we stand for? Anything? Anything at all?!"

[EmeraldCityGrl]

139. This single issue has set us back decades.

My body is not a negotiating tool.

[nvme]

142. .

[winyanstaz]

147. *

[Divine Discontent]

148. .!

[defendandprotect]

149. Yes, absolutely . . . however . . ..

Women's organizations have supported Democatic corporate agendas just to

preserve abortion --- I'm not for that .

If you have corporate/fascism going on as we do with the two parties, then

you don't support either.

I think they've played a large role in keeping the voting for the "lesser of evils" going!!

Abortion is a human right --

Capitalism and corporatism are opposed to human rights --

Profits are king -- in fact, even better, attaching oneself to the government teat, or

stealing from our government/Treasury is even simpler -- !!

Capitalism is merely oganized crime.

[Duncan Grant]

151. .

[Skittles]

154. .

[democrank]

155. ~

[undergroundnomore]

156. Agreed!

Hold to our principles

[barbtries]

157. .

[Le Taz Hot]

158. . . .

[bread_and_roses]

159. !

[JNelson6563]

160. Amen.

[louis c]

161. I love the President, I hate this bill

[fasttense]

162. ......

[Geek_Girl]

164. ,

[Paper Roses]

165. !!

[Echo In Light]

166. +1

[ima_sinnic]

168. ...

the "democrats" have lost me, and I hold this president totally responsible for the final melding of the democratic party into the republican party. yay! bipartisanship! it's such a winner and has produced the new frankenstein party of blood-sucking corporacrat ghouls. women's reproductive rights are just one more pawn the largely male vampires pass around like a poker chip in their big game of "governing."

[maryinthemorn]

169. +1

[NikolaC]

172. ...

[CTyankee]

174. +1000

[pecwae]

175. ++++++++++

[Mad_Dem_X]

176. ...

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

181. ----------

[amyrose2712]

185. +1

[Hepburn]

186. ..........

[gorfle]

187. I would sacrifice abortions in an instant.

If I could give Candian-style health care to every single American in this country without coverage for abortions, I would do it in an instant.

[EFerrari]

345. Even setting up such a trade off demonstrates how anti-health care

this bill is. No one should have to make such a choice.

[Scout]

353. if it doesn't cover abortion, then it's not really Canadian-style n/t

[theFrankFactor]

188. Agreed

[maryinthemorn]

189. Look at this (for those who are hoping for changes in the conference...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73143-cloture-vote-foreshadows-conference-tussle-over-health-bill
.............
With Nelson’s support, the Senate is expected to pass its version of healthcare reform legislation by Christmas Eve at the latest. The House passed its bill earlier this year. Big differences remain between the two bills, such as over how to handle the contentious issue of abortion, how to pay for the reforms or whether or not to include a government-run insurance plan, known as the “public option.”

Like Conrad, Nelson said in his statement Saturday that any substantial changes to the final healthcare reform bill from the Senate compromise legislation could end up costing the Democrats his vote.

“This cloture vote is based on a full understanding that there will be a limited conference between the Senate and House," Nelson said. “If there are material changes in that conference report different from this bill that adversely affect the agreement, I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote.”

[MissDeeds]

190. ...

:kick:

[hwmnbn]

192. ...

[Sparkly]

196. .

:thumbsup:

[AllyCat]

197. ...doing my part to rec the unreccers

[Blue Owl]

199. .

.

[SpiralHawk]

200. k and r

eom

[StarfarerBill]

201. +1

[madrchsod]

204. !

[Hell Hath No Fury]

208. ...

...

[rhett o rick]

211. k

[jtrockville]

213. .

[earcandle]

225. I'm in. Thanks for the thread.

[KansDem]

226. .

...for a silent thread, there are an awful lot of chatterers upstream...

[howmad1]

228. +1

[Kermitt Gribble]

243. ...

[chill_wind]

244. It is wrong. And we won't forget.

eom

[bonnieS]

252. Yes

[Guilded Lilly]

257. ~~~~~~~

.....:thumbsup:
uno mas

[colsohlibgal]

261. !!

[RoccoR5955]

265. ~shh~ n/t

[Desertrose]

267. .....

[tnlefty]

269. ....

:mad: :mad: :puke:

[NashVegas]

270. ..

[libodem]

273. .

I'm with ya on this one.

[Myrina]

281. .

n/t

[Gman]

288. Unrec... I'm not this stupid

I won't forsake health care for millions over a single issue. That's just stupid. Oh and BTW, the US Conference of Bishops is still opposed to HRC for the opposite reasons as this thread. So you're all in bed together.

Not to even mention the FACT that this legislation sacrifices NO reproductive rights.

[rd_kent]

334. Another one that gets it! +10000

[EFerrari]

344. You are very free with the rights of others.

[Gman]

350. You are very selfish and narrow minded, not to mention

uninformed. This law does not change anything regarding reproductive rights. Look it up.

[EFerrari]

356. More mendacity. If you deny funding to poor women

you deny their access. Period.

[omega minimo]

366. You mean you will forsake a single gender for health care for others.

"Not to even mention the FACT that this legislation sacrifices NO reproductive rights."


It violates the right to reproductive health and privacy established in ROe v. Wade. Educate yourself before making big INCORRECT statements like that. What do you base that on, Limbaugh?

[Gman]

394. WTF are you talking about??? You need to READ Roe v Wade

Have you ever read it and do you understand it?? You wouldn't make stupid comments like that if you had.

[AzDar]

296. ...

:-(

[madmax]

303. ......

[Reeta77]

307. ...

[ceile]

315. !!

[BrklynLiberal]

320. .

:yourock: Thanks for this thread

[fascisthunter]

323. .

[Greyhound]

325. .

[fascisthunter]

333. Here's a Scenario for the anti-Abortionists on here:

if you were raped and impregnated would you still have the child? This applies to men as well... imagine being a female and having a man force you to have sex with him. Then after doing so, you are pregnant and forced to give birth to a rapist's child. If you say you would, that is a personal choice and if you say you wouldn't, that too would be personal choice in regards to your HEALTH!

For one to claim abortion should not be covered as a part of necessary health care procedure, then the next question for many of us here is, what exactly makes it a non-heathcare procedure? Forcing women to give birth is disgusting, cruel and for me, immoral. You can take up your bullshit about the fetus with your own gods if it is against your preferred dogma, you know because you weren't "FORCED" to.

And yes, if you don't consider abortion as a health care procedure then you too discriminate based upon assumptions and pure prejudice because of how you feel about the procedure. It's none of your business, and yes it is a healthcare issue.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

361. Many people opposed to govn't funded abortions are not anti-abortion.

They are anti-government-funded-abortionists. For now we can brush aside all the religious, moral and discrimination assumptions you're making. That's not what this is about and, thankfully, they shouldn't (and don't) legally weigh in when a woman decides to have an abortion.

To answer your first question/scenario, many of the people opposing govn't funding of abortion DO SUPPORT abortion funding/coverage for rape or incest victims as well as cases where an abortion is determined a necessity to save the life of the mother. The terminology given to abortions in such a scenario is "non-elective" abortion. I also don't think anyone has argued that abortion is not a health care or medical procedure... of course it is! The object in question is the necessity (or electiveness) of such procedures to the preservation of the life of the patient. If a non-elective abortion is required or perscribed... then then it will be covered under HCR.

For one to claim abortion should not be covered as a part of necessary health care procedure, then the next question for many of us here is, what exactly makes it a non-healthcare procedure? Forcing women to give birth is disgusting, cruel and for me, immoral.

There is a fallacy in the above two sentences. I assume you are using the term "non-healthcare" to mean "not covered" or "elective"?
Keep in mind, not covering abortions does not restrict the right of women to have or seek the abortion.
Not wanting to have government pay for abortions IS NOT forcing unwanted pregnancies onto the american public.
Persons who want abortions still have EVERY RIGHT to get an abortion - identical, in fact, to the way abortions are handled today. Proposed HCR is not *restricting* anything that was not available before HCR.

[EFerrari]

362. Yes, not covering abortion DOES restrict abortion access.

Who do you have to be to argue that it doesn't?

Unbelievable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

364. Are abortions federally funded now (pre-HCR)? Are abortions currently legal (pre-HCR)?

Will either of these things change with the new HCR? (Hint: Yes, Yes, No)
Access to abortions will remain the same before and after HCR and the right to an abortion will remain the same, as well.

Why should a taxpayer funded system be burdened with other peoples' elective choices to engage in actions which risk pregnancy? There are several contraception methods that, in addition to already being VERY affordable, should be covered as preventative care under HCR. Also, there are some set circumstances outside the control of persons allowing for federally funded abortions.

The fact is: Women's Rights are about the right to have an abortion and that decision being between her and the doctor. Women's Rights are not about her finacial ability to have an abortion or who will pay for it... that's between her and her doctor (leave the taxpayers out of it).

[omega minimo]

372. Wrong headed Wrong Wrong Wrong

"Access to abortions will remain the same before and after HCR and the right to an abortion will remain the same, as well."

Wrong.

"Why should a taxpayer funded system be burdened with other peoples' elective choices to engage in actions which risk pregnancy?"

Why should that be any of your fucking business?

"The fact is: Women's Rights are about the right to have an abortion and that decision being between her and the doctor. Women's Rights are not about her finacial ability to have an abortion or who will pay for it... that's between her and her doctor (leave the taxpayers out of it)."

Women's Rights are about reproductive health and privacy, as relates to abortion and health care for all. Singling out one gender and one procedure from the whole to be treated as "less than" based on personal bigotries like yours is WRONG AND DISGUSTING especially when articulated as clearly and coldly as you have done.

:evilfrown:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

382. Please elaborate.

"Access to abortions will remain the same before and after HCR and the right to an abortion will remain the same, as well."

Wrong.

How will it change?
As I understand it... under the current federal legislation, assitence for abortion is limited to special circumstances (rape, incest, maternal medical concerns, etc...) Any additinoal state funding is administered at the state level and thus varies state to state. The proposed HCR thus far has pretty much the same coverage and, of course, abortion will still be legal (that is never really in question). If I am wrong here please correct me but if this is the case I find arguments prophecizing increases in impovershed pregnancies (due to lack of abortion acess) to be of false pretense because, in actuality, there would be no changes in abortion access from what we have now. We could expect to see similar access to abortion so all this arguing about how this is restricting rights seems to be a faux outrage. It may not be expanding women's rights but it's certainly not reducing or restricting them at a federal level.
Once again, if I mistaken as to the proposed rights versus our current rights, let me know.

"Why should a taxpayer funded system be burdened with other peoples' elective choices to engage in actions which risk pregnancy?"

Why should that be any of your fucking business?

Taxpayer funded system... it's the taxpayers' business.
Not the personal information of patients per se - but it's certainly the taxpayers business how tax funds are allocated.

"The fact is: Women's Rights are about the right to have an abortion and that decision being between her and the doctor. Women's Rights are not about her finacial ability to have an abortion or who will pay for it... that's between her and her doctor (leave the taxpayers out of it)."

Women's Rights are about reproductive health and privacy, as relates to abortion and health care for all. Singling out one gender and one procedure from the whole to be treated as "less than" based on personal bigotries like yours is WRONG AND DISGUSTING especially when articulated as clearly and coldly as you have done.

I agree, Women's Rights are about reproductive health and privacy, namely related to abotrtion the right to receive care. I'm not "singling out one gender". There are a host of medical proceedures that I would hope are not covered with taxpeyer money due to elective causes or elective necessity. The only reason I've mentioned abortion alone is because that is what the subject of the thread is about... it would be fruitless to espouse views on nose-jobs or vasectomies in a thread about abortion. Simply because abortions (or any proceedure) can only apply to one gender does not make the discussion thereof "bigotted" by an opposing party.

I don't apologize for being articulate or "cold", as you have put it.
I find approaching discussion pragmatically and clearly make for more productive exchanges.

[omega minimo]

388. This is self righteous hypocritical bullshit

based on an inability to know how to empathize with others where appropriate and how to butt out where appropriate. You want to pick and choose, use inconsistentllogic and no, no "elaboration" will free you from your mental blocks.

If you choose to work on the mental blocks yourself, start with all the various RESTRICTIONS in the bill regarding coverage and think about what that does to others than your judgemental self, if that's possible.

This disgusting attitude expressed here is the same absurd arrogance of those who think they have the right to dictate to others, because they are women with women's bodies, where the same logic would never be applied to other "taxpayer funded" actions with the same hypocritical certainty and BIGOTRY.

Whether it's the religious hypocrite or the "taxpayer" hypocrite, the day these people start applying their ill logic consistently, not just targeted at women, they will perhaps have some credibility.

'ELECTIVE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:evilfrown: :puke:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

392. Said otherwise, "My position is based solely on personal attacks and appeal to emotion."

Good to know you care to have a straightforward discussion about the topic.
buh bye.

[omega minimo]

396. Said otherwise, your position is so socially/emotionally retarded it would not respond to

"a straightforward discussion about the topic."

IT'S TOO OFFENSIVE TO BE BOTHERED WITH.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

391. message deleted

[rd_kent]

386. Wow. Very well said.

Perfectly put.

[EFerrari]

395. You can't have it both ways. You can't mandate health care deform AND

exclude a key medical provision for women's health.

That's discrimination.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

397. Why not? We're mandating health care and excluding other elective proceedures.

Non-elective medical abortions are already addressed under the current bill. If a woman needs an abortion it will be covered.
Likewise elective abortions (and most ANY other elective proceedure) should not be covered.
That's how it is now and the proposed legislation is not reducing any rights or access currently enjoyed by Women's Rights. Period.
I'm sure there will be several medical procedure regarding Men's Health that will not and should not be covered.

Tell me, if a woman wants a hysterectomy ("wants", not needs) should it be free?
If someone wants ("wants", not needs) a new set of lungs should they get them? Should they be free?

This is the crux of the issue. Where do you draw the line @ doling out free medical care to those who elect to have a procedure but do not need it.
Proving free care for an abortion on elective basis alone would be an EXCEPTION to the status quo and future HCR regarding elective procedures.
If elective abortions are treated like EVERY OTHER elective procedure... how is that discrimination?!?

[EFerrari]

403. Calling abortion an "elective procedure" is simply dishonest

and subjects that individual to needs testing which is an invasion of privacy. And yes, restricting funds is restricting access.

[wickerwoman]

400. Why should the system be burdened by people who choose to smoke,

drink, do crack, engage in extreme sports, speed and then get in a car accident or live on a diet of cheetohs and red bull?

There are any number of behaviors which are far more irresponsible that "engaging in actions which risk pregnancy" and all of those procedures would be covered. Are we going to stop treating lung cancer, diabetes and AIDS because those are all conditions that often occur with risky behavior?

Any number of procedures which are not life-threatening but simply improve quality of life will be covered by this bill. Allergy testing is just one example. So who is to say that having a scratch test to confirm that I'm allergic to cats should be covered, but having an abortion so I don't have to go through nine months of a high risk condition followed by days of excruciating pain, six weeks of bleeding, etc. should not be covered.

When did women's pain become so cheap and invisible in this society? If you can't see the enormous double standard between what is covered by this bill and what isn't, then I don't know what to say except that I hope one day you are unable to afford an important medical procedure that would prevent enormous amounts of both physical and psychological pain and someone has the nerve to smugly point out that you still have the "right" to have the procedure so nothing needs to be done.

Again, "rights" are not rights without access.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

401. Finally... an argument with substance.

I can see that point of view, it has merit, and I understand it - but I don't think it's quite an even comparison. In those very plausible situations you've cited of excessive risk living conditions, the end user ultimately is put in a situation where they require medical attention. When a smoker needs a new set of lungs it's not an elective procedure to undergo an organ transplant or receive chemotherapy/surgeries because without the medical care the person WILL die. Someone who is morbidly obese by their own making NEEDS medical attention or they will die. When a skateboarder enters the ER with an elbow pointing the wrong way they NEEDS care. True, a number of pregnancies experience complications or extraneous circumstances outside the control of the mother, however when such a pregnancy REQUIRES medical attention it will be covered. This is the analogous abortion care to the examples you brought forward.

We must not forget though that the typical pregnancy, left alone, will end with the mother and infant healthy. The typical pregnancy is NOT a situation that REQUIRES medical care outside of scheduled OBGYN appointments and giving birth. Not being medically necessary, the abortion is left up to the patient alone to determine if they want it - ergo it is an elective procedure.

Allergy testing is a good point. It does improve the quality of life and is often elective. However, one thing different about treating and testing allergies is that allergies are preexisting... people can't directly control their histamine reactions to certain allergens. Most people cannot help that, in the fall, pollen count skyrockets and they are allergic to pollen. I cannot help that I am allergic to codeine and morphine (and likely by extension, heroin... but not that that an issue for me). On the other hand, pregnancies and the desire for abortions are the direct result of choices.

The debate transcends the arena of Women's Rights - which is where I think many people get hung up. The debate is ultimately about whether taxpayers should pay for procedures which are both not necessary and the consequence of elective actions taken by the patient. And one thing to remember throughout the entire debate (while throwing much needed HCR under the bus) is that the HCR is not proposing to change access to abortions... access will remain the same as it is currently.

[wickerwoman]

404. Intervention is often covered to prevent pain, not just to prevent death.

When I was 8, I had a cyst removed from my head. It was covered by insurance because when I combed my hair, the blades of the comb hit the cyst and caused discomfort. So why should health insurance cover cyst removal (which was about a 1 or 2 on the pain scale) but not a procedure which prevents labor (a 9 or 10) or recovery from major surgery (a 6 or 7)? Why should it cover scar removal plastic surgery or skin grafts (after a car accident I caused by speeding) which only prevents psychological pain but not abortion which prevents intense physical pain?

Insurance covers sleep tests for sleep apnea (one of the most expensive procedures there is). Sleep apnea is a quality of life issue and is often the result of being obese (i.e. linked to life choices).

Common complications of pregnancy and childbirth include diabetes, hypertension, anemia, constipation, depression, shortness of breath, swelling and auto-immune issues. If there was a pill that made all of those conditions go away we'd be handing it out for free on every street corner.

Let's say I had a STD and one of the complications of the virus was that I would be incontinent for the rest of my life. If there was an injection that got rid of that virus and prevented that loss of quality of life, don't you think it would be covered by this bill, just like treatments for all the other STDs are, including the HPV vaccine? This bill is going to cover men who fly to Thailand to sleep with nine year old prostitutes and come back with chlamydia. It can damn well cover the time my condom split.

Taxpayers are already paying for dozens of procedures which involve lifestyle choices and quality of life issues. It is pretty glaringly obvious that this is about a procedure that some people have a moral objection to. It's not about saving money. It's not about paying for non-life-saving procedures. It's not about paying for quality of life procedures or conditions linked to lifestyle choices. It's about this one specific procedure that some people don't like and don't want to pay for. And the answer should be "tough shit- Mind your own business. I pay for lots of stuff you do that I don't like and I don't judge you for it." That's what being part of a civilized society is all about. Line-item health care doesn't work.

And "access remaining the same as it currently is" is unacceptable.

"Some 87% of U.S. counties, containing 35% of women aged 15–44, did not have an abortion provider in 2005."
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf

This bill will only make a desperate situation worse.

[omega minimo]

370. Unbelievable and disgusting

How can someone smart write something so stupid?

[rd_kent]

387. You tell us.

[omega minimo]

368. Everything in this articulate post is WRONG and disgusting.

[southpaw]

337. .

[Diane R]

348. Hush...........

[vinylsolution]

349. Healthcare for ALL - now!

[Liberal_in_LA]

352. kick

[shadowknows69]

355. +1 for this and other reasons.

[NuttyFluffers]

357. .

:cry:

[Stargazer09]

358. .

[demigoddess]

363. !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[onestepforward]

367. .

[sandyj999]

369. ~~~~~~~

[mntleo2]

371. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Barack_America]

374. .

:kick:

[Raster]

375. !!!

:kick:

[WatchWhatISay]

376. o

[FiveGoodMen]

377. ' '

[GodlessBiker]

378. K&R.

[MrCoffee]

389. :(

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[clear eye]

390. Damn straight! n/t

[Sabriel]

393. !

!

[omega minimo]

398. a silent link for all the self righteous PIGS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7288905&mesg_id=7288905

[rd_kent]

407. Is that a link for yourself?