RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


PeonForHer -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/13/2012 12:46:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

the US is a scary place.. oddly enough, its not the strangers in the street that scare me, its the politicians, the govt and the police presence.. [8|]


Ditto that.




SternSkipper -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/13/2012 9:13:38 PM)

quote:

Ditto that.


Okay ... just remember... you asked for it...

[image]local://upfiles/18637/0C097E6CF5CC462FA4A084F8C26C5330.jpg[/image]




kalikshama -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 11:13:30 AM)

The GOP Overlooked One Thing When They Started This War On Women

Click link for video




hlen5 -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 11:55:34 AM)

Excellent video, Kali!!!!




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 12:08:51 PM)

In doing some research this morning, I discovered that last year Kansas passed a law excluding abortion from insurance coverage unless the woman bought a special abortion rider. So apparently, part of the GOP war consists of identifying the people who disagree with you, and then making exercise of a legal right prohibitively expensive.




kalikshama -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 12:11:52 PM)

Just like no one plans on getting cancer, no one plans on needing an abortion.




slvemike4u -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 12:17:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

The GOP Overlooked One Thing When They Started This War On Women

Click link for video

Fantastic video Kali.




farglebargle -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 4:21:23 PM)

[edited] [dupe]




kalikshama -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 4:45:02 PM)

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood President: Mitt Romney's Plan To 'Get Rid Of' Us Won't Balance Budget

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that she was traveling in Texas Tuesday when she read about Mitt Romney's promise to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood in order to cut the deficit.

"I was really stunned to read that Mitt Romney has now said he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, because really what that means is he wants to get rid of preventative health care for 3 million folks every year," Richards told reporters on Wednesday.

"It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of family planning and the budget to say one of the ways he's going save money in this country is by ending birth control and family planning," she added. "The most conservative economist will tell you that family planning saves money. It saves taxpayers money. It's ludicrous to think that Mitt Romney, who is running for president of the United States, thinks we're going to balance the budget by ending birth control access in this country."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney has previously expressed his opposition to the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest family planning provider, and his opposition to the Title X federal family planning program, but his comments on Tuesday made it sound like he wanted to axe the provider altogether.

"Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one, but there are others," Romney told a reporter in Missouri when asked how to balance the budget. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

For Romney to now say that he wants to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood seems to contradict his prior positions, when he sought Planned Parenthood's endorsement during his run for governor, attended a fundraiser for the family planning provider and filled out a survey in which he said he supported state-funded abortions for low-income women.

Planned Parenthood has become a lightning rod for political controversy over the fact that some of its clinics provide abortions. But it also provides affordable contraception, STD testing, cancer screenings and maternity care to millions of low-income, uninsured and medically underserved men and women across the country, and all of the federal money it receives go to health services that are not related to abortion.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/cecile-richards-mitt-romney-planned-parenthood_n_1345479.html?ref=topbar




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 5:51:40 PM)

Mitt isn't interested in trying to balance the budget by eliminating funding for PP. He is interested in imposing his Mormon values on the rest of us




kalikshama -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 5:54:24 PM)

Is Mitt pandering now or was he pandering when a moderate Massachusetts governor?




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 5:58:26 PM)

Well, if I have to choose, I would say when he was governor




dcnovice -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 6:18:01 PM)

A conservative, a moderate, and a liberal walk into a bar.

The bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!"




Theon38 -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 6:41:12 PM)

I'm getting so tired of this Republican War on Women (tm).

[image]http://i44.tinypic.com/1118ehd.jpg[/image]

These Republican frat boys need to be taught a lesson! Taken to the wood shed, if you know what I mean! We shouldn't have to stand for this war on women by the evil Republicans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGE3G5kfzps

Unbelievable!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/ed-schultz-laura-ingraham_n_866909.html

It's time we put a stop to these misognynists.




farglebargle -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM)

[image]http://dakiniland.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/no-more-coat-hangers.jpg[/image]




PeonForHer -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 7:04:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

The GOP Overlooked One Thing When They Started This War On Women

Click link for video




There *must* be something in the Bible, *somewhere*, that says it's sinful that women should express their views in such a wanton fashion. Surely?

What the USA needs now is a new Hollywood actor (or even just some bloke with a square jaw, great teeth and impressive eyebrows, who appears on telly now and then) to stand up and reveal his wisdom on a Christian Truth that's hitherto been ignored.








Hippiekinkster -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 8:16:41 PM)

I wuz just about to post that vid, Kali-S. Freakin' brilliant, it is.




GotSteel -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/14/2012 10:24:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
Blather like SD's post is not and will never be that argument.


I disagree, he's tipped the scales. I just became a democrat.




Arturas -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/15/2012 12:03:13 AM)

Ok. Back on the OP.

Nope there is no GOP war on women. "Wrongful Life lawsuits" are on the rise all over the world and these seek to blame doctors if a baby is born with a defect that would likely have caused the parent(s) to abort the baby should this had been known earlier. The increase in such lawsuits on competent doctors puts a great exposure on doctors. It makes doctors start looking for reasons to abort a new baby. They will do this to protect themselves and this natural tendency to do this might then trigger the wrongful abortion of a baby. Such lawsuits over time will cause doctors to lean toward preventing such lawsuits by being aggressive with his analysis and err to caution, thereby killing your beautiful baby girl who would actually be born defect free but to be safe the doctor decided some indicators earlier might show a defect. to prevent this insane situation this legislation allows doctors to do their job without fearing a wrongfull life lawsuit when the baby is born with an undetected defect.

Since these lawsuits are on the rise (huh, imagine that) doctors are exposed to them more and more and so other than causing perfect babies earlier indicated to be possibly defective to be aborted unnecessarily this type of lawsuit will certainly endanger women's access to prompt and cost effective care in the future should doctors no longer be able to practice because they either cannot affort the malpractice insurance or simply will not practice with this inherent risk to their career. So, in this context, this common sense context, this legislation protecting doctors from wrongful life lawsuits actually is good for women since it will keep unnecessary malpractice lawsuits down which will keep more competent doctors in practice at a lower overall cost to the health system and also women.

Given all the above and after reviewing the legislation text, I see nothing that indicates this is a conspiracy or cover to allow doctors to "lie" about what they found to discourage abortions. Does anyone really think your doctor will lie to you? If you think so perhaps you should change doctors. I should also point out there are women Republicans. I should think they would be upset to the max if legislation is intended to allow Doctors to lie and/or there was a "war on women".

Common sense must prevail sometimes and here's a statement I found that gives you a more common sense view of this type of legislation:

quote:

in states where this kind of lawsuit is allowed, it puts tremendous pressure on doctors to conduct a seek-and-destroy mission against fetuses with disease or disability. Otherwise, the doctor may be sued for doing his or her job: bringing a live child into the world.




tazzygirl -> RE: Nope, there is no GOP "war on women". (3/15/2012 12:42:03 AM)

One the rise? lol Thats about the funniest thing I have heard all week.

Your source is lifenews

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/13/wrongful-birth-and-wrongful-life-lawsuits-just-plain-wrong/

Which is why you didnt cite the source. I dont blame you.

LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community

http://www.lifenews.com/about/

About as unbias on this issue as you can find.

A reality check... OB/Gyns have been sued for this for decades. When the death of a child occurs, or one is born with complications, the parents will ALWAYS look for someone to blame. Sometimes the suit is valid. Sometimes not. Without that little window into the womb, no one can ever be sure. Standards of care is what everyone is this field relies upon. Dont follow the standards, then you are liable.

quote:

in states where this kind of lawsuit is allowed, it puts tremendous pressure on doctors to conduct a seek-and-destroy mission against fetuses with disease or disability. Otherwise, the doctor may be sued for doing his or her job: bringing a live child into the world.


This is about as much nonsense as the moon being made of cheese.

Try for a better source.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875