Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Letter: Women’s issue

October 23, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

“Women’s right to choose” takes on an additional meaning this presidential election. It is true that the women’s votes will be the decisive factor in this election. These schoolboyish debates, which resemble auditions for the “Actors Studio,” in my opinion, have changed few votes, but the women’s vote is uncertain. It seems that this is right for it is the women who have more to lose in this election than anyone. It will be more than academic interest to see if they take a huge chance on losing all they have gained.

Almost of equal importance is to look at the vice presidential race, as these two will be but a heartbeat away from the presidency. Biden is a known quantity while Ryan is more a conservative Republican seemingly more addicted to the extreme right of the Republican Party. This election is a huge important choice and it will be in the women’s hands to decide the fate of the nation.

Comments

Oreocat2 1 year, 5 months ago

It is nice to know that some Kansas men are even showing an interest in womens issues. The very fact that a very large percentage of the 47 percent of americans Mr. Romney declared he did not care about are women. Have you ever sent for , recieved and read The book of "Mormon" I have and it is alarming. There all decisions are made by a group of Elders (male) and the women have no right of appeal to their decisions. They oppose family planning, contraceptives and make prononcments about every phase of family life and it is their way or the highway. Someone tell me please whenever did a group of old men make iron clad rules about womens issues and EVER get it right? It is common knowledge that many in the right wing of the Republican party hold women responsible for Rape, Incest etc. saying it was as God intended. If a pregnancy occurs because of this and abortion is contrary to Gods wishs. We all know that the Republican party believed that deregulation was the answer for wall street and even after the 2008 debacle refuse to co-operate in bringing meaningful regulation to keep it from happening again. They are beholden to the international hedge funds and international marketing even at the expense of the shrinking American middle class. Romney himself has invested in companies that have moved manufacturing to

china for the sake of the cheap labor. There womwn workers get ,99 cents an hour and work 12 hour shifts with one day off a month. In companies Mr. Romney realized a 455,000 return on last year. While he pays at a 14 perc ent tax rate vs his secretary who pays at a 28 percent tax rate. WhAE IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?? aRE WE SO INSANE THAT WE WILL VOTE BACK INTO POWER THE VERY PEOPLE WHO VERY NEARLY DESTROYED THIS NATION. CAN WE DOUBT THAT THE REPUBLICAN INTERTS HAVE CHANGED SO RADICALLY THAT THEY WILL NO LONGER REPRESENT THE HAVES AT THE EZOENSE OF THE HAVE LITTLES AND HAVE NOTHING LEFT EXCEPT THE VOTE TO SAVE THEMSELVE FROM THESE RAVAGES UPON THE MIDDLE CLASS OF AMERICA WHICH NOW CARRYS ALMOST THE ENTIRE BURDEN AND IS L;OSING GROUND EVERY DAY. THE VERY FACT THAT AMERICA HAS HAD THE STABIULITY IT HAS HAD DEPENDED LARGLY UPON THAT HUGE MIDDLE CLASS THAT IS DISSAPEARING.

1

justfornow 1 year, 5 months ago

I don't answer to you son, when did the US go down hill, answer that. Two income families are destroying the United States! Right before your eyes, but your to ignorant to see.

0

justfornow 1 year, 5 months ago

I think more then your sarcasm meter is broke, that's your issue!

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 5 months ago

continued

Jafs. While this case highlights some troubling issues, I think the courts did the correct thing by looking at the person least at fault (the child) and the person most at risk (the child) and elevated their rights and interests above those of others. While the actions of the mother was very bad, the behavior of the father was only somewhat less bad. Walking away from a child in need, suing to get back money while cutting off an already established relationship isn't exactly good behavior in my mind. What did the child do wrong to lose the father/child relationship?

As to seeking out the biological father, if she knows who it is, if she can find him, if she has the resources to prove her claim, if he is capable of providing financial support, if able to provide that support, will he pay, if he is willing and/or able to provide an emotional relationship, then sure. But that's a lot of if(s). All the while, who suffers? The child. If I were the judge, I would tell that man to go kiss "his" child, tell him/her you love them unconditionally, and then behave like an appropriate father and role model. He will be rewarded beyond the financial investment.

0

rockchalk1977 1 year, 5 months ago

There are 451,000 more unemployed women in America since Obama took office and implemented his failed economic policies. Labor force participation among women has fallen to a 20-year low under Obama. According BLS, only 57.6 percent of all women in America are in the workforce, the lowest level since October 1992. When Obama took office, that number was 59.4 percent. If the participation rate were the same today as it was when Obama took office, an additional 2.2 million women would be in the workforce. Romney Ryan 2012.

1

menstrualjanedoe 1 year, 5 months ago

I'm due to have my menstrual cycle that election week....OMG!

0

roadwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago

support of individual rights. across the board. freedom to worship as you choose...freedom to pursuit of happiness as you choose...freedom of expression as you choose. These rights were NOT given to make us comfortable, they were given to make US free.

4

booyalab 1 year, 5 months ago

Most likely, nothing will change in women's issues regardless of who is president. Newsflash: women's issues are a handy way of politicians getting votes. They don't actually matter to any politician. I guarantee you that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about reproductive rights after the Benghazi incident. Foreign policy matters. The economy matters. Birth control doesn't matter.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 5 months ago

But what on earth will these (mostly older guys) do to preoccupy themselves if they can't lord over women's bodies and their private decisions? Their bibles tell them it's correct to place their small, limited government in private places and private decisions ~ and because they are incapable of trusting women to make decisions for themselves, they will create a big government agency to do just that. Claim you've been raped? Probably didn't happen, and why not make lemonade out of lemons? At any rate, you'll need to plead your case to a government expert. And your birth control, well, some bible-thumpers object to most methods of it because it affects their concept of "personhood", so that'll be gone. Hopping on a plane, women? Be prepared for a visit to the airport's transvaginal checkpoint ~ after all, you may be going to a place where reproductive choices are still available. Remember, your reproductive capabilies are now everyone's business, and your big brother down at capitol hill will always know what's best for you. Our small, limited government will become as large as it needs to assure you women keep with the forced birth program.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Mourdock, for Akin, for Roeder.

4

jaywalker 1 year, 5 months ago

“Women’s right to choose” takes on an additional meaning this presidential election.

NO, it doesn't. Quit being one of the sheeple.

1

citizen1 1 year, 5 months ago

No one wants to take away women being able to have an abortion for life saving health issues. What folks object to is using abortion as a means of contraception.

With every right comes responsibility.

0

verity 1 year, 5 months ago

If you find me boring, just scroll right on by.

Edit: This should have gone under boobylab's post.

0

Agnostick 1 year, 5 months ago

If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available on every other street corner, fully-funded by the federal government.

If boys could get pregnant, abortions would be performed by priests and cardinals after every mass... blessed by The Pope via video feed from The Vatican.

1

booyalab 1 year, 5 months ago

As a woman who isn't brainwashed by the left, I think there are a lot more issues women can learn about besides "reproductive rights" (whatever that means). I'm not even saying who you should vote for, I'm saying women's issues are boring and if that's all you care about then you're boring too.

0

verity 1 year, 5 months ago

My remark, as I said, was intended as sarcasm as so many men in past threads have recommended that women keep their legs together or suffer the consequences.

I agree with notaubermime's solution (14 hours ago at this point).

However, due to the very real biology of the matter, it is the woman's body. Nothing can change that. If she choses, she will have an abortion, legal or not. She will also not have one if she choses---at least under current law. Do you wish to change that so you can have control over that also?

It's been said again and again and again, but I will say it one more time. Making birth control readily available is the best way to bring down the number of unintended pregnancies. Win for everybody, no?

0

verity 1 year, 5 months ago

This thread has gone completely off course and I shall be guilty of adding to the mess, but I can't resist.

It seems to me that men have several choices to stay in control of their reproductive rights with all those greedy women wanting to have their babies in order to get money or to conceive with them and then get rid of the result.

Vasectomy

Keep it in your fly

2

Kate Rogge 1 year, 5 months ago

Check out Leslie Gore's "You Don't Own Me" public service announcement urging women to get out and VOTE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxtbA...

0

Liberty275 1 year, 5 months ago

How many of you "pro-choice" people support a person's choice to have sex for money?

0

verity 1 year, 5 months ago

Interesting that it seems to be men who find Mr Hickam's letter objectionable to women. I have been a feminist for as long as I can remember, even before I'd heard the word and I don't find it condescending. As I stated above, we are in this together. Men have just as much, if not more, to lose if women become less equal and you should be concerned.

Are you willing to take the consequences if women lose access to birth control coverage or even birth control itself?

Do you really want women to make less if you happen to be in a situation where your wife/significant other is the only one in the household who has a job?

Yes, any majority or almost majority can swing the election. We happen to be discussing women here.

3

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 5 months ago

Most of the women I know are smart enough to vote in their own best interests. Unlike a lot of Kansans.

2

jonas_opines 1 year, 5 months ago

This letter about women's issues, as written by a man, still seems to be talking down to women. Telling them what they'd lose, telling them who they should vote for. I think they should be allowed to make up their own minds on how they can best protect their own rights and interests. The ones I know are pretty smart, and pretty well-informed already. A few of them even support Romney. And you know what, even if I disagree I respect their ability to make an informed opinion and not tell them they're voting against women's interests.

3

1 year, 5 months ago

I wonder how it is any more true to say that the election will be decided by women than by any other subjectively-selected majority or almost-majority of voters. Is it not also true that the votes of independents will be "the decisive factor in this election" and for the same reason? How about right-handed voters? White voters? Voters over 40? Voters west of the Mississippi? All of them - and even in some sense those who don't vote - will decide the election.

The letter-writer seems unsure whether the best way to attract the votes of women is through flattery ("it will be in the women’s hands to decide the fate of the nation") or fear ("more to lose in this election than anyone") and so mixes up a steaming cup of both. I suspect that those women who are open to such emotional manipulation probably do not find themselves among the undecided at this late date.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 5 months ago

You man most of the posters on here are not in the undecided column??

1

paulveer 1 year, 5 months ago

Are any of you out there really an undecided voter?

Do any of you really believe that any votes are currently being won and lost?

2

rockchalk1977 1 year, 5 months ago

The debates "have changed few votes". Really Mr. Hickam? During the summer, Obama spent most of his TV money demonizing Mitt Romney as the evil rich guy who wanted to toss granny off the cliff. Now, after the debates, that perception completely changed and Romney has taken a narrow national lead. He has also tightened the gender gap and expanded his edge over Obama on who would best grow the economy. A recent Battleground Tracking Poll shows Romney ahead of Obama by 2 percentage points, 49 to 47 percent. That represents a 3-point swing in Romney's direction. Romney is 3-0 in the debates and the polls are reflecting it. In comparison, Obama is almost out of cash and had to borrow $15 million to shore up his floundering campaign. He also has liberal pal Barbra Streisand (BS) begging for more money.

1

Flap Doodle 1 year, 5 months ago

"...Biden is a known quantity..." Yeah, he's a rodeo clown on acid.

2

verity 1 year, 5 months ago

I have to fault you, Mr Hyde, for focusing on women who are capable of reproduction as being at risk. Everybody (women and men) is at risk under a far right anti-woman regime and it is not just about reproductive rights for women. It is about all our hard-earned rights for equality.

All women have a lot to lose in this election and reproductive rights are to an extent the basis for all other equality. As a women who is not capable of reproducing I stand with all women to go forward rather than backward.

While I understand why Mr Hickam is focusing on women, I would say that not only will most men lose rights in a takeover by a far-right oligarchy, they have a lot to lose if women lose more rights. Pretty much a lose-lose for everybody.

8

Joe Hyde 1 year, 5 months ago

Ultra-conservatives and Christian Rightists have for the last three decades been aggressive and vocal in their efforts to take away, or prevent access to, medical services that give women better control over their reproductive lives. These ultra-conservatives are the main ideological and financial support structure for this election's Republican candidates for President and Vice President.

It would be unwise for women of childbearing capacity to overlook or dismiss the strident anti-choice rhetoric of the Republican Right. Gov. Romney in the debates tried to soft-pedal this issue, probably to make himself appear a political moderate. However, were he to gain the office of President I suspect his "power position" will quickly default to the Republican Right's clear campaign of suppressing women's reproductive self-determination.

This is indeed an important election for America as its outcome will impact women citizens in many ways, not just the reproductive issue. Still, if you're a female voter who happens to be physically capable of conceiving and delivering a baby, you really ought to consider what Republican conservatives keep saying about a woman's right to reproductive self-rule.

They want decision-making power over women; they don't want women exercising it for themselves. You have to wonder why they don't mind their own business and deal with their own pregnancies, or the prevention thereof, and leave everybody else out of it.

6

Commenting has been disabled for this item.