Let me show you what a real war on women looks like [Reader Post]

This is really good and will get the libs all up in arms. Picking on St. Clinton will drive them crazy.

The Left’s “War on Women” also includes abortion.
Because of the Left and it’s love of abortion there are now 130 million more men on earth than women.
This is more than all of the females in the USA.
In European countries it is legal to get an ultrasound, find out your baby is a girl, then get an abortion and try again for a boy!
Communists, socialists, Democrats.
When it comes to hatred of women, they are all the same.

That’s Juanita Broaddrick on the right. Lanny Davis said we should all feel dirty even speaking of her accusations. I went to this link and – Wow! The years and dates may change, but the [ hypocrisy] doesn’t huh??.

We can add, although not ‘famous’ as such, but the OWS/Occupy’s “own war on women” with the “rapes” [that leaked out] and the “cover-up’s” of such brutality against these women….Oh, what is it? Let’s [not] ‘report’ it for [the good] of the whole [socialist] movement they got going on? blatant hypocrisy….

And Oh –
Some “classy” song writing there…. very “creative” too ‘cee lo’! hmmm..
What is it they say about the company you keep?

The sad fact is that, while the majority of the current abuses against women are indeed authored by, primarily, Republicans, the “war on women” has been going on for thousands of years. A brief glance at history, from biblical exhortations to take the women of your conquered enemies as sexual slaves (after murdering their own men and children) down to our current “modern” times where violence against women is STILL at epidemic proportions, will show you very clearly that the brutality against women and the denial of their rights as free and equal human beings, is nothing new. The mistreatment of women is indeed not confined to any one political party. Yet that does not change the fact that it is Republicans currently authoring bills that would force a woman to continue to carry a dead fetus inside her, that demands state ordered rape of women seeking abortions for no better reason than to shame and torture them, that compares them to livestock and insects. To point out the abuses of others against women while ignoring your own is indeed the height of hypocrisy and Republicans are every bit as guilty as Democrats have ever been.

@AlexWolf:

Yet that does not change the fact that it is Republicans currently authoring bills that would force a woman to continue to carry a dead fetus inside her, that demands state ordered rape of women seeking abortions for no better reason than to shame and torture them, that compares them to livestock and insects.

You’re free to comment but it would carry more authority if you actually provided links for your assertions.

@tiffany: Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a healthy fetus may be aborted the day before due date?

@drjohn: You’re a quick reader. Read ALL those sources, huh? Wow, I’m impressed. What a learned individual you are. You ask for proof, are provided with it, and by golly, you are the better for it!
I am 100% PRO-CHOICE.

@drjohn: I pass zero judgements on her life because it’s not my business. It’s no one else’s business but her own.

@drjohn:
“But here you are putting her business on a blog. ”
You asked for proof on the war on women and this is an example. Her business was made public when they decided her private affairs were an arrestable offense.

@drjohn:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill
This is the gem that would force women to carry a dead fetus and compares women to livestock.

http://themoderatevoice.com/143535/republican-party-chief-compares-war-on-women-charge-to-war-on-caterpillars/?amp
And here’s where us girls get compared to bugs.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html
Here’s some “fun” stuff on violence against women.

http://bluelinchpin.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/women-slavery-in-the-bible/
And let’s not forget the bible, shall we? What a great source for how women should be treated.

@drjohn:
You say, “Not arguing the merits of abortion but is it not reckless to get pregnant with the father “out of the picture”? I mean, what’s wrong with thinking ahead?”

So… I’m guessing you’ve never had a sexual relationship with someone you later regretted? Or a relationship that failed? Or one where you later found out the other person was not what they seemed or turned out to be untrustworthy, unstable, etc? I have no idea what that woman’s relationship was with the man that impregnated her. I have no idea if they were using protection that failed. Maybe they WERE thinking ahead but, y’know, the best laid plans and all that. But the fact is you don’t know either. For all YOU know they may have been involved in a long standing relationship and he may have promised her marriage. For all any of us know he may no longer be “in the picture” because he’s dead. Maybe he’s “not in the picture” because he’s her rapist. You have absolutely no way to know if this woman was “being reckless” any more than I have any way of knowing she was a paragon of rectitude. You’re simply making mean spirited assumptions without any reasonable knowledge to back it up. And that’s pretty low.

@johngalt:

You say:
Just a few quick points;

“-From your Ms. Magazine article, one person, in their arguments to support the GA law, compared women to livestock. That does not mean that all GOP, or conservatives, believe that women are comparable to livestock. That is condemning an entire political party, or those who voted in favor of the bill, for what one person said, and generalizing that as the thought process of an entire political ideology. Iâ��m sure that you are smart enough to realize the difference, despite your remarks on it in your comments.”

Yet you have felt free to tar an entire political party as being anti-woman on no more than the actions of 3 Democratic men. If you want, I can bring in a list of links of several Republican men saying nasty things about women (as well as stupid, let’s not forget the nimrod who is currently asserting that “money is more important for men”) and, as Tiffany already pointed out, authoring an astonishing amount of anti-woman legislation. This can go on and on.

“-Pertaining to the GOP national committee chairman, he did not compare women to bugs. His point is that the idea of the GOP declaring a â��war on womenâ�� is pure political BS. I could, for example, point out several instances of Obama and the left restricting my rights(as a white, middle-aged, middle-class male) and state that Obama has declared a â��war on white, middle-class malesâ��. Now, it wouldnâ��t be true, any more than the idea of a â��war on womenâ�� being true.”

Legislation that makes a woman submit to state ordered rape when she seeks an abortion is indeed indicative of war. Rape is often a tool of war. And lest we forget, rape is any unwanted penetration of the vagina (whether with a penis or a foreign object) perpetrated against a woman’s will. That is now the horrific situation women unfortunate enough to live in Texas face thanks to Perry who, last I checked, was not only insane, but a Republican. There’s no sound medical reason for this “procedure” and the woman is forced to pay for it. It exists merely to torture and shame women and make it that much harder financially to access a legal medical procedure. Yes, this IS indicative of a war on women… at least against those the state has deemed to be “sluts.”

“-Iâ��m not sure why you linked to violence on women. Itâ��s hardly supportive of an assertion that the right has engaged in a â��war on womenâ��, particularly when it points out that young, low-income, minority women are most often the victims of such violence, and most often committed by young, low-income, minority males. Hardly the people that tend towards the GOP. And no, that isnâ��t to say that any other group is guilt free of violence towards women. Far from it. Just that you cannot point to any one group, in particular, and condemn them for all violence on women. Which is why I stated that Iâ��m not sure why you linked it. It isnâ��t applicable, and doesnâ��t support the theme of â��war on womenâ�� by the GOP.”

If you had paid attention to my initial response that would have been quite apparent. My larger point is that there has ALWAYS been a war on women, waged by MEN, regardless of political party. It is simply the fact of the matter that it is currently Republicans authoring a slew of vicious, cruel, and flat out mean spirited legislation against women. That is why Republicans are getting so much attention at the moment. But their insane actions are just the latest symptoms of the patriarchy that has infected most societies like the disease it is. My other point was that, in light of this, it is hypocritical to point out the abuses of Democrats against women when it is Republicans who are guilty of the recent and continuous onslaught of anti-woman legislation. You dare to speak of the hypocrisy of Democrats (and I’m not saying they AREN’T guilty of it) when the hypocrisy of your own party is easily as much if not more staggering. This is incredibly childish thinking and harkens to a play ground full of five year old boys who justify beating up on the smallest kid in the group by saying, “Well Johnny hit her too!”

“-Linking the bible is nearly the same thing as above. Christians in the US populate both major political parties. Itâ��s hardly appropriate to condemn one party over the other in how women are treated overall, based on what the bible says. You could point to the evangelical christians, which many liberal/progressives do. However, their isnâ��t much truth to the idea that the group is pushing their religious viewpoints on everyone else, despite the recent laws dealing with abortions.”

Again, pointing out that the poisonous attitudes currently exemplified by Republicans have ancient, indeed biblical, roots. Understanding where the idea that men are superior to women and can therefore treat them however they would like, no matter how badly, came from is vital to combating that incredibly idiotic idea. Since many Republicans are Christians of one stripe or another the connection is quite clear.

“The fact is, the political left is using the idea of a â��war on womenâ�� by the right as means to gain votes.”

Of course they are. That’s politics. And Obama, no matter what you think of him (and I am personally no fan for many reasons) is no idiot. Both parties are guilty of seizing on whatever they can use against the other side. That is the sleazy underbelly of politics and is the primary reason most average Americans not only don’t trust politicians in general (regardless of party) but also actively dislike them.

” It simply isnâ��t true. And true conservatives, like myself, simply have no desire to infringe upon womenâ��s, or anyoneâ��s for that matter, rights. However, the term â��rightâ�� is being abused in this country to obtain things for which the Constitution, and the founders, never intended. And in some cases, to override an actual right spelled out within that Constitution.”

If a woman does not have the RIGHT to determine her own reproduction, though whatever method she chooses, whether that be abstinence or birth control or even abortion, then she is a slave. She is no more than chattel, kept by men for breeding purposes, her entire life dictated by the lusts of someone else, up to and including her rapist. Does that sound extreme to you? It is. Because it is a matter of life and death even to this day. Abortion is still 14 times safer for a woman to undergo than childbirth in this country. Women still die in childbirth though that event is blessedly not anywhere near as common as it used to be. But the decision to undergo pregnancy and childbirth still encompasses real risk. And the more often that risk is taken, the higher the risks get. That elements of the Republican party ignore this is unconscionable.

“Take the issue of the birth control debate, for example. I, and most others like me, donâ��t care what form of birth control one uses, or how much it costs, or how effective it is, or even whether itâ��s used for non-birth control reasons. It simply doesnâ��t matter to us.”

I guess that’s why you’re okay with being ignorant of its cost and yet can toss out little (often incorrect) gems like telling a woman who darn well knows better she can get it at Target for 10 bucks.

” What does matter is when it is deemed acceptable for government to force one person to pay for anotherâ��s â��rightâ��. And when that â��personâ�� is a religious organization, and government is forcing them to go against their religious viewpoint, it violates the Constitution. And because some people object to government doing this, the left calls it a â��war on womenâ��. ”

Viagra is covered, with no more than a small co-pay, by most insurance plans. It is not unreasonable to expect birth control to be covered as well. Should it be covered with no copay at all? Honestly, I wouldn’t mind a small co-pay. If I only had to pay $5 a month for the birth control that works best for me but costs $800 a year I would not feel abused at all. Viagra is covered by insurance plans offered even by religious institutions. Are those institutions checking to make sure it’s only being used by married men exclusively with their wives and only because they are trying to get pregnant? If not, why not? Is that any different than the attempted legislation that would allow an employer to violate doctor/patient medical privacy (and HIPPA) by being able to demand to know if she is taking birth control for a medical reason other than “mere” control of her own reproduction? I am also real tired of people screaming that they shouldn’t have to pay for things of which they do not morally approve. If that little gem had any actual validity *I* wouldn’t have to help pay for wars of aggression and conquest that I have a moral objection to. Because I DEEPLY MORALLY OBJECT to our country sending our young men and women out to DIE. ESPECIALLY when they aren’t hazarding their own kids but rather primarily the children of the poor who have few other options in life. I strongly suspect that is exactly why we are seeing MUCH of this attack on women with legislation that would forbid (or simply make inaccessible) abortion AND birth control. The powers that be want a steady stream of poor young people to keep on feeding to their insatiable war machine and that supply is threatened when women can truly decide how many, if any, children they wish to have. And it is the Republicans who are the warmongers.

And you Sir, are just flat wrong in your assertion that there is no war on women. It has been ongoing for literally thousands of years and the Republicans are only the latest authors of that war.

@AlexWolf:

Correction: You aren’t the ignoramus who claimed women can just get birth control at Target for 10 bucks. I withdraw that particular claim against you.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university’s policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

But Fluke’s testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills—the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen—for $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can’t afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate’s supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147820584/weekly-standard-target-sells-pills-for-9-a-month

And Fluke had no idea.

@AlexWolf: You said that I was an ignoramus because I asserted that birth control costs about $10 a month and I demonstrated that it does cost ten dollars a month. If you’re treating another condition, then it’s not birth control.

What number of America’s women ever take ”the pill?”
A small percent.
Of 165 million females in the USA, some too old, others too young, so maybe only 70 million ovulating females are here….how many are on ”the pill?”
Only 10.1 million.
My doctor showed me the stat in one of his journals last visit.
Other birth control methods are more popular for many reasons.
Side effects from the pill can be deadly.
The pill doesn’t protect against disease.
Popular pills are often recalled for various reasons, souring users from the whole idea of finding an alternate pill.
All this debate over a tiny proportion of women who take the pill.
WHY?
Because it isn’t about the pill.
It is about defining a new relationship between religion and government with government becoming the boss.

I agree with a Democrat who claims the Obama strategy behind the entire contraceptive mandate is calculated to change the subject from his abysmal record and scare women into believing that the GOP wants to ban contraception.
This is a waste of time and effort.
No GOP candidate wants to ban contraception.

Obama is almost all about diversion.
When it isn’t the Straw Man fallacy it is diversion.

First, I’m a registered Republican.
Second, I am a fiscal conservative. I will qualify that with the statement that I consider it a conservative notion that freedom REQUIRES responsibility and responsibility REQUIRES freedom. One cannot have one without the other in any reasonable sense.

Third, I am NOT a social conservative. The concept that a free society in a constitutional, democratic republic can or should be attempting to legislate virtue is patently ludicrous. Issues of virtue which are clearly NOT of a criminal nature, (activity with no non-consenting victim or where the perpetrator of the so-called crime AND the victim of the so-called crime are the same person or people), are NOT issues in which ANYONE outside those consenting to contract in the activity should have any interest in, much less mandated say in.

In plain English, we each have the right to our own opinions on such activities, but the moment one of us attempts to legislate an opinion is the moment that person’s actions become anathema to the concept of individual liberty.

As regards zygote or fetal rights: Current U.S. and state legal code defines, and has since before the foundation of the United States as a nation, defined personhood beginning at birth and continuing until cessation of heartbeat.

Granted, this definition has been “stretched” with the advent of new technologies in life support and resuscitation, as well as technologies for monitoring development of the pre-born in the womb. But it is the LEGAL definition of personhood, based upon British (from Anglo Saxon) common law AND codified law in the United States.

Some people in this nation want to change this. They want to mandate that human life, and thus personhood, begins at conception. All things being equal, I would normally not have an issue with this. But all things in this issue are NOT equal.

Long-standing definitions of a living organism are based upon certain reasonable assumptions.

1. A living organism consists of certain biological processes.
2. A living organism is a self-regulatory and self-sustaining system.

Pre-born organisms certainly qualify under #1. They do not qualify under #2. Now before I am attacked by outraged moralist arguments, let us consider HUMAN pre-born life. Human pre-born are indeed living organisms. They are indeed arguably “human” by genetic differentiation alone (that’s enough for me). I will not go into all the statistics of survival for prematurely born humans, but the extreme ranges of survival are +20 weeks or longer term. The ranges are from about 15% survivability at 23 weeks to 95% survivability at 34+ weeks.

Prior to about 20 weeks pregnancy term time, a developing pre-born human is NOT a viable, independent organism. There is absolutely no medical, and therefore no ethical justification for claiming otherwise. And for anyone to ATTEMPT to legally place the life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness of an undeniable “person”, in the form of a sexually reproductive aged woman, subject to that of her not independently viable, but potentially viable, human offspring is not only absurd, it is ETHICALLY irresponsible and reprehensible. It is a form of tyranny.

If theocratic moralists succeed in getting the definition of “personhood” changed legally in the United States to beginning at conception, birth control via hormone regulation will become ILLEGAL. All abortion, regardless of circumstance will become ILLEGAL. Any activity by any pregnant woman, from state of conception to delivery, which might POTENTIALLY result in the termination of the life of the unborn “person” would become a CRIME. It is nearly so, now.

If that does not seem to you like A STATE OF WAR on the PERSONHOOD and the in(un)alienable rights thereof of adult women, then you are not thinking clearly.

Now, before some idiot starts arguing that “These people just respect life! They’re not against women’s rights, they’re just for the rights of the un-born!”, let me just remind everyone here how respectful of human life theocratic conservatives are. They are:

Among the strongest proponents for the death penalty in the United States

Among the strongest proponents for wars of aggression

Among the strongest proponents for remote controlled aircraft being used to assassinate “suspected” enemies of the United States abroad.

Unfortunately, Hellfire missiles fired from Predator drones do not distinguish between terrorists in one room and the children sleeping in the next. And yet U.S. foreign policy continues to utilize these aircraft and missiles to attack targets suspected of being terrorists, regardless of the proximity of other human beings, including children and pregnant women, to that target.

Yeah, I know. If those mothers and children are so “innocent” they wouldn’t be hanging around with terrorist scum, would they?

Believe me, people, I’ve heard it all. Bring your bulls–t arguments.