Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Reject GOP’s Crazed Attacks on Birth Control

Snake oil fail
Wingnuts • Views: 32,871
Birth control via Shutterstock

The Republican Party has been trying like crazy to disguise their attacks on women’s contraception as an issue of “religious freedom,” but the newest Bloomberg national poll shows that Americans are not buying their snake oil: Republicans Losing on Birth Control as 77% in Poll Spurn Debate.

Americans overwhelmingly regard the debate over President Barack Obama’s policy on employer-provided contraceptive coverage as a matter of women’s health, not religious freedom, rejecting Republicans’ rationale for opposing the rule. More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate.

More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll — including almost 70 percent of women — say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11.

That conflicts with Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, who say Obama is violating religious freedom by requiring employers — including those with religious objections to birth control — to provide a way for women to obtain contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance plans.

The results suggest the Republican candidates’ focus on contraception is out of sync with the U.S. public. Seventy-seven percent of poll respondents say birth control shouldn’t be a topic of the political debate, while 20 percent say it should.

One factor in these results: the disgusting misogynistic attacks launched by Rush Limbaugh against Sandra Fluke. When Limbaugh started spewing hatred at this young woman, he effectively destroyed the Republican Party’s “religious freedom” disguise, and made it appallingly clear that this initiative is about something much more primal — the compulsive need for reactionary sexist right wing men to control women.

Jump to bottom

209 comments
1 erik_t  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:12:53am
Seventy-seven percent of poll respondents say birth control shouldn’t be a topic of the political debate, while 20 percent say it should.

We finally managed to find a topic on which even some of the 27 Percenters break away and rejoin the real world.

Nicely done, GOP.

2 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:14:58am

This is the case of a "silent majority" at work. There is a small GOP minority shouting its head off about this topic, whereas most Americans do not unerstand why it should be a topic at all in the 21st century.

3 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:18:33am

I think most people are bewildered that they're talking about this as an issue.

4 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:20:03am

re: #2 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

This is the case of a "silent majority" at work. There is a small GOP minority shouting its head off about this topic, whereas most Americans do not unerstand why it should be a topic at all in the 21st century.

I hope they will not be silent at election time. It has become obvious that state and local elections matter for these issues as much as the presidential election does, if not more.

Register to vote, register all the sane citizens you know, and then work to turn out voters on election day!

5 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:20:05am

If the GOP had any brains, they would have taken the win that they were offered when President Obama altered the mandate to accommodate religious groups. Instead they blew it and went on a slut shaming rampage.

It's insane that anyone is even talking about birth control in 2012. If anything, the expansion of access to it is a GOOD thing. More people using birth control and being able to afford it = fewer unintended pregnancies = fewer abortions. Isn't that what they claim they want anyway?

Oh, wait. Never mind. That still involves women having sex. =P

6 Jack Burton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:20:35am

GoP talking heads having been saying that "polls" are showing the exact opposite of this all week. I think Rush tried to claim 60% (or something nearly as asinine) of America was against the requirement for insurance companies to cover birth control. They keep claiming "most women" are on "their side" too.

I wonder what color the sky is on this mythical world.

7 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:21:49am

re: #5 Lidane

Oh, wait. Never mind. That still involves women having sex. =P

Having the sex. From now on, it's not "sex". It's "the sex". Remember this.

8 nines09  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:21:52am

re: #4 wrenchwench

I hope they will not be silent at election time. It has become obvious that state and local elections matter for these issues as much as the presidential election does, if not more.

Register to vote, register all the sane citizens you know, and then work to turn out voters on election day!

Local and state elections are everything to this. The GOP/TP cannot do anything without a majority.

9 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:22:27am

re: #5 Lidane

If the GOP had any brains, they would have taken the win that they were offered when President Obama altered the mandate to accommodate religious groups. Instead they blew it and went on a slut shaming rampage.

It's insane that anyone is even talking about birth control in 2012. If anything, the expansion of access to it is a GOOD thing. More people using birth control and being able to afford it = fewer unintended pregnancies = fewer abortions. Isn't that what they claim they want anyway?

Oh, wait. Never mind. That still involves women having sex. =P

Well that's what happens when you let a guy like Limbaugh speak for your ideology.

10 Tigger2005  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:24:14am
the compulsive need for reactionary sexist right wing men to control women.

Which is brilliantly illustrated by the previous thread.

11 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:25:51am

Funny, Rush was just talking about how this was backfiring on the democrats, because real Americans wouldn't fall for this obvious distraction from the economy.

12 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:26:38am

re: #1 erik_t

UGG IS CAVEMAN BUT EVEN UGG SAY GOP WENT TOO FAR

13 Bulworth  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:27:32am

I remember when the GOP only hated abortion. Sigh. //

14 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:27:35am

re: #11 Kragar

Funny, Rush was just talking about how this was backfiring on the democrats, because real Americans wouldn't fall for this obvious distraction from the economy.

The improving economy?

15 Bulworth  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:28:22am

re: #14 HappyWarrior

The improving economy?

NO no no no, Gas Prices!!!! Drill, baby, drill!! //

16 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:29:31am

re: #14 HappyWarrior

The improving economy?

Thats all lies pushed by the liberal media, dontcha know?

17 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:31:22am

re: #14 HappyWarrior

The improving economy?

//The economy is only getting better because it expects a Republican to win the 2012 election!

18 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:32:10am

re: #17 jamesfirecat

//The economy is only getting better because it expects a Republican to win the 2012 election!

Allen West Says Future Republican President Should Get Credit For Today’s Stock Market Gains

19 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:32:54am

I am stunned. Just stunned. As most know, I kind of count myself as conservative (well, more of a libertarian in most cases). Center right I guess is the best way to put it on fiscal issues. I tend to be center left on social issues.

I am absolutely stunned (sorry to keep using that) at the republican party. WTF? Just shaking my head. I don't know what to say. I really don't.

I can tell you this, I will be pulling the lever for dems this fall. Not because I think they are the better party on some key financial issues, but financial issues take a backseat to these social issues.

ATTENTION REPUBLICAN PARTY - Women are EQUAL to men. Ok? Get it over it please? How can you be for "small government" when you propose taking over people's private lives? Answer - you cant! Hypocrites the whole damn lot of you.

20 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:33:40am

re: #19 brownbagj

I am stunned. Just stunned. As most know, I kind of count myself as conservative (well, more of a libertarian in most cases). Center right I guess is the best way to put it on fiscal issues. I tend to be center left on social issues.

I am absolutely stunned (sorry to keep using that) at the republican party. WTF? Just shaking my head. I don't know what to say. I really don't.

I can tell you this, I will be pulling the lever for dems this fall. Not because I think they are the better party on some key financial issues, but financial issues take a backseat to these social issues.

ATTENTION REPUBLICAN PARTY - Women are EQUAL to men. Ok? Get it over it please? How can you be for "small government" when you propose taking over people's private lives? Answer - you cant! Hypocrites the whole damn lot of you.

They've never been for small government.

21 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:34:34am

re: #20 HappyWarrior

They've never been for small government.

Yeah, this. "Smaller government" has been a bullshit argument from the GOP for decades. They're just as much of a big government party as the Democrats. The only difference is what they prioritize for that big government.

22 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:34:58am

re: #8 Shine On You Crazy Diamond

Local and state elections are everything to this. The GOP/TP cannot do anything without a majority.

Not only that, but if an atavistic jerk can't get elected as dogcatcher, he won't be able to move up to mayor, state rep., national rep., etc.

23 bluecheese  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:36:51am

dummies.

nobody wudda even had any clue about Fluke and her testimony if Rush hadn't open his snout.

24 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:36:53am

re: #20 HappyWarrior

They've never been for small government.

///I wouldn't be so sure, look we've made government small enough to fit inside a woman's (Cue Slide Whistle)!

25 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:37:02am
26 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:37:29am

re: #20 HappyWarrior

In a way, I know this. I really saw it when "W" was pres and had the entire congress as "Rs" and they spent like drunken sailors.

I am for small government. Not small and stupid. Just smaller, smarter and more efficient. Get out of our lives, provide an equal playing field and back off.

And you are right, they aren't really for smaller government, they are for their morals to be pushed on everyone else.

Done with them. Hell, I might be done with the whole dang process as I don't see much hope either way.

Sorry to be so negative, but I am not seeing great leadership from anywhere at the moment - and I sure as hell can't vote for the repubs.

27 BongCrodny  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:38:12am

My sister voted for Obama but she also voted for Olympian Snowe and Susan Collins. So I'd say she definitely fits the "independent" label.

She is balls to the wall furious at the GOP right now.

Can't say as I blame her.

28 Tumulus11  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:38:17am
'Almost one in three Republicans, 30 percent, say Limbaugh should be fired for the remarks.'

. Rush Limbaugh is just another one of Pres. Obama's secret operatives. /

29 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:38:34am

re: #18 Lidane

Allen West Says Future Republican President Should Get Credit For Today’s Stock Market Gains

The reason the economy tanked in 2008 was becasue they thought a Democrat was going to win.

30 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:38:47am

re: #23 bluecheese

dummies.

nobody wudda even had any clue about Fluke and her testimony if Rush hadn't open his snout.

Right. Yet he blames Democrats for the distraction he created. He's a moron, and depends on morons to keep listening.

31 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:38:52am

re: #21 Lidane

Yeah, this. "Smaller government" has been a bullshit argument from the GOP for decades. They're just as much of a big government party as the Democrats. The only difference is what they prioritize for that big government.

Seriously, it's a load of shit and always has been. Low taxes at all costs isn't fiscal conservatism. It's just as reckless as spending on everything.

32 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:39:05am

re: #26 brownbagj

In a way, I know this. I really saw it when "W" was pres and had the entire congress as "Rs" and they spent like drunken sailors.

I am for small government. Not small and stupid. Just smaller, smarter and more efficient. Get out of our lives, provide an equal playing field and back off.

And you are right, they aren't really for smaller government, they are for their morals to be pushed on everyone else.

Done with them. Hell, I might be done with the whole dang process as I don't see much hope either way.

Sorry to be so negative, but I am not seeing great leadership from anywhere at the moment - and I sure as hell can't vote for the repubs.

Vote Democrat. Right now the entire Republican strategy is to make the main stream so disgusted with government/politics that sane people throw up their hands in despair and stop voting.

34 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:39:46am

re: #26 brownbagj

Sorry to be so negative, but I am not seeing great leadership from anywhere at the moment - and I sure as hell can't vote for the repubs.

Do you not see Obama as superior to the Republicans offerings? At least on this issue?

35 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:39:59am

re: #32 jamesfirecat

Oh I will be.

I have an 8 year old daughter.

I will be DAMNED if I let someone try to control her life.

36 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:40:11am
38 nines09  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:41:14am

re: #22 wrenchwench

Not only that, but if an atavistic jerk can't get elected as dogcatcher, he won't be able to move up to mayor, state rep., national rep., etc.

That is my point exactly. I am all for two or more political choices at election time. Not this time. I look at a vote for a GOP/TP candidate anywhere as a vote for the insanity and the intent of this bag of shit foisted as a choice.

39 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:41:32am

re: #34 wrenchwench

I do. I am sure I ma using too broad a brush right now. Just really upset that their is no great two party system anymore.

You have one semi-sane party and one "batshit crazy, Taliban like, but uses the Christian Bible instead of the Koran party."

40 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:41:37am

re: #30 wrenchwench

Right. Yet he blames Democrats for the distraction he created. He's a moron, and depends on morons to keep listening.

Rush wants "personal responsibility" for everyone but Rush. Has Rush ever taken responsibility for any of the shit he's said and I don't count this because it was an obvious non-apology.

41 Alexzander  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:42:01am

I really appreciate your commitment to this issue Charles.

42 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:42:49am

Honestly as a left of center voter, I would love to have a more saner Republican party. You need balance in a Democracy with all kinds of voices but the Republicans have grown so nuts over these past few years following Obama's election.

43 S'latch  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:43:28am

I recently found myself hoping that the GOP nominates Rick Santorum. Maybe after he is thoroughly trounced by Barack Obama, the Republicans will learn their lesson. They will have had their True Conservative candidate. They will not be able to say "We lost because our candidate was not conservative enough."

44 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:43:51am

re: #39 brownbagj

I do. I am sure I ma using too broad a brush right now. Just really upset that their is no great two party system anymore.

You have one semi-sane party and one "batshit crazy, Taliban like, but uses the Christian Bible instead of the Koran party."

Yeah it sucks, but if you keep voting Democrat the Republican party will have to either reform itself into something more sane or collapse and become nothing more than a regional party.

Refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils only makes the problem worse.

45 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:43:56am

re: #31 HappyWarrior

Heck, I am not even necessarily for lower taxes. I can be fine with the taxes we have today as long as they are managed properly and going to real programs that work.

I would rather look at all programs, including military and all, and see if we are spending in the right areas.

Reducing programs doesn't, well at least to me, mean reducing taxes. It means putting revenue into programs that are really working. It seems to me we have many programs that exist today that if they were cut, we could take that expense and put it into programs that are delivering.

46 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:45:14am

Just for the record, has anyone else seen a birth control package that looks like this? Every one I've ever seen goes left to right, Monday (or Sunday, or whatever) to Sunday, and then repeats.

47 Jack Burton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:45:18am

re: #36 HappyWarrior

What the fuck is this?

No religious test. Except for those damn terrah'ists. They might strap bombs to themselves during football games. I saw it on teh Fox.

48 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:45:32am

re: #44 jamesfirecat

Agreed.

Seriously, it has been a while since I voted Dem, but I will this fall. Bank on it. Just too important right now to stop this insanity that is infiltrating our public discourse.

49 nines09  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:45:57am

re: #33 Kragar

Texas School Sports League Asks Muslim School If It Wants To ‘Eliminate The Infidels,’ Denies Its Membership Application

Take out the word Muslim and put in Catholic or Irish or Black or Jew. We never learn.

50 BongCrodny  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:46:01am

re: #39 brownbagj

I do. I am sure I ma using too broad a brush right now. Just really upset that their is no great two party system anymore.

You have one semi-sane party and one "batshit crazy, Taliban like, but uses the Christian Bible instead of the Koran party."

In the land of the blind, you vote for the guy with one eye.

51 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:46:11am

re: #43 Lawrence Schmerel

I recently found myself hoping that the GOP nominates Rick Santorum. Maybe after he is thoroughly trounced by Barack Obama, the Republicans will learn their lesson. They will have had their True Conservative candidate. They will not be able to say "We lost because our candidate was not conservative enough."

Oh, they'll find all sorts of proof Santorum wasn't really conservative after he loses.

52 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:46:35am
53 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:46:49am

re: #45 brownbagj

Heck, I am not even necessarily for lower taxes. I can be fine with the taxes we have today as long as they are managed properly and going to real programs that work.

I would rather look at all programs, including military and all, and see if we are spending in the right areas.

Reducing programs doesn't, well at least to me, mean reducing taxes. It means putting revenue into programs that are really working. It seems to me we have many programs that exist today that if they were cut, we could take that expense and put it into programs that are delivering.

Yeah I know what you mean. I am just stating what I've witnessed here in my state with the Republicans. In the past we had people who were practical on these kind of things but instead we have officials who care more about making Grover Norquist happy than real results.

54 bluecheese  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:47:08am

BTW, if anyone missed the op-ed that Kathleen Parker wrote on the subject on march 9th, it's kinda a fun read.

Here's the link:


A GOP war on women?

55 nines09  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:47:09am

re: #51 Kragar

Oh, they'll find all sorts of proof Santorum wasn't really conservative after he loses.

"He just wasn't organized enough."

56 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:47:11am

re: #51 Kragar

Oh, they'll find all sorts of proof Santorum wasn't really conservative after he loses.

Yeah but who could they run who is more to his right next time? Princess Sarah of Snow?

57 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:47:14am

re: #50 BongCrodny

In the land of the blind, you vote for the guy with one eye.

ELITIST PIG! Thinks he's better than us for having one eye?
/

58 nines09  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:47:54am
59 S'latch  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:48:04am

re: #51 Kragar

Well then, I will continue hoping for that Undeniably True Conservative Candidate.

60 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:49:07am

Uh oh
Lubbock Planned Parenthood President and CEO Will Not Return Following Indecent Exposure Charge

This is a new story but it is already making the rounds in the wingnut-o-sphere.

61 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:49:31am

Romney's already prepping the base's excuse if Santorum is the nominee and loses. Santorum is an "economic liberal." Santorum is just more populist in style than Romney's corporate. They both would suck on the economy.

62 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:49:33am

re: #55 Shine On You Crazy Diamond

"He just wasn't organized enough."

...

He voted to raise the debt ceiling fiiivve timesss!!!1

63 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:49:49am

re: #52 Kragar

U.S. Army Pulls Ads From Rush Limbaugh’s Show

Why does the U.S. Army hate America?

///

Also, I eagerly await the conspiracy theories about how a branch of the military pulling their ads is proof that Limbaugh's First Amendment rights are being violated by a boycott.

64 nines09  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:50:30am

re: #63 Lidane

///

Also, I eagerly await the conspiracy theories about how a branch of the military pulling their ads is proof that Limbaugh's First Amendment rights are being violated by a boycott.

OBAMA!!!!111

65 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:50:33am

re: #61 HappyWarrior

Romney's already prepping the base's excuse if Santorum is the nominee and loses. Santorum is an "economic liberal." Santorum is just more populist in style than Romney's corporate. They both would suck on the economy.

You are projecting your thoughts through my wingnut translator.

66 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:50:49am

re: #51 Kragar

Don't flame, but he is not a "conservative" to me.

Maybe my definition just doesn't work anymore.

He is a Christian fascist. He is a bigot. He may have some conservatives fiscal principles, but to me, a real conservative should be mainly focused on fiscal policies and should stoutly defend separation of church and state, rights of minorities and gender and sexual orientation equality.

Conservatism, to me in a nutshell, is as far away from what is happening right now than the man on the moon. I don't know how this has seeped into conservatism. Regardless, they (the conservatives of today) have utterly ruined what once was a noble ideal. Well, to me anyway.

67 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:51:47am

re: #66 brownbagj

A socialist or communist social conservative is still a social conservative.

68 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:52:29am

re: #11 Kragar

Funny, Rush was just talking about how this was backfiring on the democrats, because real Americans wouldn't fall for this obvious distraction from the economy.

THE GREAT AND POWERFUL RUSH speaks for real America. The rest of you are in some deluded science-generated Matrix full of your foul liberal agenda into which you have retreated rather than face the truth of Conservatism's superiority in all its virile male glory - as represented by me.

69 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:52:45am

OT, but what in the shit is going one here?

One person killed and at least two injured in shooting at Jefferson County, Texas, courthouse, judge says.

Cnn's Breaking News banner. There's been two (I think) courthouse incidents the past week or so (unless I'm confusing incidents).

70 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:53:09am

re: #66 brownbagj

Welcome back to reality.

71 lawhawk  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:53:16am

re: #43 Lawrence Schmerel

Hardly. Newt is the one-true-conservative, not Santorum. /no true conservative

72 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:53:26am

re: #65 wrenchwench

You are projecting your thoughts through my wingnut translator.

Well I know this because so of them claim that Huckabee is a liberal. He's not.

73 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:53:57am

re: #67 Freeze Peach

I agree. What I am saying is that in my definition of conservatism, they get out of these social debates by stating - we are all equal, we all have equal rights, our laws comes from the Constitution and not from any religious book. They fight for those things. Social conservatives to me are not conservatives at all - they are bigoted assholes.

74 HappyWarrior  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:54:32am

Honestly there is no such thing as a "true conservative" just as there's no such thing as a "true progressive", a fact that disappoints many of my more left wing friends. Partisans on both sides are in love with abstractions more so than reality.

75 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:54:55am

re: #70 wrenchwench

Thanks, it's been a while. :)

76 BongCrodny  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:55:20am

re: #60 Winston Smith, Fox News Moderator

Uh oh
Lubbock Planned Parenthood President and CEO Will Not Return Following Indecent Exposure Charge

This is a new story but it is already making the rounds in the wingnut-o-sphere.

"Gland Parenthood"

77 Decatur Deb  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:55:41am

The TPGOP isn't turning away from all the crazy. Alabama's Roy Moore, kicked out as Chief Justice of our Supreme Court was effectively restored by winning the Republican primary yesterday. Driven out of office for refusing to remove a couple ton monument of the 10 Commandments from the court building, he rode a horse to yesterday's election.

[Link: blog.al.com...]

78 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:55:43am

re: #69 Give the Mule what he wants

OT, but what in the shit is going one here?

Cnn's Breaking News banner. There's been two (I think) courthouse incidents the past week or so (unless I'm confusing incidents).

Happened just over an hour ago:

Gunman in custody after fatal shooting at Beaumont courthouse

Sounds like a family dispute, since the gunman killed two relatives.

79 S'latch  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:55:49am

re: #71 lawhawk

Thanks. I think maybe you are correct. But I am hoping for that "Undeniably Real and True Conservative Candidate" whoever it may be.

80 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:55:52am

re: #66 brownbagj

I sometimes described myself as a fiscal conservative for exactly those reasons: i want to not spend money on things that don't work. It's exactly why I want single-payer health insurance; because it's fiscally conservative to do so. Otherwise, the government has to regulate the private insurance industry so heavily-- and then still has to provide health insurance for the most needy-- that it is just as much government involvement while costing more.

But god forbid I try to make that argument to anyone in today's GOP. As soon as you say 'single-payer' they start frothing out the mouth, and never listen that my rationale for it is perfectly pragmatic, economic conservatism.

81 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:56:50am

re: #66 brownbagj

Don't flame, but he is not a "conservative" to me.

Maybe my definition just doesn't work anymore.

No, it does not. But for that, these people have their own definition of "socialism", "radicalism" and "racism".

82 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:57:24am

re: #73 brownbagj

Yes, but I think historically, the label "conservative" was usually applied to social conservatives, without regard to fiscal policies. At least to me someone who hold so-called "conservative", and actually just right-wing, fiscal views is not necessarily a conservative.

83 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:57:44am

re: #80 Obdicut

I sometimes described myself as a fiscal conservative for exactly those reasons: i want to not spend money on things that don't work. It's exactly why I want single-payer health insurance; because it's fiscally conservative to do so. Otherwise, the government has to regulate the private insurance industry so heavily-- and then still has to provide health insurance for the most needy-- that it is just as much government involvement while costing more.

But god forbid I try to make that argument to anyone in today's GOP. As soon as you say 'single-payer' they start frothing out the mouth, and never listen that my rationale for it is perfectly pragmatic, economic conservatism.

How soon after they start frothing at the mouth do they fall over backward?
;)

84 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:58:31am

re: #26 brownbagj
When people say smaller gov never happened they are incorrect.
The truth on the ground of smaller gov was Reagan returning certain regulatory authorities to the states. Which was done.

The Federal gov had less to regulate-hence "smaller". The states which are smaller by far than the big Federal government, and more responsive.

85 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:58:38am

re: #54 bluecheese

I was encouraged to see this in that article amidst the totally justifiable criticism of the Repubs overt public position on contraception and women's health:
"But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach."

86 brownbagj  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:59:28am

I am with you 100% Obdicut.

Birth control for instance, is a perfect long term investment (not too mention key to female equality). Fewer unwanted pregnancies, which leads to fewer kids in poverty etc, etc. A PERFECT investment.

The only way to be against this is to a) want to control women b) against anything via "government."

Stupid and short sighted.

87 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 10:59:34am

re: #84 Daniel Ballard

There has never been a demonstration that states are actually more responsive. It still remains an assertion.

88 BongCrodny  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:01:05am

re: #66 brownbagj

Don't flame, but he is not a "conservative" to me.

Maybe my definition just doesn't work anymore.

He is a Christian fascist. He is a bigot. He may have some conservatives fiscal principles, but to me, a real conservative should be mainly focused on fiscal policies and should stoutly defend separation of church and state, rights of minorities and gender and sexual orientation equality.

Conservatism, to me in a nutshell, is as far away from what is happening right now than the man on the moon. I don't know how this has seeped into conservatism. Regardless, they (the conservatives of today) have utterly ruined what once was a noble ideal. Well, to me anyway.

I am fortunate enough to live in a state that has elected quite a few common-sense Republicans over the years: Margaret Chase Smith, William Cohen, Olympia Snowe, even Susan Collins.

While I still don't believe the GOP is "evil," it saddens and sickens me that they're shamelessly pandering to the worst elements of their party.

89 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:01:25am

re: #85 stockman

The government isn't ordering anyone to pay for anything, though, so that part of the article is actually dumb.

What do you think the government is ordering people to pay for?

90 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:02:36am

re: #85 stockman

I was encouraged to see this in that article amidst the totally justifiable criticism of the Repubs overt public position on contraception and women's health:
"But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach."

It's crap though.

I've never heard these same people questioning the federal government spending tax money on the military or something else despite citizens saying that doing so violates *their* consciences. Odd how this particular lame excuse only crops up regarding things they want.

And as an argument it detracts from the vast swathe of mainly GOP-sponsored legislation at all levels that show that the issue is broader than simply preventing abortion on moral grounds.

91 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:03:08am

re: #85 stockman

if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience

That's just it-- the government pays for things all the time that violate someone's conscience. They're paying for the war in Iraq, which violates mine. I don't have a choice in that. They're paying the salaries of the Republican troglodytes that want to send women back to the Dark Ages. I don't have a choice there either.

In this case, no one is forcing you to pay for someone else's birth control. It's about expanding access to birth control for employees even if their employer doesn't want to provide it for whatever reason. It allows the insurance companies to bypass the employers and go to the employee directly.

92 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:04:45am

re: #87 Obdicut

There has never been a demonstration that states are actually more responsive. It still remains an assertion.

That is beside the central point, no?
I would argue that states with propositions are very responsive. Some say too much so. Your vote in the national election is one of how many? Maybe 100 million? Take a big state like California. Maybe 15 million voters. Which vote has greater weight?

In any case when you take authority from the Fed as did happen and put it more local you are making the fed gov smaller by each increment of authority transferred.

93 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:05:18am

re: #84 Daniel Ballard

When people say smaller gov never happened they are incorrect.
The truth on the ground of smaller gov was Reagan returning certain regulatory authorities to the states. Which was done.

The Federal gov had less to regulate-hence "smaller". The states which are smaller by far than the big Federal government, and more responsive.

Another wy to get "smaller government" is to outsource/privatize as much as possible.

And of course, if this outsourcing/privatization is not conducted in a transparent, competitive and closely monitored manner, it can turn out to be more wasteful and less effective than any government spending.

94 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:05:38am
95 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:06:15am

re: #92 Daniel Ballard

I would argue that states with propositions are very responsive.

It's fine to argue it, but I'd like to see it actually demonstrated.

Your vote in the national election is one of how many? Maybe 100 million? Take a big state like California. Maybe 15 million voters. Which vote has greater weight?

I don't get how which vote has greater weight shows greater responsiveness. If you are part of a ten percent minority, or smaller-- say, gay people in North Dakota-- how much your vote weights doesn't matter.

In any case when you take authority from the Fed as did happen and put it more local you are making the fed gov smaller by each increment of authority transferred.

You're not making government smaller, though, are you?

96 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:08:01am

re: #85 stockman

I was encouraged to see this in that article amidst the totally justifiable criticism of the Repubs overt public position on contraception and women's health:
"But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach."

If insurance companies cover prescription drugs, it is discrimination on the basis of sex to exempt contraceptive drugs.

As I recall, it's useless to contradict you, so I don't expect you to learn anything here.

97 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:08:53am

The problem on restrictions on abortion, for example, that we're facing now, the extension of government into the private lives of individuals, is coming from the state level.

98 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:09:07am

re: #96 wrenchwench

If insurance companies cover prescription drugs, it is discrimination on the basis of sex to exempt contraceptive drugs.

Pfft. Men still get to have sex without consequence. What's the problem?

///

99 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:09:27am

re: #93 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

Another wy to get "smaller government" is to outsource/privatize as much as possible.

And of course, if this outsourcing/privatization is not conducted in a transparent, competitive and closely monitored manner, it can turn out to be more wasteful and less effective than any government spending.

If the regulation of those outsourced vendors are the Feds it's not really smaller anyway. But for an unusual and contrary example of states rights lost-California just lost it's ability to enforce green fuel rules. Commerce clause again. So the big Fed rules kept California from doing a very good thing.

Go figure.

100 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:09:38am

re: #85 stockman

I was encouraged to see this in that article amidst the totally justifiable criticism of the Repubs overt public position on contraception and women's health:
"But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach."

Tomorrow someone will think up a religion that says that trees have souls and dust motes are persons. What then?

101 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:10:00am

re: #85 stockman

I was encouraged to see this in that article amidst the totally justifiable criticism of the Repubs overt public position on contraception and women's health:
"But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach."

I don't care about the morality of abortion only only the legality of it.

And if anyone here doubts that it should remain legal in the least I'm only too ready to argue the point, any takers?

102 Bubblehead II  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:10:26am

re: #94 Kragar

Awkward for Everyone: Pat Robertson Weighs in on Oral Sex

Co-host Kristi Watts was absolutely mortified as Robertson rambled on, claiming that it is only a sin if the people engaging in it feel that it is a sin:

Pat must have started smoking pot

103 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:10:38am

re: #100 Freeze Peach

Tomorrow someone will think up a religion that says that trees have souls and dust motes are persons. What then?

My jujitsu sensei was from a weird Shinto sect that did believe that trees have souls, and that we didn't have the right to cut down any that had longer lifespans than human beings, which is pretty much all of them.

104 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:11:17am

re: #95 Obdicut

It's fine to argue it, but I'd like to see it actually demonstrated.

I don't get how which vote has greater weight shows greater responsiveness. If you are part of a ten percent minority, or smaller-- say, gay people in North Dakota-- how much your vote weights doesn't matter.

You're not making government smaller, though, are you?

I think the fact propositions are in place is proof enough by definition. See Prop 13. Responsive to a fault.

Making the Federal government smaller was the context, not all government. I'm not strolling along with that moving goal post.

105 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:11:20am

re: #103 Obdicut

Ah, but, you see, it isn't a respectable enough, sufficiently organized religion. ///

106 jaunte  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:11:38am

re: #85 stockman

if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience.

Given the variety of consciences and possible violations, this is an impossibly complex restriction for government to attempt to navigate.

107 bluecheese  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:12:10am

re: #90 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

It's crap though.

steaming

if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience.

This part yamed right into my craw.

How bout the federal government program that manufactures Anthrax?

That violates my conscience. Why do i have to pay for it?

108 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:12:12am

Its not a problem of state versus federal authority. If history has proven anything, its that the people who scream "STATES RIGHTS!" are perfectly happy to have a strong Federal government when it backs them up. Hell, when the States go against them, they claim they Federal government needs to address the issue.

109 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:12:51am

re: #106 jaunte

Given the variety of consciences and possible violations, this is an impossibly complex restriction for government to attempt to navigate.

This is a guy who thinks Cinco de Mayo should not be celebrated in public schools.

110 Charles Johnson  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:13:46am

re: #85 stockman

I was encouraged to see this in that article amidst the totally justifiable criticism of the Repubs overt public position on contraception and women's health:
"But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach."

The federal government not only CAN order people to pay for things that "violate their conscience," it does. All the time. This is a fatuous point, easily refuted.

And as for "the morality of abortion should never be questioned," this is nothing but a straw man. Nobody has ever said this.

111 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:13:55am

The implicit assumption here is that the US is a Christian nation and Christian conscience takes precedence.

112 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:14:17am

re: #104 Daniel Ballard

I think the fact is propositions are in place is proof enough by definition. See Prop 13. Responsive to a fault.

I don't see how propositions show a greater responsiveness at all, though. Can you explain why you feel they do?

Making the Federal government smaller was the context, not all government. I'm not strolling along with that moving goal post.

The GOP is not only a national organization, it is is a state-level organization as well. The context is whether the GOP is a party of smaller government, not about whether it's the party of smaller federal government. They definitely do have a neo-confederate streak in them, and would definitely like to sap the federal government of a lot of powers when it comes to some things.

113 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:15:20am

re: #109 wrenchwench

This is a guy who thinks Cinco de Mayo should not be celebrated in public schools.

Most people in this country don't even know what the hell Cinco de Mayo is. You'd think they'd be happy about the French losing a war, but whatever.

Besides, the better celebrations are with Mexican Independence Day, which is in September.

114 bluecheese  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:15:35am

re: #94 Kragar

lol.

So butt sex is ok then?

lol

115 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:16:56am

re: #114 bluecheese

Saddlebacking ahoy!

116 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:16:59am

re: #114 bluecheese

lol.

So butt sex is ok then?

lol

OK? Its awesome!

117 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:17:29am

re: #113 Lidane

Most people in this country don't even know what the hell Cinco de Mayo is. You'd think they'd be happy about the French losing a war, but whatever.

Besides, the better celebrations are with Mexican Independence Day, which is in September.

...

But Aztlan!! UnAmerican flags!! Dual loyalties!!1

amirite, Stockman?

118 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:17:54am

re: #112 Obdicut

I don't see how propositions show a greater responsiveness at all, though. Can you explain why you feel they do?

The GOP is not only a national organization, it is is a state-level organization as well. The context is whether the GOP is a party of smaller government, not about whether it's the party of smaller federal government. They definitely do have a neo-confederate streak in them, and would definitely like to sap the federal government of a lot of powers when it comes to some things.

I don't see how one can fail to acknowledge the obvious link to responsiveness from the proposition system, so I'm unable to address your counter. Nor do I understand how one so easily dismisses the many fold increase of impact of a vote in a smaller pool, that is a state vs the big national election.

I have no argument with you about the GOP. IMHO-They are abusing important concepts like smaller Federal government, so discussing those points in a less abused context is worthwhile. It pushes back on the ruination of the concepts via said abuse.

119 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:17:58am

re: #114 bluecheese

lol.

So butt sex is ok then?

lol

Saddlebacking

More weirdness from the wacky world of fundy sex.

120 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:19:37am

re: #96 wrenchwench

Many prescription meds are covered yet still require a payment; I think it's the "free" mandate that is objectionable. The majority of BCP prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes (arguably a lifestyle choice in which there are alternative solutions), with lesser amounts prescribed for pathologic conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis. I think you could differentiate coverage on that basis.

121 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:19:58am

re: #114 bluecheese

lol.

So butt sex is ok then?

lol

The Bible doesn't prohibit anal sex.

122 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:20:38am

re: #120 stockman

What a load of sexist horseshit.

123 Charles Johnson  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:21:09am

re: #120 stockman

Many prescription meds are covered yet still require a payment; I think it's the "free" mandate that is objectionable. The majority of BCP prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes (arguably a lifestyle choice in which there are alternative solutions), with lesser amounts prescribed for pathologic conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis. I think you could differentiate coverage on that basis.

Oh really. So you think it would be a good idea for the government to ask women whether they're having the sex, and deny contraception if they are?

124 erik_t  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:21:14am

re: #120 stockman

Many prescription meds are covered yet still require a payment; I think it's the "free" mandate that is objectionable. The majority of BCP prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes (arguably a lifestyle choice in which there are alternative solutions), with lesser amounts prescribed for pathologic conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis. I think you could differentiate coverage on that basis.

You could require blue face-paint to buy birth control. Why should coverage be differentiated on this basis, and why should a nominal copay be a policy issue?

125 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:22:10am

re: #123 Charles Johnson

Oh really. So you think it would be a good idea for the government to ask women whether they're having the sex, and deny contraception if they are?

Smaller government! Individual liberty! Freedom!

Unless you're a woman who dares to have the sex. WTF.

126 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:22:40am

re: #118 Daniel Ballard

I don't see how one can fail to acknowledge the obvious link to responsiveness from the proposition system, so I'm unable to address your counter.

How is it responsive? You can get something put on a ballot and vote on it, is that what you mean by 'responsive'? It's just a majority-rule situation, right?

Nor do I understand how one so easily dismisses the many fold increase of impact of a vote in a smaller pool, that is a state vs the big national election.

Can you consider the position of someone who is in a minority? How responsive is the government of North Dakota to homosexuals? How responsive were the governments of the Southern states to the needs of blacks?

It's easy to dismiss the increased impact of a vote because you still have to be part of the majority in order to get your way through voting. Voting is a very important part of government; it is nowhere near the center of our government, since we are not a pure democracy.

127 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:23:08am

re: #120 stockman

Many prescription meds are covered yet still require a payment; I think it's the "free" mandate that is objectionable. The majority of BCP prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes (arguably a lifestyle choice in which there are alternative solutions), with lesser amounts prescribed for pathologic conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis. I think you could differentiate coverage on that basis.

So you favor the Arizona plan?

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

128 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:23:42am

re: #122 Lidane

What a load of sexist horseshit.

Kinda goes with the nic.

129 jaunte  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:23:52am

Time for some Victoria Dahl again

2) Why do you think you have a right to use my tax dollars to subsidize your birth control?

Assuming you’ve dropped the whole “getting it for free” issue, I assume you’re referring to the zero cost for preventative health care issue wherein I won’t have to pay a co-pay for birth control? I don’t think it’s subsidized by the government, I think it falls to insurance companies. They seem to be fine with this, as birth control coverage costs them a lot less than pregnancy visits and childbirth. Regardless, 50% of the taxpayers in this country are women, and 98% of women have used birth control in their lives. So I think we’ve got our share of it covered, thanks. You can use your tax dollars to “subsidize” no-co-pay preventative checks for prostate cancer, chief. Draw the imaginary lines in your head and feel better. Your tax dollars protect your little man down there. My tax dollars go to prevent the pregnancies that women would otherwise generate on their own without any fault or responsibility of men, whose magic sperm only ever create pregnancies when both parties are ready and prepared. Tricksy women.
[Link: victoriadahl.tumblr.com...]

130 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:24:51am

re: #120 stockman

Many prescription meds are covered yet still require a payment; I think it's the "free" mandate that is objectionable. The majority of BCP prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes (arguably a lifestyle choice in which there are alternative solutions), with lesser amounts prescribed for pathologic conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis. I think you could differentiate coverage on that basis.

And only allow viagra prescriptions to married men who hae wives of childbearing age...

131 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:25:41am

re: #130 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

And only allow viagra prescriptions to married men who hae wives of childbearing age...

After a mandatory prostate exam. No exceptions.

132 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:25:53am

re: #110 Charles Johnson

Charles, I only quoted the article. I make no comment on the morality of abortion, but as a healthcare professional I am puzzled that a TAB is almost the only medical procedure available upon request to interrupt or terminate a physiologic condition.

Of course the Feds can take my taxes to wage war and other defined rights conferred under constitutional law. I just don't know whether the current argument for mandated coverage has the same authority. I guess we'll find out.

133 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:27:40am

re: #132 stockman

Charles, I only quoted the article. I make no comment on the morality of abortion, but as a healthcare professional I am puzzled that a TAB is almost the only medical procedure available upon request to interrupt or terminate a physiologic condition.

Of course the Feds can take my taxes to wage war and other defined rights conferred under constitutional law. I just don't know whether the current argument for mandated coverage has the same authority. I guess we'll find out.

Once again do you have a problem with abortion being legal?

I will spot you that an unborn child should have the same rights as a fully grown person, and still argue that abortion should be legal. Do you think it should be legal or not?

134 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:27:50am

re: #123 Charles Johnson


Any doctor is going to ask appropriate medical questions to any patient before prescribing drugs with known and predictable risks. What's the Gov got to do with me finding out whether my patient has endometriosis or just wants not to get pregnant?

135 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:28:03am

re: #94 Kragar

Awkward for Everyone: Pat Robertson Weighs in on Oral Sex

The table depicting which family members are permitted by the bible to engage in incest and which aren't is hilarious, confusing, and arbitrary (and in that regard consistent with the rest of it).
Incest in the bible

136 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:28:50am

re: #132 stockman

Charles, I only quoted the article. I make no comment on the morality of abortion, but as a healthcare professional I am puzzled that a TAB is almost the only medical procedure available upon request to interrupt or terminate a physiologic condition.

Bullshit. When you quote an article, you are making a comment.

Of course the Feds can take my taxes to wage war and other defined rights conferred under constitutional law. I just don't know whether the current argument for mandated coverage has the same authority. I guess we'll find out.

Read this:

In December 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that an employer’s failure to provide coverage of contraception, when it covers other prescription drugs and preventive care, is a violation of protections against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; those protections for employees’ benefits include no exemption for religious employers.

137 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:28:59am

re: #134 stockman

Any doctor is going to ask appropriate medical questions to any patient before prescribing drugs with known and predictable risks. What's the Gov got to do with me finding out whether my patient has endometriosis or just wants not to get pregnant?

Nothing at all, what the gov should do is deny you a chance to deny them the meds based on their answer.

138 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:29:23am

re: #126 Obdicut

How is it responsive? You can get something put on a ballot and vote on it, is that what you mean by 'responsive'? It's just a majority-rule situation, right?

Can you consider the position of someone who is in a minority? How responsive is the government of North Dakota to homosexuals? How responsive were the governments of the Southern states to the needs of blacks?

It's easy to dismiss the increased impact of a vote because you still have to be part of the majority in order to get your way through voting. Voting is a very important part of government; it is nowhere near the center of our government, since we are not a pure democracy.

So I'm supposed to dismiss majority rule as unresponsive because one side can lose an election? No thanks. Responsive is not the same as pure democracy, whatever that might be.

California attempted to be responsive to the needs of the climate. The commerce clause stopped that cold. So much for responsive, it was aborted disallowed at the Federal level.

139 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:29:36am

re: #134 stockman

What on earth are you talking about? Who says the government is interfering with your ability to talk to patients?

140 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:30:57am

re: #132 stockman

I am puzzled that a TAB is almost the only medical procedure available upon request to interrupt or terminate a physiologic condition.

This really confuses me. Could you name some other 'physiologic conditions'? What is your definition?

141 erik_t  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:32:12am

re: #140 Obdicut

This really confuses me. Could you name some other 'physiologic conditions'? What is your definition?

Having a 'V'.

/

142 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:32:45am

re: #140 Obdicut

This really confuses me. Could you name some other 'physiologic conditions'? What is your definition?

I'm wondering that too. Makes me question the whole "I am a medical professional" line.

143 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:33:20am

re: #138 Daniel Ballard

So I'm supposed to dismiss majority rule as unresponsive because one side can lose an election? No thanks. Responsive is not the same as pure democracy, whatever that might be.

No, you're supposed to see that there is more to being responsive than responding to the needs of the majority. The government must also protect the rights of the minority, and be responsive to their needs, right?

California attempted to be responsive to the needs of the climate. The commerce clause stopped that cold. So much for responsive, it was aborted at the Federal level.

I'm not claiming, though, that states can never be more responsive, I'm saying that the automatic assumption that states are more responsive is completely unproven. There are cases I can show-- like integration-- where the federal government is more responsive.

For majority-willed issues, the smaller in scope you get, the more responsive the government will be. For minority-protection issues, the reverse is true. I'm asking you to consider the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of individuals.

144 erik_t  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:35:00am

re: #143 Obdicut

Whatever could you be talking about? The Articles of Confederation were fantastic!

145 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:35:59am

re: #132 stockman

Of course the Feds can take my taxes to wage war and other defined rights conferred under constitutional law. I just don't know whether the current argument for mandated coverage has the same authority. I guess we'll find out.

There is a parallel since the social and other costs of unplanned pregnancy are well-documented and well understood. Ironically some of these costs are a favorite subject of the right-wing media. Given those costs, it is in the national interest to provide this coverage, especially since the choice to use it is made freely by the individuals most concerned.

146 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:36:25am

OT: I just posted a page about a Japanese Earthquake. Yes it is a little after the one year anniversary of that awful one that triggered the nuclear crisis.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

147 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:36:32am

re: #120 stockman

Many prescription meds are covered yet still require a payment; I think it's the "free" mandate that is objectionable. The majority of BCP prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes (arguably a lifestyle choice in which there are alternative solutions), with lesser amounts prescribed for pathologic conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis. I think you could differentiate coverage on that basis.

What if a patient has endometriosis and wants contraception?

In the case of emergency trauma care (after a car wreck, for instance), how should we differentiate coverage between someone who drives like a jerk-ass and someone who's careful? What if they were driving home carefully in order to have the sex!? Then what?

148 jaunte  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:37:26am

re: #145 Winston Smith, Fox News Moderator

the choice to use it is made freely by the individuals most concerned.

Let's just quote that last part again.

149 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:37:32am

re: #135 Pope Ron Polyp XXXVII

The table depicting which family members are permitted by the bible to engage in incest and which aren't is hilarious, confusing, and arbitrary (and in that regard consistent with the rest of it).
Incest in the bible

I don't think any of those are actually "permitted" by the Bible. What is not forbidden is permitted principle doesn't necessarily apply here.

150 Kragar  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:39:52am

I think employers should be able to adjust the salaries of their employees to encourage proper moral behavior!

"Sorry Bob, but I think you'll end up spending your paycheck to watch unwholesome programming on TV, maybe buy alcohol, and perhaps even attempt to engage in premarital sex with a loose woman, so I'm cutting your pay in half because of my moral objections."

151 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:42:49am

The right wing seems to think that government interest in birth control is little more than an attempt to buy the votes of promiscuous women. Nothing could be further from the truth. The long term effects of poor family planning are everywhere, and one has only to look around, or even think about the rudimentary security precautions we have to take every day, to realize it.

152 Political Atheist  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:44:02am

re: #143 Obdicut

Okay you have redefined "responsive" for a specific context well away from the more general point I was actually making. And I did notr challenge the governments responsibility to protect individuals. So why you think I need to consider that means you have probably missed my point despite the posts above. And you left my counter example unanswered. I'll BRB thay are waxing my office floor so I'm out.

153 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:46:46am

re: #152 Daniel Ballard

Okay you have redefined "responsive" for a specific context well away from the more general point I was actually making.

I'm not redefining anything. There is no reason why 'responsive' should mean 'to what the majority' wants, and not 'in protecting the rights of the minority'.

And I did notr challenge the governments responsibility to protect individuals.

But you're not considering it as part of what consistutes a government being 'responsive'. Why?

So why you think I need to consider that means you have probably missed my point despite the posts above.

Nope. I fully understand your point, and indeed, even said that I fully agree that states are more responsive on matters on which the majority agrees. They are less responsive on matters of the protection of minorities. If you have any issue with that, let me know, but I'm not missing anything that you've said.

154 lawhawk  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:47:19am

re: #147 Pope Ron Polyp XXXVII

I object to old people getting treatments paid via insurance.

I object to folks with X ailment getting treatments paid via insurance.

I object to women getting BCP paid via insurance.

Change the class of people receiving the treatment and the treatment itself, and you begin to see what's going on here.

Fact is that health care insurance will cover procedures that I may never (knock on wood) want, need, etc., but someone else paying into that same insurance plan might. If I'm in good health, I might never see the inside of a doctor's office or hospital other than for a physical, but someone else in poor health may require regular visits.

That's the whole point of insurance - spreading out the risk, and the insurance companies profit on the spread via all kinds of formulas for calculating costs and risks - actuarial tables, etc.

Government policy is driven not only by cost, but by improving public health (which reduces health care costs in the long run, plus creates a more productive workforce since you're spending less time out of work or tending to the ill and infirm). BCP fulfills those goals - and gives women an ability to control their lives in a way that was only limited and reliant on others (barrier methods like condoms). It expands the pool of people who can be productive members of the workforce over a longer timeframe.

And I can't recall anyone saying that BCP should be free - only that the insurers cover it. That's a distortion of the discussion if I'm reading this right...

155 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:49:56am

re: #142 Lidane

If I get a nose job to correct a cosmetic deformity, that's different than me getting surgery for nasal polyps. If a woman gets a TAB for indicated risks to the woman (congenital heart disease, for example) or documented fetal anomalies, that's different than a 13 week TAB obtained on request by the person for an unplanned pregnancy, a normal event. What I'm saying is that many TABs are done for social reasons that require a medical intervention and are consequently subsumed under the label of "health care".

156 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:54:07am

re: #155 stockman

What do you mean by 'social reasons'. A woman not wanting to have a baby is a 'social reason'? Why?

And what do you mean by 'on request'?

157 erik_t  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:55:06am

What is this 'TAB' bullshit? Is this another one of those crazed dog-whistle terms?

158 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:57:28am

re: #157 erik_t

It's a semi-acronym for therapeutic abortion.

159 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 11:59:47am

re: #136 wrenchwench

Thanks; point taken. The Affordable Care act mandates that these interventions be provided at no cost to the enrollees. Do you think that is appropriate? Most fertility services, for example, have as much as a 50% copay. Shouldn't a similar copay or cost coverage be required for contraceptive agents?

160 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:01:08pm

re: #159 stockman

What interventions? Since when is providing medication an 'intervention'?

Most fertility services, for example, have as much as a 50% copay. Shouldn't a similar copay or cost coverage be required for contraceptive agents?

How does that make sense in your mind?

161 erik_t  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:03:06pm

re: #159 stockman

Thanks; point taken. The Affordable Care act mandates that these interventions be provided at no cost to the enrollees. Do you think that is appropriate? Most fertility services, for example, have as much as a 50% copay. Shouldn't a similar copay or cost coverage be required for contraceptive agents?

No, because those are completely fucking different things.

162 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:04:29pm

re: #155 stockman

Another load of sexist horseshit. You're good at that.

163 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:04:33pm

re: #156 Obdicut

A social reason would be that bearing and raising a child are incompatible with the current life course of the individual.

On demand means that a woman can request evaluation for a TAB and after medical evaluation have it granted, and anyone who interferes with that personal decision is irrelevant. Doctors may refer women for "conceptus termination", but it would be for a medical indication.

164 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:07:20pm

re: #163 stockman

A social reason would be that bearing and raising a child are incompatible with the current life course of the individual.

On demand means that a woman can request evaluation for a TAB and after medical evaluation have it granted, and anyone who interferes with that personal decision is irrelevant. Doctors may refer women for "conceptus termination", but it would be for a medical indication.

Once again... do you have a problem with the morality of abortion or the legality of abortion?

Could you please makes your thoughts clear?

165 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:09:20pm

re: #163 stockman

A social reason would be that bearing and raising a child are incompatible with the current life course of the individual.

Which is also a medical decision, right, given the enormous burden that being pregnant is, and the patient's desire, perhaps, to have children later?

On demand means that a woman can request evaluation for a TAB and after medical evaluation have it granted, and anyone who interferes with that personal decision is irrelevant.

So by 'on request', you don't mean on request, but exactly the same as any other medical procedure-- except these days, with a lot more hoops to jump through, thanks to the GOP.

Right? That's what you mean by 'on demand'?

166 blueraven  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:13:07pm

re: #164 jamesfirecat

Once again... do you have a problem with the morality of abortion or the legality of abortion?

Could you please makes your thoughts clear?

James it is quite obvious that he has a problem with the fact that women should have the right to determine what course their life takes and to limit their choices.

He is against free pregnancy prevention, and against abortion. Such a ridiculous position. It borders on insanity. If you dont agree with abortion, then stop the obstruction of the very thing that avoids unwanted pregnancies.

167 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:16:51pm

re: #165 Obdicut

No, on request is just as good as on demand. I can't demand or request a surgeon to remove a normally functioning appendix; there has to be a pathologic reason for it. The medical reason for a TAB is the presence of pregnancy and the request of the person to have it terminated.

I think abortion should remain legal; morality is a sticky point for me so I try to avoid that, and I'm not a rabid reactionary who believes human life begins at the two cell stage.

168 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:19:04pm

re: #167 stockman

No, on request is just as good as on demand. I can't demand or request a surgeon to remove a normally functioning appendix; there has to be a pathologic reason for it.

But a fetus is nothing like a normally functioning appendix. At all. Which you know. So why try that sort of bullshit?

The medical reason for a TAB is the presence of pregnancy and the request of the person to have it terminated.

Does pregnancy have any medical implications?

169 Lidane  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:20:20pm

re: #168 Obdicut

Does pregnancy have any medical implications?

Duh. Of course not. It affects women.

170 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:22:01pm

re: #167 stockman

No, on request is just as good as on demand. I can't demand or request a surgeon to remove a normally functioning appendix; there has to be a pathologic reason for it. The medical reason for a TAB is the presence of pregnancy and the request of the person to have it terminated.

I think abortion should remain legal; morality is a sticky point for me so I try to avoid that, and I'm not a rabid reactionary who believes human life begins at the two cell stage.

A fetus is less like a functioning appendix and more like a parasite growing within your body that saps your energy so as to grow larger and intends to rip its way out of your body causing you considerable pain once it is fully grown.

171 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:25:49pm

re: #168 Obdicut

I'm pointing out the difference between pathologic and non-pathologic conditions. Is a fetus pathologic?

Pregnancy has expected morbidity and mortality rates, and it's less hazardous to have a C-section or TAB than to have a "normal" vaginal delivery. What's your point?

172 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:28:10pm

re: #170 jamesfirecat


I agree, and therefore I would refrain from conferring full personhood on anyone before the age of twenty five who hasn't shown the ability to make their own bed and contribute to the tax base.

173 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:31:41pm

re: #172 stockman

I agree, and therefore I would refrain from conferring full personhood on anyone before the age of twenty five who hasn't shown the ability to make their own bed and contribute to the tax base.

James' point is a valid one, being that he only compares effects on health and not the moral side of things; your sarcasm is not appreciated.

174 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:31:44pm

re: #172 stockman

I agree, and therefore I would refrain from conferring full personhood on anyone before the age of twenty five who hasn't shown the ability to make their own bed and contribute to the tax base.

Hey, I'm just explaining that pregnancy is a condition with some severe medical downsides and so you shouldn't be surprised that women don't want to let their bodies play host to a parasite that weakens them for the better part of a year.

175 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:32:36pm

re: #171 stockman

I'm pointing out the difference between pathologic and non-pathologic conditions. Is a fetus pathologic?

It isn't benign to the mother, right? You could spend a long time listing the negative health effects that pregnancy has on the woman, right?

Pregnancy has expected morbidity and mortality rates, and it's less hazardous to have a C-section or TAB than to have a "normal" vaginal delivery. What's your point?

That when you call it simply a social decision, you're wrong. Pregnancy is not simply a social event, it's also a medical one. Somehow, you force yourself to ignore this.

176 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:33:25pm

re: #174 jamesfirecat

(I would refrain from calling a fetus a parasite for anything but a narrow comparison of effects on health.)

177 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:35:13pm

re: #174 jamesfirecat

James, when you're attempting biological accuracy, 'parasite' is an inaccurate description of a fetus. Avoid it. It's a metaphor, not a biological reality.

178 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:36:43pm

re: #177 Obdicut

James, when you're attempting biological accuracy, 'parasite' is an inaccurate description of a fetus. Avoid it. It's a metaphor, not a biological reality.

Would it be okay to say the fetus (for as long as it remains in the womb) has a parasitical relationship with its mother instead?

If not, what is the correct biological term?

179 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:40:02pm

re: #94 Kragar

Awkward for Everyone: Pat Robertson Weighs in on Oral Sex

Maybe he is looking forward to something to go with his steak tonite:

[Link: www.steakandbjday.com...]

180 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:40:28pm

re: #178 jamesfirecat

Would it be okay to say the fetus (for as long as it remains in the womb) has a parasitical relationship with its mother instead?

No, not really. Parasite has a pretty precise meaning in biology, and it does not include a fetus. You're using the common-language term of 'parasite'.

It's okay to say that a fetus and the mother have, genetically, an adversarial relationship, where the fetus wants to command all the resources it can, and the woman wants (wanting here in the genetic sense, not implying volition) to give only enough resources to birth the fetus.

The more resources that the fetus can get, the better for it but the worse for the woman. The woman wants (again, genetically) to conserve resources for future fetuses.

181 jamesfirecat  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:41:14pm

re: #180 Obdicut

No, not really. Parasite has a pretty precise meaning in biology, and it does not include a fetus. You're using the common-language term of 'parasite'.

It's okay to say that a fetus and the mother have, genetically, an adversarial relationship, where the fetus wants to command all the resources it can, and the woman wants (wanting here in the genetic sense, not implying volition) to give only enough resources to birth the fetus.

The more resources that the fetus can get, the better for it but the worse for the woman. The woman wants (again, genetically) to conserve resources for future fetuses.

Thank you for the clarification.

182 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:43:04pm

re: #181 jamesfirecat

Thank you for the clarification.

Incidentally, this is one of the proposed environmental influences on male homosexuality; there's strong evidence that the more fetuses a woman has, the more likely they are to be homosexual. This is because the environment in the womb changes with each pregnancy, with the response from the woman being stronger and stronger each time, which has an effect on the hormones and other developmental aspects of the child.

Which also, sadly, means that those Quiverfull families have greater chances of having gay children than the average.

183 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:45:08pm

re: #180 Obdicut

No, not really. Parasite has a pretty precise meaning in biology, and it does not include a fetus. You're using the common-language term of 'parasite'.

It's okay to say that a fetus and the mother have, genetically, an adversarial relationship, where the fetus wants to command all the resources it can, and the woman wants (wanting here in the genetic sense, not implying volition) to give only enough resources to birth the fetus.

The more resources that the fetus can get, the better for it but the worse for the woman. The woman wants (again, genetically) to conserve resources for future fetuses.

There can also be a conflict of immune systems. The incidence of this can be reduced by plenty of unprotected sex between the prospective parents prior to the pregnancy.

184 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:47:45pm

re: #181 jamesfirecat

Pretty close to parasitic, as a fetus is basically a foreign antigen inside, and the mother's immune system has to undergo some downregulation or every fetus would be rejected out of hand as an interloper. Some parasites are able to modify their antigenic footprint and "pass" as being part of the host.

185 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:48:18pm

re: #184 stockman

Nice job totally contradicting yourself there, sport.

186 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:50:07pm

re: #185 Obdicut


Meant it only in the comparative sense of adaptive behavior. Pregnancy is still physiologic; if pathologic, we wouldn't be here to have this exchange.

187 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:51:06pm

re: #186 stockman

Meant it only in the comparative sense of adaptive behavior. Pregnancy is still physiologic; if pathologic, we wouldn't be here to have this exchange.

The term 'pathologic' just doesn't apply.

Are you keeping track of all the questions you've dodged, by the way?


It isn't benign to the mother, right? You could spend a long time listing the negative health effects that pregnancy has on the woman, right?

188 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 12:56:05pm

re: #187 Obdicut

Sure there's negative effects. I don't believe that the reason for most TABs has to do with the woman's fear of pre-eclampsia, thrombophlebitis, etc., though. Most TABs do occur prior to the 16 week mark, and, I would argue, for social and personal concerns, not medical reasons.

189 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:03:53pm

re: #188 stockman

Sure there's negative effects.

Good. So, it's always a medical decision.

I don't believe that the reason for most TABs has to do with the woman's fear of pre-eclampsia, thrombophlebitis, etc., though

I'm not talking about any of that, though.

Most TABs do occur prior to the 16 week mark, and, I would argue, for social and personal concerns, not medical reasons.

You don't think that the actually having to carry a child to term has anything to do with it?

I'm glad you're at least admitting that it's a medical decision as well.

Now, back to your earlier 'on request' argument. You stated that what 'on request' means is that it will be done after a medical consultation. You said that this was the only thing ever done to a healthy physiologic process. This is not a true statement: Circumcisions, for example, are done to non-pathological skin. Oophorectomies are done prophylactically in those with mutations that indicate a tendency towards cancer, even though the ovaries themselves are perfectly healthy at the time. Likewise, and most comparably, vasectomies are also available 'on request', and also interrupt a physiologic system.

Do you care to retract your false claim?

190 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:13:53pm

re: #189 Obdicut

Good. So, it's always a medical decision.
Medical in the sense that it is performed by a medical professional

I'm not talking about any of that, though.
Why not, if that is the prevailing reason for many TABs?


Now, back to your earlier 'on request' argument. You stated that what 'on request' means is that it will be done after a medical consultation. You said that this was the only thing ever done to a healthy physiologic process. This is not a true statement: Circumcisions, for example, are done to non-pathological skin. Oophorectomies are done prophylactically in those with mutations that indicate a tendency towards cancer, even though the ovaries themselves are perfectly healthy at the time. Likewise, and most comparably, vasectomies are also available 'on request', and also interrupt a physiologic system.
Good points: circumcisions, as done in the US, are for social reasons also rather than phimosis or disease. Preventative mastectomies are done for families with high incidence of breast or ovarian cancer and are BRCA1 or 2 positive; they are not done on request. For a vasectomy, approval of the spouse may be required. I hold that pregnancy termination is largely
Do you care to retract your false claim?

If I have been misunderstood I accept responsibility for my lack of clarity. I should have said "one of the very few medical procedures" Apologies.

191 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:15:57pm

re: #190 stockman

Okay, so what is the importance of noting it, then? What difference does it make? Why is it important?

Especially since, as we've well-established, carrying a child to term has large medical impacts-- even in a pregnancy where everything goes perfectly.

192 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:21:42pm

re: #191 Obdicut

I only noted that it falls outside the general course of medical practice when an individual can request a medical procedure be performed on themself that (largely) has no medical or pathologic indication. I argue that the social construct for pregnancy termination is the driving force here for these medically provided services, and not the perceived (though real) detrimental health effects during pregnancy and delivery.

193 Robert O.  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:27:35pm

"When Limbaugh started spewing hatred at this young woman, he effectively destroyed the Republican Party’s “religious freedom” disguise, and made it appallingly clear that this initiative is about something much more primal — the compulsive need for reactionary sexist right wing men to control women."

Yep. I completely agree with this analysis. What a wonderful irony that Rush Limbaugh has become an "ally" of sorts by uniting all thinking-people against GOP misogyny.

194 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:30:12pm

re: #192 stockman

I only noted that it falls outside the general course of medical practice when an individual can request a medical procedure be performed on themself that (largely) has no medical or pathologic indication.

Not only this is a false statement, I asked why it was important. Sure, it's 'outside the general course'-- I mean, never mind that abortions are a very common medical practice, so no, that's a lie on your part-- why is that important?

I argue that the social construct for pregnancy termination is the driving force here for these medically provided services, and not the perceived (though real) detrimental health effects during pregnancy and delivery.

You keep calling it 'social'. I don't think you mean that word. What makes it 'social'?

You keep saying you argue, but you don't. You assert.

195 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:48:13pm

re: #194 Obdicut

I don't mean outside the course of practice in terms of frequency, if that's your point, but compared to the majority of other medical procedures that require the presence of suspected pathology before intervention.

Maybe "non-medical" would be better than "social". WebMD link gives the three most common causes for pregnancy termination, which include contraception failure, inability to care for a child, and unwanted pregnancy. The medical indications (fetal malformation, health of mother) are down on the list.

[Link: women.webmd.com...]

196 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 1:59:06pm

re: #195 stockman

I don't mean outside the course of practice in terms of frequency, if that's your point, but compared to the majority of other medical procedures that require the presence of suspected pathology before intervention.

Remember how you're supposed to be explaining why that's important?

Maybe "non-medical" would be better than "social". WebMD link gives the three most common causes for pregnancy termination, which include contraception failure, inability to care for a child, and unwanted pregnancy. The medical indications (fetal malformation, health of mother) are down on the list.

Yes, maybe it would. Do remember you're supposed to explain why that's important at some point, too.

Do you think inability to care for a child and unwanted pregnancy could include inability to care for the fetus (and self) in utero?

Do you think there's a lot of women who would be perfectly able to go through the expense and physical strain of pregnancy, but couldn't deal with having a child?

197 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:42:11pm

I observed that it's an anomaly to have patient requests for a surgical procedure performed almost automatically. I'm not certain I used the word important, merely as a contrast to other medical practices.

If the definition of women's health is to include the social or economic inability to support a child , I feel that goes beyond the medical establishment's capabilities and is a societal issue, preventative health care notwithstanding. If reliable contraception (of any variety) decreases the incidence of surgical abortions, which have their own morbidity rate, resource consumption cost, and life disruption effects, I'm all for that. There are valid arguments to be made who shall pay for it and whether it should be mandated by Federal law as a free benefit. My original point only was the care-on-demand attitude that appears to be unique in the healthcare system regarding abortion services compared to other services.

I have a dayjob. Thank you for your patience and reasoned questions. I particularly appreciate the no-name-calling, which I couldn't help but notice above.

198 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 2:50:51pm

re: #197 stockman

I observed that it's an anomaly to have patient requests for a surgical procedure performed almost automatically. I'm not certain I used the word important, merely as a contrast to other medical practices.

But it's not an anomaly. And most abortions aren't surgical procedures. You know that, right?

If the definition of women's health is to include the social or economic inability to support a child ,

That wasn't what I was saying at all, though. Don't pretend it was.

My original point only was the care-on-demand attitude that appears to be unique in the healthcare system regarding abortion services compared to other services.

What on-demand attitude? You haven't demonstrated this in the least.

I have a dayjob. Thank you for your patience and reasoned questions. I particularly appreciate the no-name-calling, which I couldn't help but notice above.

I think your arguments are crap when you even bother to make them, you dodge questions constantly, and you misuse medical terminology in order to confuse the issue. Trust me, I have a very low opinion of you. I don't feel the need to call you names, but I'm not sure why that's important to you.

199 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:11:19pm

re: #198 Obdicut

But it's not an anomaly. And most abortions aren't surgical procedures. You know that, right?

No:
In 2007, 78.1% of abortions were performed by curettage at ≤13 weeks' gestation, and 13.1% were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks' gestation); 7.9% of abortions were performed by curettage at >13 weeks' gestation. Among the 62.3% of abortions that were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and thus were eligible for early medical abortion, 20.3% were completed by this method.
[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

200 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:17:30pm

re: #199 stockman

read your fucking footnotes.

¶ Curettage includes vacuum aspiration, suction curettage, sharp curettage, and dilation and evacuation procedures.

Do you seriously not know that vacuum aspiration is the most common form used?

201 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:18:24pm

re: #199 stockman

When and where did you receive your medical training? Are you just amazingly out of date?

202 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:29:11pm

re: #200 Obdicut

By definition, medical abortions include mifepristone induction and methotrexate use; the rest are surgical procedures.

203 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:35:19pm

re: #202 stockman

This is what I mean about using medical terminology to confuse the issue. It may be technically true that vacuum suction is referred to as 'surgical'. I don't know. I do know that even physicians assistants can do it. Do they generally let PAs do surgery?

You will agree, then, that most abortions these days are performed by vacuum aspiration, right?

204 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 3:44:00pm

re: #203 Obdicut
Sorry for the confusion on medical/surgical. Yes, statistically, the majority of TBs are surgical in nature, including vacuum extraction. PAs can do certain types of surgery, usually under MD supervision.

205 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 4:21:18pm

re: #204 stockman

I don't believe you are actually sorry.

Vaccuum aspiration is a very short procedure that has very minimal impact on women. You have to realize that when you say "I observed that it's an anomaly to have patient requests for a surgical procedure performed almost automatically" you're presenting a false view of the procedure as involving surgery. You're making it seem more consequential than it is. One of the reasons it's done 'on demand' as you keep insistingly, creepily, on putting it, is that it is such an uncomplicated procedure.

You have done nothing, nothing to show why it is important that it is 'anomalous'-- which, again, it isn't.

206 stockman  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:15:28pm

I've shown you evidence that the majority of abortions are done for non-medical reasons (unwanted pregnancy). I know factually that these procedures are available on request and by referral from agencies such as Planned Parenthood, and you do too. I've explained that this is one of few procedures available requiring no other reason than the presence of pregnancy, a physiologic condition, for an intervention, medical or surgical, to interrupt it, upon request. That's why it's anomalous; not the frequency, not the "inconsequential nature" of any procedure. A doc could "simply" remove your toenail, but I bet they wouldn't do it on demand and not without evidence of a problem. My main point is that a medical procedure is being used to alleviate non-medical issues. While I believe that abortion procedures should remain legal, I object to calling non-medical abortions "health care", but I realize the argument has to be framed that way to make it eligible under health insurance.

If that isn't clear enough, well, I've failed to communicate my view and will say goodnight again.

207 wrenchwench  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:23:23pm

re: #206 stockman

I've explained that this is one of few procedures available requiring no other reason than the presence of pregnancy, a physiologic condition, for an intervention, medical or surgical, to interrupt it, upon request. That's why it's anomalous; not the frequency, not the "inconsequential nature" of any procedure.

I believe you find it 'anomalous' because it only happens to women. I believe you lack empathy, the ability to imagine this issue from a female point of view.

I'm glad you don't think it should be illegal.

I don't think you realize how silly it sounds to say that abortions are performed because of unwanted pregnancy. I don't think you realize how silly it sounds to deny this is health care.

I've failed to communicate my view

I think you have communicated it, but I don't think it's a reasonable view.

Good night.

208 Obdicut  Wed, Mar 14, 2012 5:25:04pm

re: #206 stockman

I've shown you evidence that the majority of abortions are done for non-medical reasons (unwanted pregnancy).

That sentence is flawed, because an unwanted pregnancy could be unwanted due to the strain and pain of carrying a child to term.

I know factually that these procedures are available on request and by referral from agencies such as Planned Parenthood, and you do too.

How else would they be available?

I've explained that this is one of few procedures available requiring no other reason than the presence of pregnancy, a physiologic condition, for an intervention, medical or surgical, to interrupt it, upon request.

And you've failed to explain why that's important, or needs to be brought up.

That's why it's anomalous; not the frequency, not the "inconsequential nature" of any procedure. A doc could "simply" remove your toenail, but I bet they wouldn't do it on demand and not without evidence of a problem.

But if a toenail is left in place, it won't cause any further need for medical care, will it? ANd a fetus will, won't it? So your comparison sucks, doesn't it?

My main point is that a medical procedure is being used to alleviate non-medical issues.

And you've failed to make any case for why this is important.

While I believe that abortion procedures should remain legal, I object to calling non-medical abortions "health care",

Do you object to all psychiatric care as not being health care either?

but I realize the argument has to be framed that way to make it eligible under health insurance

Maybe it's because it's a medical procedure?

If that isn't clear enough, well, I've failed to communicate my view and will say goodnight again.

You've failed, yes.

209 Stephen T.  Fri, Mar 16, 2012 4:06:35pm

re: #26 brownbagj

...I am for small government. Not small and stupid. Just smaller, smarter and more efficient. Get out of our lives, provide an equal playing field and back off....

The bold part is something that very, very few Conservatives believe in, and, even fewer Libertarians. Those Republicans that do believe in government providing an equal playing field are usually called rinos.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
11 minutes ago
Views: 28 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0