About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Latest Entries

Actions Menu

Blog Roll

Other Links

Kicking the Egg
Author: Raine    Date: 02/09/2012 14:20:05

Mother Jones has and excellent essay on the newest fake controversy rumbling around America. This article nailed almost all my points.
Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

Even previously uncontroversial ideas about contraception are now being questioned. As I explained in this story about Obama's birth-control policy, most of the administration's recently-issued rule requiring companies to provide birth control to their employees has been widely accepted federal law for a decade. Requiring employers to provide birth control if they provide other preventative services was so uncontroversial that most employers—even Catholic universities like DePaul, in Chicago—simply changed their policies and offered birth control to avoid being sued. The percentage of employers offering birth control coverage tripled in a decade. The national controversy only erupted after Obama issued the new rule in January.
I could go on and on about this utterly horrific attacks on women over the past few years. 28 states already have this requirement -- as do federal employees. That includes elected officials and their wives and children.

So why are Boner and others threatening to overturn this rule?
“In imposing this requirement, the federal government is violating a First Amendment right that has stood for more than two centuries. And it is doing so in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions," Boehner said. "If the president does not reverse the [Health and Human Services] Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who introduced a bill last week that would allow religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations that morally oppose contraception to refuse to cover it for their employees, said no decision has been made on the timing of bringing legislation to the floor. Asked if he sees any middle ground with the White House, he proposed letting individual churches choose whether to pay for contraception for their employees.

Under the administration's rule, churches and houses of worship are already exempt from the general requirement to provide birth control coverage.
I suppose now we are being forced to comply with religious institutions because of the first amendment? I'm not really sure it works that way.

One would think that after the Komen outcry messing with women's health issues would not be such a smart move. Even some Pro-choice Republicans agree:
“For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general — and we specifically as Republicans — have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further,” she said. “And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.”

She pointed to widely-reported polling showing that a majority of Americans — and a majority of Catholics — support the White House policy and urged her party to take a step back before it’s too late.
I'm deeply dismayed that people actually are having a hard time with the concept that no one is being forced to take the medication. Institutions aren't even required to pay for them -- this is a dictive to health insurance companies to include it in their employer-based insurance plans. Churches are exempt; however, the institutions they run that employ people outside the faith of the church are not. I know a lot of people that are not Catholic but work at a catholic hospital. Should they be forced to live under Catholic dogma?

It's as simple as this: no one is being forced to take the pill. It is simply being made available to any woman who wants access to it. The numbers vary, but I have read that it costs women between 600-1200 dollars a year with insurance to pay for the ability plan their childbirth decisions. Let's not forget that many women take the pill for reason others that not wanting to get pregnant. This is not an all inclusive list:
• Alleviation of menstrual cramps
• Reduction of amount and duration of menstrual bleeding
• Regulation of periods
• Clearing up some types of acne
• Lowering the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers
• Treatment of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome
Providing women with the chance to be relieved of these ailments - along with preventing unwanted pregnancies - will ultimately SAVE money in the long run for everyone, including employers. Prenatal, Natal, and Postnatal care is very expensive. Insurance companies will pay less for birth control than the cost of giving birth.

If men can have easy access to male enhancement drugs it seems like a no brainer that women should have access to a long-accepted and legal medication that improves the lives of all. Besides, I'm pretty sure that employers cannot use religious affiliation as an excuse to be exempted from labor and tax laws. Denying women access to birth control would then become gender discrimination. That is just begging for a lawsuit.

It shows a complete lack of trust from the Catholic church to the GOP in a woman's ability to handle her own health issues. The GOP can't even be bothered to come up with a jobs bill and but they always have time to attack the hard-fought rights of women. If one doesn't want birth control, then one doesn't have to take it. In the meantime, I hope they stop inflicting religious dogma on those that really need the help. It's more than about getting pregnant -- it is a health issue and once again women are being used for political fodder.

and
Raine
 

74 comments (Latest Comment: 02/09/2012 23:31:35 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 14:20:29
Morning

Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 14:35:56
Morning

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 14:37:22
Morning Again! Sorry for the delays...

Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 14:37:48
Quote by Raine:
Morning Again! Sorry for the delays...



no worries

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 14:39:40
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
Morning Again! Sorry for the delays...



no worries
Thanks for tossing up a stub. Mala.



Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 14:45:28
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
Morning Again! Sorry for the delays...



no worries
Thanks for tossing up a stub. Mala.




your welcome

Comment by Scoopster on 02/09/2012 15:05:40
Mornin' all.. Wooo Raine's on fire this mornin'!

In other news, I'm planning a weekend trip to Boston (Somerville to be specific).

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 15:15:39
Hola everybody. Raine, thankee for pointing out that some women folk are taking birth control pills for other reason that prevention of pregnancy. Mrs Mondo was taking the Pill to regulate her menstrual cycle.

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 15:21:04
Say have you been reading Doonsbury this week? It has been spot on about the war on facts.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 15:28:51
Thanks, Scoop and Mondo.

And may I ask, how does this REALLY interfere with the way a person practices their faith?

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 15:38:29
Seriously -- NH you are rapidly becoming one of the wing-nuttiest of states

Edit to add, the LINK

Comment by BobR on 02/09/2012 15:43:45
Quote by Raine:
Seriously -- NH you are rapidly becoming one of the wing-nuttiest of states

Edit to add, the LINK

If "everyone is doing it anyway", than why the desire to eliminate the law? Someone was bought off by some industry lobbyist that wants to screw their employees.

Comment by BobR on 02/09/2012 15:45:01
Quote by Mondobubba:
Say have you been reading Doonsbury this week? It has been spot on about the war on facts.

today's was particularly biting.

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 15:45:20
Quote by Raine:
Seriously -- NH you are rapidly becoming one of the wing-nuttiest of states

Edit to add, the LINK



Ummm WTF? Really. Shame on social media to make them do it???

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 15:46:47
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Say have you been reading Doonsbury this week? It has been spot on about the war on facts.

today's was particularly biting.



And hilarious!

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 15:46:51
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
Seriously -- NH you are rapidly becoming one of the wing-nuttiest of states

Edit to add, the LINK



Ummm WTF? Really. Shame on social media to make them do it???
The famous Tea Party logic.


Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 15:47:18
Quote by Raine:
Thanks, Scoop and Mondo.

And may I ask, how does this REALLY interfere with the way a person practices their faith?



it doesn't, in fact it allows them to practice their faith in whether they choose to use the option or not

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 15:56:18
Kenny Pick!

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:06:35
Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 16:09:05
Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:24:52
I swear that overuse by teapublicns is getting weary. THis here is the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words if it's federal law -- states cannot take those rights away from its citizens.



Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 16:29:45
Calista's only 45! That can't be right - she looks a good 10 years older. If she is I"m with Kathleen, I dress like a 4 year old too!

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 16:39:46
Quote by Raine:
I swear that overuse by teapublicns is getting weary. THis here is the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words if it's federal law -- states cannot take those rights away from its citizens.




These constitution worshipers, they don't seem to really understand the who thing, do they?

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:44:34
Quote by wickedpam:
Calista's only 45! That can't be right - she looks a good 10 years older. If she is I"m with Kathleen, I dress like a 4 year old too!

She is only 45.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:45:34
Quote by Mondobubba:

These constitution worshipers, they don't seem to really understand the who thing, do they?
Like everything else -- they pick and choose what ever facts fit their personal narrative.

Much like the paulbots.


Comment by BobR on 02/09/2012 16:46:29

They will end up going the way of the John Birchers if they keep this up

Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 16:49:19
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Calista's only 45! That can't be right - she looks a good 10 years older. If she is I"m with Kathleen, I dress like a 4 year old too!

She is only 45.



that can't be right - she's 45 stuck in the 80's

Comment by Will in Chicago on 02/09/2012 16:52:20
Good morning, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.

Raine, thanks for a great blog. I am puzzled by the attack on contraception and wonder if it is a prelude for a larger effort by the Committee to repeal the 20th and 21st Centuries?

For myself, I am busy preparing for my Massachusetts tests, researching school districts and communities. If anyone wants to meet up with me on March 2nd-March 4th, I will be in Quincy, Massachusetts those days.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:54:10
Well, I'll be damned. The Stock act passed in the house. now it goes to be resolved in the senate.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:55:11
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Good morning, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.

Raine, thanks for a great blog. I am puzzled by the attack on contraception and wonder if it is a prelude for a larger effort by the Committee to repeal the 20th and 21st Centuries?

For myself, I am busy preparing for my Massachusetts tests, researching school districts and communities. If anyone wants to meet up with me on March 2nd-March 4th, I will be in Quincy, Massachusetts those days.
make sure you get in tough with Tri on FB -- He's on his new job now, so he can't really peruse the blog.


Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:57:33
Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 16:58:10
Excuse me -- medicine is not politics, caller.


Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 17:01:33
Quote by Raine:
Well, I'll be damned. The Stock act passed in the house. now it goes to be resolved in the senate.



did Cantor suceed in watering it down? I got a flurry of emails saying he was trying to do some kind of back door deal

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 17:04:47
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
Well, I'll be damned. The Stock act passed in the house. now it goes to be resolved in the senate.



did Cantor suceed in watering it down? I got a flurry of emails saying he was trying to do some kind of back door deal
according to the politco article
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had released several changes to the STOCK Act earlier this week that broadened the bill’s disclosure requirements and insider-trading ban to the executive branch and ensured that lawmakers convicted of a crime couldn’t collect their pensions.

It also puts in place tougher rules on public officials participating in initial public offerings.

But the bill also scrapped a provision that would have required so-called political intelligence firms to disclose their activities much like lobbyists already do – much to the dismay of Democrats who favored tougher rules on the industry.

Cantor said on the House floor Thursday that the House bill gets rid of provisions that were “unworkable” or brought “far more questions than they would’ve answered.”
So I thinking yes?


Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 17:05:24


oh lord

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 17:05:55
Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 17:06:51
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
Well, I'll be damned. The Stock act passed in the house. now it goes to be resolved in the senate.



did Cantor suceed in watering it down? I got a flurry of emails saying he was trying to do some kind of back door deal
according to the politco article
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had released several changes to the STOCK Act earlier this week that broadened the bill’s disclosure requirements and insider-trading ban to the executive branch and ensured that lawmakers convicted of a crime couldn’t collect their pensions.

It also puts in place tougher rules on public officials participating in initial public offerings.

But the bill also scrapped a provision that would have required so-called political intelligence firms to disclose their activities much like lobbyists already do – much to the dismay of Democrats who favored tougher rules on the industry.

Cantor said on the House floor Thursday that the House bill gets rid of provisions that were “unworkable” or brought “far more questions than they would’ve answered.”
So I thinking yes?



gawd, I hate it when weaslly back stabbers get their way

Comment by Will in Chicago on 02/09/2012 17:13:05
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Good morning, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.

Raine, thanks for a great blog. I am puzzled by the attack on contraception and wonder if it is a prelude for a larger effort by the Committee to repeal the 20th and 21st Centuries?

For myself, I am busy preparing for my Massachusetts tests, researching school districts and communities. If anyone wants to meet up with me on March 2nd-March 4th, I will be in Quincy, Massachusetts those days.
make sure you get in tough with Tri on FB -- He's on his new job now, so he can't really peruse the blog.



I will do. I am not sure that I have Trojanrabbit on Facebook, but he can friend me. Or I can friend him.

Fortunately, a friend in Boston who is a professor thinks that I should not have any problem finding work there once I get all my credentials lined up.

Comment by wickedpam on 02/09/2012 17:20:30


she looked 40 in 2000

Comment by trojanrabbit on 02/09/2012 17:23:44
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Good morning, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.

Raine, thanks for a great blog. I am puzzled by the attack on contraception and wonder if it is a prelude for a larger effort by the Committee to repeal the 20th and 21st Centuries?

For myself, I am busy preparing for my Massachusetts tests, researching school districts and communities. If anyone wants to meet up with me on March 2nd-March 4th, I will be in Quincy, Massachusetts those days.
make sure you get in tough with Tri on FB -- He's on his new job now, so he can't really peruse the blog.



I will do. I am not sure that I have Trojanrabbit on Facebook, but he can friend me. Or I can friend him.

Fortunately, a friend in Boston who is a professor thinks that I should not have any problem finding work there once I get all my credentials lined up.


Yes, you could friend me.

Finally, they are beginning construction on our new EMC chamber. For the next 4-5 weeks I'm going to be very busy making sure everything is right and watching the panic as people realize half of the Engineering lab is gone -- permanently.

Comment by BobR on 02/09/2012 17:44:25
Quote by wickedpam:


oh lord

Newt is 68, meaning he is 23 years older than she is. One of his daughters (from Wife #1) is 48 and the other is 45. That means Calista is the same age as one daughter, and younger than the other...



Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 17:45:32
Oh I disagree with Thom on this one.



Comment by livingonli on 02/09/2012 17:56:20
Good day folks. Had to get up early and take the car for maintenance but at least my first maintenance since I bought the car didn't cost me anything. Just got home a few minutes ago and am taking care of stuff before I go to the stores later.

Comment by Mondobubba on 02/09/2012 17:58:11
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Calista's only 45! That can't be right - she looks a good 10 years older. If she is I"m with Kathleen, I dress like a 4 year old too!

She is only 45.



Being married to Newt must take a lot out a woman.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 18:02:01
Ok, I disagree with thom's thesis-- that we wouldn't have this problem if we had a national Health care program.

1) It's impossible to have that debate when the GOP is constantly attacking the very rights that women have fought for -- we are always on defense.

2) Separation of church and state does not giveyou the right to discriminate against women -- and that is what is being debated here.

4) In many areas of the country people don;t have much of a choice to what hospital they get to go to.

So there is no question that we need a Natioanl Health care system -- it's giving women a damn chance to breath so we can go forward instead of constantly being forced to protect the status quo.

Thom is the one that is focusing on hospitals. This is far bigger than that. There are people advocating to be able to discriminate based on faith difference.

Comment by livingonli on 02/09/2012 18:15:18
If this guest Thom is debating is any indication, the people at CPAC are a bunch of douche nozzles.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 19:01:35
Quote by livingonli:
If this guest Thom is debating is any indication, the people at CPAC are a bunch of douche nozzles.
I just spent the past 15 minutes watching it on C-Span3 -- Got a chance to see Boner -- Blech.

The best part? He was using a teleprompter.


Comment by livingonli on 02/09/2012 19:16:27
Quote by Raine:
Quote by livingonli:
If this guest Thom is debating is any indication, the people at CPAC are a bunch of douche nozzles.
I just spent the past 15 minutes watching it on C-Span3 -- Got a chance to see Boner -- Blech.

The best part? He was using a teleprompter.

You just got to love how they read all those teleprompter jokes off the teleprompter.

Comment by Raine on 02/09/2012 19:18:54
Quote by livingonli:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by livingonli:
If this guest Thom is debating is any indication, the people at CPAC are a bunch of douche nozzles.
I just spent the past 15 minutes watching it on C-Span3 -- Got a chance to see Boner -- Blech.

The best part? He was using a teleprompter.

You just got to love how they read all those teleprompter jokes off the teleprompter.
I forgot to mention, they introduced Boner as representative Steve King...


Show All

Rev 3.7; Copyright � 2007-2017 by BobberBlogs�