Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Sharpening My Pen

The War on Women-Part Deux

Advertisement

This is taking on metaphorical aspects of "Kill Bill(s)" (pun intended).
A national wave is sweeping the country in response to multiple bills being introduced in state houses across the country. The fiasco of an all male panel, over including contraception in preventative health insurance, didn't exactly help.
Women are rising up and they are NOT happy!
April 28th a concerted and coordinated march on Washington and every state capital in the country is being planned. In just one week, from the inception of the idea for this march, tens of thousands of women and their male supporters have pledged to march.
Here is a link to the Facebook page of the National committee of the march:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/300397393356744/
From there, you will be instructed on how to join your state page.
I hope to be in DC on the 28th. If not, I will be in the state capital. Please join me.

Comments

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I love you too tangie :) Now get your butt out there and PROVE it! :D

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

I wonder if there's going to be a big drop in births nine months from now.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Will they try to outlaw the old "aspirin between the knees" form of birth control also? I hear it works even without the aspirin, so all women can afford it---no need for insurance to pay for it. But the silly old men will be.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Come join us, verity :) You can go to the capital for a day and it will be fun seeing other p***ed off women :P

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Will you be the one sporting the red rose?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

No, I'll be the one in a pink tee shirt with a blue fist :)

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

What's the matter, BAA, suffering from lack of "access"? Well guess what, we are too.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

It's certainly not just Cait. Many of us remember what it was like in the fifties and early sixties. Our mothers and/or grandmothers remember when they couldn't vote. Many of us have fought this battle before. Never thought it would need to be fought again so soon. I will not go quietly into the night.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Maybe the reason they never said anything is because you wouldn't have listened anyway. You might try asking.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Are you really unaware that women, until relatively recently, didn't have the same rights/privileges as men in our society?

And, in fact, may still not have complete equality?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

http://www.politicususa.com/en/woman-sleeping-giant "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill (him) with a terrible resolve." -Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

"There are conservative women who support the idea that their sole purpose in life is birthing and serving men, but their stupidity is not epidemic in the entire population."

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Sorry, cait48, but that's not cool to take swipes at those women. They are entitled to believe as they do. I don't have issue with that. It is part of being a pro-choice person.

They just don't get to force everyone else to conform to those views.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I was actually quoting the article. But I do think it's necessary to point out that those women are in the minority and that by poking the bee's nest, legislators may bring a swarm down on them they didn't expect.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Feminism was all about choices, as far as I can recall.

It's unfortunate that it's become constrained so as to only allow certain choices to be respected.

If women are free to make choices and live their lives as they see fit, that should result in a variety of lifestyles.

Some women may freely and willingly choose a more traditional role, of child bearing/homemaking, while others choose to be single, others to be coupled without marriage, others to be focused on their careers, etc.

Freedom/choice/empowerment are wonderful goals - it's a real shame that those have become collapsed into a new pc restrictiveness.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I actually agree with you jafs. It's when people (men AND women) start mandating their choices as the ONLY choice that other people start pushing back. I don't think the people involved in this truly want to restrict others from taking on the roles they desire. They just want the same freedom. Is that so much to ask?

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Of course not.

I was responding to overplayedhistory.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Jafs, would you please explain how feminism has become constrained to only allow certain choices to be respected? I realize there are some radicals/fanatics who may hold this, but I really don't think there are that many---unless you're talking about choices which directly infringe on the rights of others.

I don't have a choice about paying for wars which I think are immoral---that is something I do because I am part of a larger society who has different views. Obviously not everybody's choices can be upheld. For a doctor to be allowed and perhaps even encouraged by law to withhold information or services that may result in the death of a woman is to me way beyond the pale and I will fight for the right of women to make their own choices on things that are nobody else's business.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Many feminists scoff at women who would choose a more traditional role of child rearing and home-making.

I agree about this law, of course.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

I question your use of "many." Maybe we just are reading/watching different things. Back in the 70s I do recall some things being advocated by so-called feminists that I though were really over the edge---and quit reading MS magazine because of that---but I don't see much of that anymore.

I think (and hope) that most of us have realized that feminism IS about being able to make our own choices and not accept anybody else making them or trying to make them for others.

Interestingly, it was my father who told me I could do anything I wanted and encouraged me to get away from my controlling mother---and most of my mentors have been men.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

I hope you're right.

That's an interesting personal bit at the end there.

0

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

In this particular pregnancy complication it is possible to save the life of both mother AND baby. Abortion would not be the only option. That being stated, have you considered the doctor's view? What about his "right" to "freedom of choice"?

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

A doctor, as a professional, is bound by a certain code of behavior - he doesn't have "freedom of choice" in the way you mean.

0

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

Can you please explain exactly what this code of behavior entails?

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Well, you could look it up - I'll bet the AMA has a nice, clear list.

The point is that a doctor is licensed by the state, and bound not only by those requirements, but also by the requirements of their chosen profession, as far as the care they provide, and the guidelines they must follow.

This is generally true of other professions as well - lawyers, therapists, etc.

In the case being discussed, if the doctor's actions violated any of those guidelines, he is acting incorrectly, and can be sued for malpractice, I imagine.

People who don't want to follow the guidelines of a certain profession should probably not choose to enter those professions.

For example, a lawyer who doesn't want to provide a vigorous defense of their clients shouldn't become a defense attorney. It isn't a good idea to become one, and then "choose" to violate the basic principles of your profession, and claim "freedom of choice".

0

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

I looked at AMA. It states that a doctor is "not prohibited from performing an abortion". However it never says it is illegal for a doctor to NOT perform an abortion.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

But, there are general guidelines that physicians are supposed to operate under, and to my knowledge, they don't include using the physicians' religious beliefs as a guide to their actions.

They are more likely to involve a certain quality of care for patients.

It should be pretty easy to find those on the Internet I would think - there's some sort of oath that doctors swear to abide by when they become doctors, I believe.

Nothing in that involves substituting one's own religious beliefs instead of using commonly accepted medical standards of care as far as I know.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

google Hippocratic oath and you'll find it.

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

To quote Brownback, that doctor "can go work somewhere else."

0

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes i expect he could but that doesn't answer my question. Which, by the way, was asked with the honest intention of understanding exactly what jafs means.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

It may not be illegal but if the woman had died (as she nearly did) her family certainly would have had a case for a wrongful death suit. However, that's mighty cold comfort for the family, losing the mother AND child. You say that both the mother AND baby could have been saved. Are you a medical doctor in this field and have expertise in dealing with cases of abruptio placenta? Because in this case, the mother states that the fetus was actively dying from her blood loss before she was ever taken to surgery. Given that she received three units of blood, she had bled out nearly half of her total body blood volume. May I ask your credentials that you can state this with such assurance?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

After re-reading the article, one thing seems pretty clear; given the circumstances, if the on call physician (who refused to do an "abortion") had immediately done the surgery, as the circumstances of the case dictated and warranted, there really was a chance the fetus could have been delivered and saved. The mechanics of premature separation of the placenta are absolute; once the placenta has separated from the uterine wall the pregnancy is over, one way or the other. There is no way to "stick it back" and there is no treatment for the condition that will continue the pregnancy. The fetus was 20 weeks, not a general case for viability and with an excessively slim chance for survivability. There have been extremely rare cases of that happening. (You can count them on one hand.) However, I am not one to discount miracles. Had that doctor done the surgery immediately there was an extreme outside chance the fetus could have been delivered and survived. But he didn't. And his refusal to treat the mother and deliver her to stop the hemorrhaging doomed that infant to certain death and nearly doomed the mother as well. In other words, I wouldn't be making excuses for him if I were you. Oh and by the way, as to my own credentials to make these judgments; I am a retired RN of 37 years. Much of what I outlined in this comment is pretty much prenatal nursing 101.

0

KSense 2 years, 6 months ago

I'm confused. Isn't abortion deliberately ending the existence of a fetus? In the above comment it sounds as if the service desired was not an abortion but an emergency albeit premature delivery of the baby with no intention of deliberately harming it. Is the article available online? I would be interested in reading it.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Wow, math, you don't get out of your Fox news comfort zone much, do you?

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Typical tactic.

Portray women as overly emotional beings prone to mental disorders.

How Freudian.

0

Kathy Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

Yup! Or Jungian - the shadow knows...... :-)

0

camper 2 years, 6 months ago

Playing the dictionary game again. I'm going to randomly pick one word out of the book. This can be fun:

Outboard: Outside the lines of a ship's hull.

0

ridikkulus 2 years, 6 months ago

Sort of "funny-but-not-funny", but if the whole "aspirin-between-the-knees" form of contraception ends up being all we have access to, with whom will the men be using their government-sponsored, Viagra-induced erections? Each other?

0

headdoctor 2 years, 6 months ago

Who knows but I suspect there could be a lot more upper extremity strains or doctor calls after 4 hours.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

If you think I, or other women, are being "paranoid" about the assault on women's healthcare, please consider this: KANSAS HB 2598 http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2598_00_0000.pdf

ALABAMA "Personhood" legislation http://jezebel.com/5788756/alabama-personhood-law-could-ban-all-abortions http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/04/four_abortion-related_bills_mo.html

TEXAS http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/abortion-texas/suehs-signs-rule-banning-abortion-affiliates/ Law passed banning all funding for women's health care to any entity that even has an ancillary relationship to any abortion provider. This has cut off access to basic health care services (none of which have anything to do with abortion) to over 130,000 women

NORTH CAROLINA http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Nikki/2011/5/23/Cruelty-Beyond-Measure-The-North-Carolina-AntiAbortion-Bills-21-Tactics-for-Terrorizing-Women

VIRGINIA Despite the fact that their legislature backed off on requiring transvaginal ultrasounds prior to an abortion, legislation requiring exterior ultrasounds (which are useless in the first trimester) continues forward.

PENNSYLVANIA Has picked up where VA left off and has legislation moving forward to require transvaginal ultrasounds prior to a first trimester abortion.

OKLAHOMA "Personhood" bill clears state senate. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-anti-abortion-senate-idUSTRE81F29920120216

I can go on and on with the links; the flap in Congress over contraception, being told that the only contraception women need is an "aspirin between the knees", even MORE legislation in Illinois, Florida, Indiana and Missouri. Seriously, what does it take to convince people that there really IS a war on women going on out there? NOW tell me that I and other women are "being paranoid".

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Pfffft on LJW and their refusal to let me capitalize even on my own blog :P

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

http://www.alternet.org/story/154240/santorum's_policies_would_have_killed_my_daughter?akid=8289.283578.is258O&rd=1&t=18

Keep telling me I'm paranoid, math.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Santorum's Policies Would Have Killed My Daughter

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Prenatal testing helped diagnose me with gestational diabetes and helped my OB-GYN develop a treatment plan to keep it under control.

Funny thing about Santorum. He seems to think prenatal testing is only for the fetuses.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

This sounds like a really bad episode of Maud (basically every episode). Like it's ' 73 all over again.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Unfortunately, a huge portion of the Republican Party are treating women like it's '73 all again. If you think it's a nightmare, just imagine how I (as a woman) feel!

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Only until Republican men stop treating women like the dirt on their shoes.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I did not write this but it sums up what many many women are feeling.

Letter #142

Dear Mr. President,

Yesterday I wrote to you about the wars raging in this country… and as a result of that letter I was sent a link to join a group called ‘Unite Against the War on Women’.

This group is only three days old and already has a National page and over 10,000 people have signed up to participate in a March and Rally on April 28, 2012 in every Capitol across the country. Not since the Woman’s Movement of the 1960’s have women been this motivated… or this enraged. We are sick and tired of being treated like chattel by right wing Republicans.

An article written today for Politicus.usa, By Rmuse, ‘Republicans Have Awoken A Sleeping Giant And She Is Furious’… speaks volumes about what women in this country are feeling and experiencing day after day. The assault on women seems to have no bounds, and no end at the hands of extreme right wing.

Enough is enough! Women are uniting against this assault like never before. We have watched Republican legislatures and Republican Governors, state by state, pass legislation restricting a woman’s right to choose their reproductive health options, to systematically dismantle Planned Parenthood, assail all manner of contraception protection, and even accuse the Girl Scouts of America of promoting homosexual lifestyles.

Republicans have stepped in it this time, and badly miscalculated the strength and tenacity of women to defend themselves against this onslaught of discrimination regarding our health care and reproductive choices.

There are over 157 million women v 152 million men, and we are going to mobilize, march, protest… and VOTE in November. And… it’s not just women that are fed up with this calculated effort to suppress women’s rights… our husbands, brothers, fathers and boyfriends are fed up too. When mama’s not happy… nobody’s happy, and this mama ain’t happy.

Yes Mr. President, there is a war brewing in cities and suburbs all across America, and if you’re very smart… and I know you are… you’ll keep your nose to the grindstone of governing this country, and steer clear of the War on Women that the Republican right wing and the Evangelical right wing are waging, because they are going to lose this war. I know you’re with us Mr. President because you have too much respect for the First Lady, your beautiful daughters, and all women everywhere.

Women are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore! We will be heard on April 28th in every Capitol in America… so buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Every Republican on Senate Judiciary Committee Voted against Renewing the Violence Against Women Act http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/02/18/republicans-vote-against-renewing-violence-against-women-act/ Keep telling me I'm paranoid, math.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/ A woman who had a premature separation of the placenta at 20 weeks, was hemmorhaging out and nearly died because the doctor on call didn't do abortions. Ever. Her life was saved when a nurse called another doctor who wasn't on call and, luckily, found her at home. She ended up having to have three units of blood to replace what she lost.

Keep telling me I'm paranoid, math.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Only if you think the war on women in this country is "rhetorical". Given the actual, physical toll it's taking on women I hardly find that to be the case.

0

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Not to me, it doesn't.

Perhaps you're just not listening.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Sweetness, scoff all you want. It just makes us more determined. So if that's what you want, you are succeeding.

Thank you for that---just keep it coming.

0

Kathy Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

That's right, verity - makes us more determined AND stronger.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

Cait, Is this a common problem or one we cite to make a point. There are always outliers and what you described sounds like something that is covered under most medical plans anyway?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Medical plan? Medical plan?????? Who cares about the medical plan? The woman damn near DIED because a doctor wouldn't give her the treatment she needed to save her life! An abortion! And all you can prattle about is her medical plan? You really don't get it, do you?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Add Mississippi to the list: http://leadercall.com/top-news/x1875164758/Miss-lawmakers-consider-new-abortion-restrictions After having had the "personhood" amendment to their constitution defeated by popular vote last fall, MS legislators prepare to ram it through anyway.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

I have been following the issue of women’s reproductive rights. I must admit that I have apparently missed something. I do not watch CNN, MSNBC or FOX frequently so it is probably my fault. Just exactly what are we arguing about?

I do not know who is actually attacking Title X and what the attack is about. I don’t know who the character that made the joke is or exactly his/her significances. I am unaware of a Republican panel on women’s reproductive rights. I am perplexed at the notion of a “war on women”?

I am aware that Mr. Obama, bless his soul, faced one of those quintessential moments when he had to balance a women’s right to control her own medical needs and the moral obligations of an organized religion to stand behind their belief structure. Somebody had to lose and it looks to me as if the President compromised – a long standing American trait that has avoided a lot of grief in the past.

I am also confused about exactly what rights we are debating. Are we concerned about a women’s right to access to these services or are we concerned that some women might have to pay for them?

From the argument presented it seems like much ado about very little. No one that I am aware of is denying women the right to such services. There are issues over who should pay but I fail to see how that is denying anybody access as such services are readily available to low income women if they but seek them out.

Is this just another argument by the Democrats to discredit the Republicans or is their substance behind it?

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 6 months ago

The republicans are doing an adequate job of discrediting themselves in this instance.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

How so? Nobody answered my question. Exactly what constitutes a war on women??

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

You might start taking a look at the links in this blog for one thing. Then take a look at FB. There are any number of groups there talking about it; The Scarlet A, Middle Aged Women Talking and One Million Pissed Off Women are just a few. YOU may not be "seeing it". Doesn't mean it's not there You ever thought that tens of thousands of women might be right and you are the one wearing blinders?

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

I don't have an opinion - yet and I am asking you to help me understand yours.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

Facebook wants an ID - I am not on facebook. Does this new group have a home page with issues?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I dunno. I guess when you have to have a "wand" stuck up your hoo-ha in a totally unneeded and unnecessary medical procedure demanded by legislators who aren't even trained medical professionals (much less doctors) before you can have another procedure done you'll figure it out.

0

deec 2 years, 6 months ago

Maybe if that passes, there should also be a law that a microcamera be passed up the male organ prior to a prescription for viagra being written.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

Hey when you get your BPH I(about 50% of males will) they will p;ass that camera up.

0

Kathy Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

Sounds pretty radical, you mean to tell me women are people, too? Who'd a thunk it?

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

Best guess is you need to be a member of the local NOW chapter. On demand abortions available 24 / 7.

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Don't throw your shoulder out patting yourself on the shoulder on how well you believe you treat the women in your life, BAA.

Given how you are so dismissive to most of the women on this forum, perhaps the women in your life just figured it wasn't worth wasting their breath to talk to you about any of their concerns as it is clear you don't listen.

Here's a radical thought for you though... how about actually asking the women in your life what they think about how women are being treated and the legislation that is being recently passed that is targeting women only?

Ask them what a well woman checkup consists of. In fact, why don't you ask if they have ever had one. And if your insurance actually covers that.

Ask them how they feel about someone else (a congressman, no less) dictating what their health care choices are.

Ask them how they feel about contraceptives not being covered by insurance policies even though it can be used as treatment for medical conditions such as PCOS or endometrioisis but that any ED medication is covered by insurance companies.

Ask them if they know what a transvaginal ultrasound is and how they would feel about it being required for a legal medical procedure.

Ask them how they feel about women being required to have a separate insurance policy for abortion but men don't have to purchase a separate one to have a vasectomy.

Ask them how they feel about a miscarriage being investigated as a crime (several states have had this legislation come up).

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

OK

I went to the Facebook page and read the references. I have tried to understand the genesis of all this fuss.

To me it seems that all sorts of grievances are being referenced but it seems that the main argument is about cost – who pays. That said the argument seems to be framed in the absolute that someone is taking something away from women.

Now I can remember when the wife and I paid for all our elective reproductive services – only medically necessary services like births were in general covered. That evolved to health insurance covering many of those services but not birth control or related elective choices. Those services were, however, available to low income women under a variety of programs. Now there seems to be an argument that all such services should be free that is paid for by others.

So where do we start. The free part has not been taken away because it never was a generally available service until the recently issued proclamation from the Obama Administration

I conclude that this is all about a carefully orchestrated undertaking to argue incorrectly that somebody is losing something they never had and blaming the loss on the Republicans.

Bottom line: It is just politics as usual and of no real note. When most women begin to understand that most of them are losing nothing it will subside.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

And I feel you are reaching for excuses to ignore this. If you actually read the discussions going on in that group of women (which now numbers nearly 13,000 for this SECTION of the march alone. There are other sections that are also concurrently organizing.) you would understand that "cost" has nothing to do with it except the costs being paid by women in dignity, autonomy, self respect and self determination. If all you can think about is money than you are barking up the wrong tree and probably thinking with the wrong "brain", mister.

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Moderate (anonymous) says… To me it seems that all sorts of grievances are being referenced but it seems that the main argument is about cost – who pays. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are incorrect about the "main argument". It is not all about cost but about the right of a women to decide for herself which health care choices to make.

Women's health care choices are being restricted. When you try to ban services that are part of women's health care (reproductive services are most definitely in that category), it is about restricting the choices a woman can make.

Do you feel it is okay for someone other than your doctor to tell you what decisions you may make about your personal health?

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

And I agree with that, tange. Ideally the doctor should present all options and then a decision can be made by the patient.

0

headdoctor 2 years, 6 months ago

I get it. If it doesn't happen in your sexist world then it doesn't happen. That is insulting and dismissive. We pay for other people's choices all the time. Smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, blue collar and white collar criminals, inattentive and or reckless drivers, poor business and or family decisions and yes even people's choice to have churches and thus choices of religion. Would you feel the same if women didn't want to pay for your BPH, testicular cancer treatment or male boner pills? Those issues will never effect women. Yes even viagra doesn't effect most of them. If yours don't work they can find one that does or a sperm bank.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

I am overwhelmed. The responses are measured and considered.

OK

None of the references I read talked to an actual reduction in services as they have existed in the past decade as I understand them.

There was a lot of concern that certain state legislatures will try to limit abortions and other covered and not covered reproductive services. Your are right, they do so at their own peril. However, abortion rights are not settled law. There are still a significant number of people who are not comfortable with where we are. I am. Now I do object to treating reproductive services for most women any differently then we do any other prescription or actual medical service.

There was concern that certain Republican candidates are making noises along the same lines. They are in no position to do anything and IMHO are playing to a portion of their base until they get nominated. Of course, no one but Republicans do that.

There were other references like Cait’s with respect to treatment. The doctor is entitled to her opinion but the services must be provided in a timely manner. There is only so much we can do to make a smooth world. There will be times that the service provider just is not there. We have provisions to back things up and they usually work as they apparently did in the example.

No I don’t want other people making medical decisions for me. Like you I greatly fear that will happen soon when the “best practices” groups at CMS and VA start to defined some services as of limited utility or with a low rate of return. You see women are not the only ones with a dog in the fight although my wife may be affected by the same decisions as I.

Good luck in your protesting.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Thank you :) I have a glimmer of hope.

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

It is interesting that you focus on abortion as being the main service.

Recent legislation both in our state & on the national level is attempting to de-fund Planned Parenthood based on that focus on abortion.

Given that 97% of Planned Parenthood's services are not abortion related, de-funding them denies access to reproductive services, particularly in rural areas. Reproductive services go beyond contraceptives and abortion. They include:

Breast exams (both manual and mammograms Pelvic exams (screen for abnormalities, cancers and other growths) Pap smears (screens for cancers and STDs) Rectal exams (screens for cancers, polyps, etc) STD testing (for both men and women) Prenatal care

These are important health care services for women. Screenings and early treatment help keep medical costs down.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

After one of our neighbors had an unfortunate confrontation with a mama pig---those mothers will not only kill you if sufficiently aroused, but then eat you---my father pointed out to me Rudyard Kipling's poem, "The Female of the Species."

While I don't agree with everything in the poem, Kipling does make some good points. I think that the men in government who have either made derogatory comments and/or tried to pass laws putting limits on women's choices or made stupid jokes don't realize that you really shouldn't poke sticks at pissed off females. We are the majority and, although some women seem happy to not have some choices or rights and will vote against them, many men also support women's rights.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

By the by see Mr. Kipling's poem titled "Tommy Atkins". The government gives and the government takes it away.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Point taken.

Our federal government has done very poorly by our soldiers.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 6 months ago

Expand that thought to all of you. What it gives today it will mess with tomorrow.

It also explains why I am a GOM when it comes to the government taking even more = like free medical care

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/26/sunday-review/where-ultrasound-is-required.html?ref=sunday-review

States Where Ultrasound Is Required Understand that in the first trimester (when over 95% of abortions occur) external ultrasound is useless as the fetus isn't big enough for the transducer to pick it up. Therefore, those states that require it are mandating a useless procedure, at a cost of roughly 700$ per exam, where nothing can be seen. Add in that many of these states also mandate a "cooling off" period of as much as 24-72 hours after this useless procedure before the abortion can be performed. Some states (such as Texas) demand that the same physician who performs the abortion must also perform the ultrasound. This is another "hoop" style hardship, as in the vast bulk of OB-GYN practices ultrasounds are performed by techs similar to X-ray techs. As very few first trimester abortions are now being done that are not "chemical" abortions with the use of RU-486, this means that women must now do things like two days off from work, arrange transport and childcare, etc. just to take a pill. To date, these TRAP laws have done absolutely nothing to deter women from getting first trimester abortions. With every law that's passed, it's just simply seen by women as one more hoop that the state is putting them through to get to their goal. And with every hoop that's added women are getting angrier and angrier. Is it any wonder that this anger and frustration is boiling over?

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

Just call it like it is Cait. You are mad because when Kat left for DC the abortion mills here got slowed down to a fraction of the pace they were at. Trying to pimp taxpayer funded abortion on demand is only going to be accepted by a very small segment of the population.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

I can't imagine that you're married. I can't even imagine that you have a girl friend.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

Happily married to Mrs. Armstrong 20 years. 2 kids, 4 dogs and a cat. And you ?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Happily married for 13 years. (First husband died.) 4 kids, 6 grandkids and two cats (with, hopefully, a dog in the future. We haven't found the right one yet). May I ask how Mrs. Armstrong feels about all of this?

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

Mrs. Armstrong is a firm believer in everyone talking care of their own crotch. To quote " If you're old enough to play you're old enough to pay."

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

A first trimester abortion is "taking care of one's crotch". And believe me, sir, given what women have to go through to do it, it's a responsibility they take seriously.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

"Mrs. Armstrong is a firm believer in everyone talking care of their own crotch." Does this mean she doesn't support the state "taking care of it" for them? (And I'm NOT talking about "tax payer funded abortion". I'm talking about over regulation.)

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

Mrs. Armstrong believes you are responsible for your own actions and you are responsible for the concequences of your actions. Period

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Sooo does this mean she's for or against a woman making decisions re: her own body? If a woman is responsible for her own actions and responsible for the consequences of her own actions, shouldn't she have the full freedom to make those decisions and take full responsibility for them without undue interference from the state?

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

This could get lengthy but I will try to compress the message.

1) If you are responsible for your actions, your consequences are minimal. To specifically answer your question. Yes she is for a woman making decisions regarding her own body. 2) Having said the above, regardless of what a state does or doesn't do is not material to taking care of your responsibility, that is merely part of a consequence of your actions

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

"...regardless of what a state does or doesn't do is not material to taking care of your responsibility.." This is the only part of what you have said that I have to disagree on. When a state takes actions that actively interfere with a woman taking responsibility for herself and her body and doing what she thinks needs to be done, that is not the woman taking responsibility for her actions and their consequences, that is the state taking the responsibility out of her hands and forcing her to take consequences that are not of her own making.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

But you don't have to beat your head aginst a wall either. Other choices include but not limited to Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas,.......There is nothing stopping anyone from going across a state line, well unless you have legal issues but that's a different story.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

That, in and of itself, can be a hardship. What if a woman lives several hours away from any state line? Please, sir, tell me, why should any woman have to tolerate such interference from the state that it forces them to travel hundreds of miles to get the care they believe they need? Especially when the state mandates that they have to have "such and such" utterly useless procedure done and then wait and come back days later and make that same hours long journey another day? Let me put this in different terms and remove the whole "female" thing from it. What if you needed, say, a cardiac stress test? For some really strange reason the state government says the only way you can get it is to drive from Wichita to Kansas City. Once you're there, you're told that you have to have preliminary blood work that has nothing to do with your condition; liver, kidney and thyroid tests, perhaps. Then you are told to go away and they will do the test in three days. Do you go home and drive the five hours to KC again in three days, taking another day off from work, finding someone to feed your pets, babysit your kids and take over your paper route? Do you spend over three hundred dollars for a (cheap) motel room for three days? Why are they making you drive to KC when cardiac stress tests are common as dirt in other parts of the country? You're paying for this, aren't you? What right do they have to interfere with it? Really? I'm sorry but that's a very weak argument.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

All i can tell ya Cait is it's all about decisions and the above mentioned by you is all part of the big picture. Make plans accordingly Don't mean to be cold but that's the way it is.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Sadly, I agree. But I also think we have two choices. Fight it or give in. And I choose to fight it.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

By the way, I'd like to address some things you've said here (and do it seriously and without confrontation). 1. "Trying to pimp taxpayer funded abortion on demand.." Taxpayer funded abortion doesn't exist and hasn't existed for years. The Hyde Amendment has existed and been renewed annually by the Federal government since 1976. That's 36 years, sir, that the Federal government and the states, through that amendment, have refused to pay for "tax payer funded" abortion. 2. For someone who, in the past, has decried "over regulation" by the government at both the state and Federal level, you don't seem too concerned about the over regulation of women's health care. I'm not going to get into the aspects of contraception or late term abortion (which makes up less than 5% of all abortion and has severe legal constraints against it), but deal specifically with first trimester abortion. Women pay for this care out of pocket. Period. You seem to be ok with the state adding layer after layer of regulation to this healthcare; regulation whose sole purpose is to punish women, financially and otherwise, for having this care done. What other purpose could there be for forcing women to undergo useless procedures that do nothing but add to the over all cost? It certainly doesn't (and won't) stop it. It is "social" legislation at it's dirtiest and poorest, even to the extent, in some states of going so far as to what amounts to state mandated "rape". I don't think, as a man, that you have ever seriously encountered "social legislation" nor have you felt the bite of it's effects. Some day I hope that you sit down with Mrs. Armstrong and seriously talk to her about these things, get her perspective and please, respect it. You might be surprised.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

As far as I am concerned the Govt can stay out of every aspect of our lives.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.