Republicans War on Women

Louie Gohmert: Women should be forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term

Quote :

At a Thursday congressional committee hearing on a proposed ban on abortion at 20 weeks in Washington, D.C., Christy Zink, a mother of two, testified how the measure would harm women who require late-term abortion care due to fetal abnormalities and other potentially fatal complications.

Quote :

Zink knows the harm such restrictions can inflict on women faced with this choice because she was one of them. At 21 weeks, her doctors informed her that her fetus had no brain function and would very likely not survive the pregnancy; it was an abnormality that could not have been detected earlier in her pregnancy, as she told the committee:

Our son’s condition could not have been detected earlier in my pregnancy. Only the brain scan could have found it. The prognosis was unbearable. No one could look at those MRI images and not know, instantly, that something was terribly wrong. If the baby survived the pregnancy, which was not certain, his condition would result in numerous surgeries to remove more of what little brain matter he had in order to diminish what would otherwise be a state of near-constant seizures.

I am here today to speak out against the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Its very premise—that it prevents pain—is a lie. If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby who the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain. If my son had survived the pregnancy—which was not certain—he might have never left the hospital. My daughter’s life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent.

The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare my son’s pain and suffering.

In response to Zink’s testimony, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, expressed “sympathy” for Zink, then accused her of “ripping apart” her fetus:

Quote :

Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both. I still come back wondering, shouldn’t we wai t… and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart? So, these are ethical issues, they’re moral issues, they’re difficult issues, and the parents should certainly be consulted. But it just seems like, it’s a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to make those decisions.

I've got nothing. This is just too awful for words. Gohmert is just too stupid to be making policy decisions, let alone medical ones. Despicable.

So much for the "rebranding".

Artie60438 wrote:

So much for the "rebranding".

GOP Sen. Candidate Won’t Say Whether Employers Should Be Able To Deny Workers Birth Control

Quote :

The Republican nominee for Massachusetts’ senate seat refuses to say whether he supports the Blunt Amendment — a measure that would allow employers to choose to deny their employees insurance coverage for contraception costs.

Gabriel Gomez has reportedly been asked several times by reporters whether he would vote for the amendment, and each time has avoided answering. At a press conference Thursday, he once again ducked: “I’m not sure how much more clear I can be,” he began. He then offered an answer that avoided the question of voting entirely. “Contraception should be available over the counter,” he said. “They should take the politics out of it. And they should take the pharmaceutical companies out of it.”

This echoes an op-ed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) calling for over-the-counter contraception access. While this could help to de-politicize contraceptive care, it doesn’t help with the prohibitively high costs of some contraception that, despite Gomez’s claim to the contrary, can be arbitrarily enforced by pharmaceutical companies. It also avoids the issue of how to deal with intrauterine devices, or IUDs, which are the most effective form of birth control but require administration by a gynecologist.

Gomez, though trying to portray himself as a moderate, still holds conservative views on women’s reproductive issues as a whole. He opposes the use of public funds to pay for abortion — something that is already illegal, but which Republicans use as a launching point to advocate against funding Planned Parenthood’s preventative services. He has also advocated for giving religious organizations full exemption from covering contraception. Earlier this month, Gomez told a reporter at the Boston Globe, “Honestly, I haven’t read the Blunt Amendment.”

GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Women ‘Don’t Want’ Equal Pay Laws

Quote :

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) says women don’t want laws guaranteeing them equal pay, because they want to have the “power and the control” to let men make those decisions for them: Marsha Blackburn: Women ‘Don’t Want’ Equal Pay Laws.

Quote :

“I think that more important than that is making certain that women are recognized by those companies. You know, I’ve always said that I didn’t want to be given a job because I was a female, I wanted it because I was the most well-qualified person for the job. And making certain that companies are going to move forward in that vein, that is what women want. They don’t want the decisions made in Washington. They want to be able to have the power and the control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves.”

I'm loving this "rebranding"

Onward they go.....
Illinois GOP Official Calls Black Republican Candidate A ‘Street Walker,’ ‘Love Child Of The DNC’

Quote :

The chairman for the Montgomery County Republican Party in Illinois is facing calls for his resignation after he directed a racist and sexist tirade towards a fellow Republican running against incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) in the 2014 GOP primary.

Jim Allen, a supporter of Davis who had been listed as a member of “Team 2014″ on his campaign website, sent an email to the editor-in-chief of the local independent news site Republican News Watch in which he called Davis’ challenger — an African-American former Miss America — a “street walker,” “Little Queenie,” and a “love child of the D.N.C.” An excerpt from the email:

The little queen touts her abstinence and she won the crown because she got bullied in school,,,boohoo..kids are cruel, life sucks and you move on..Now, miss queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the DEMOCRAT PARTY and RINO REPUBLICANS…These pimps want something they can’t get,,, the seat held by a conservative REPUBLICAN Rodney Davis and Nancy Pelosi can’t stand it..

Reaction within the state Republican Party was swift, and the Davis campaign quickly distanced themselves from the remarks. “Mr. Allen’s comments are misguided and wrong and certainly do not reflect the views of Congressman Davis or his campaign,” a spokesman for the Republican congressman told the News-Gazette. Another party chairman in nearby Champaign County also condemned the comments, telling the local newspaper that he “can’t even give you words that are printable to describe my reaction to it.”

The jerk has since resigned on orders from Rancid Priebus.

MOVED FROM GLOBAL WARMING THREAD

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Of course he is,right up to the second they pop out of the womb. Then they're on their own.

Please, just this once, for the sake of change - stop lying.

Artie60438 wrote:

I was referring to the issue as a whole,you moron.

Then don't include me in your "issue as a whole", you congenital fucking liar.

Show us one instance where you've stood up against draconian Republican introduced legislation like requiring all women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. How about standing up to horrific cuts to programs like "Head Start" and food stamps? Any examples? How about your long history of cheering for closure of "Planned Parenhood" centers that provide women's health care services? Your move,liar!:bball:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Show us one instance where you've stood up against draconian Republican introduced legislation like requiring all women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. How about standing up to horrific cuts to programs like "Head Start" and food stamps? Any examples?

[b]There are many issues on which I have stood neither for nor against in a public forum.
What's your point?

Based on yiour lack of examples,I think I've made mine.[/quote]

Artie60438 wrote:

How about your long history of cheering for closure of "Planned Parenhood" centers that provide women's health care services? Your move,liar!:bball:

happy jack wrote:

[b]Exactly what "long history" would that be?

See below

happy jack wrote:

[b]If "basic preventive health services" were all that Planned Parenthood offered, I don't believe anyone would object to federal funding of the organization.

How many times do we have to go over this,you idiot? Federal funds are not used for abortions!

still the village idiot wrote:

[b]Your move, Liar Boy.

A clear win for me! Thanks for playing!

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Show us one instance where you've stood up against draconian Republican introduced legislation like requiring all women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. How about standing up to horrific cuts to programs like "Head Start" and food stamps? Any examples?

There are many issues on which I have stood neither for nor against in a public forum.
What's your point?

Based on yiour lack of examples,I think I've made mine.

Show me one instance where you have stood up against the practice of child pornography involving animals.
Based upon your lack of examples, I can only presume you are in favor of it.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Show us one instance where you've stood up against draconian Republican introduced legislation like requiring all women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. How about standing up to horrific cuts to programs like "Head Start" and food stamps? Any examples?

There are many issues on which I have stood neither for nor against in a public forum.
What's your point?

Based on yiour lack of examples,I think I've made mine.

Show me one instance where you have stood up against the practice of child pornography involving animals.
Based upon your lack of examples, I can only presume you are in favor of it.

Wow! You've managed to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Well done,trolling strawman. Well done:lol!:

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If "basic preventive health services" were all that Planned Parenthood offered, I don't believe anyone would object to federal funding of the organization.

How many times do we have to go over this,you idiot? Federal funds are not used for abortions!



Let me rephrase that:
If basic preventive health services were all that Planned Parenthood offered, I would have no objection to the organization or to its practices.

Quote :

Quote :

Planned Parenthood provides 585,000 Pap tests and nearly 640,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
Planned Parenthood provides nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm

All that would go away if scum like you had their way.

Ever consider how many women would die unnecessarily as a result of your sicko position,Mr "Pro=Life"?

This Woman State GOP Chair Is Paid $20K Less Than Her Male Predecessor

Quote :

Susan Hutchinson, the chair of the Washington state Republican party, earns $20,000 less than her male predecessor, and her request for equal pay has kicked off an ugly internal spat among state GOP leaders.

The Washington GOP executive committee voted to cut the party chair's salary from $95,000 to about $75,000 in August, shortly before Hutchinson was elected to the position. Officials cited a budget shortfall. But in an internal memo to the committee, which the Seattle Times uncovered earlier this week, Hutchinson said that the vote violated the party's bylaws and could be seen as "discriminatory and vindictive."

"The pay cut defies the concept of equal pay for equal work, playing into the 'war on women' narrative against Republicans," she wrote.

Last week, prior to sending the memo, Hutchinson met with the committee and asked them to raise her salary to match that of her predecessor, Kirby Wilbur. But, according to the memo, her request was denied and it "soured" the committee's mood.

. . .

According to the Times, Hutchinson's memo has raised bitter feelings among her fellow Republicans:

Quote :

"Republican sources told the Seattle Times some GOP leaders were dismayed by Hutchison raising the 'war on women' meme in her memo. They added that there has long been discussion within the party about how much the state party chair should be paid. 'There is no war on women,' said one GOP source familiar with the dispute."

Heretic wrote:

This Woman State GOP Chair Is Paid $20K Less Than Her Male Predecessor

Quote :

Quote :

" 'There is no war on women,' said one GOP source familiar with the dispute."

Right,it's just a coincidence

Meanwhile....
Supreme Court will hear Obamacare contraception challenges
My crystal ball tells me that the neanderthals on the right will soon paint themselves into a corner on this issue. Contraception issues should be between a woman and her Dr,not her boss!

Supreme Court reverses ruling of teen rape victim seeking abortion

Quote :

A Supreme Court in Argentina last week reversed a ruling from a lower court barring a 14-year-old rape victim from seeking an abortion.

It was early last month that the girl realised she had become pregnant as a result of a sexual assault.

The girl and her outraged mother decided to seek an abortion. Though the contentious procedure is technically illegal in Argentina, there are some exceptions that apply in certain situations.

And one of the exceptions is if a pregnancy is the result of a rape, or if the life of the mother is in significant danger.

The initial ruling from a lower court stated the young teen, who had been raped by her mother's partner, was forbidden by law to seek the procedure.

On December 17, a family court judge denied the girl's petition to have the pregnancy terminated, and instead ordered her to proceed with the birth and offer the baby up for adoption.

Ah... The GOP's America. Here's to hoping your unwanted/unplanned pregnancy doesn't kill/cripple/bankrupt you or your family. If it does? Meh... remember, it's what Jesus wanted.

Yippee!!

Another shining example of why the R's should just STFU when it comes to women's issues....
Mike Huckabee: Democrats Tell Women 'They Cannot Control Their Libido' Without The Government

Quote :

WASHINGTON -- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) is so fed up with the anti-Republican "War on Women" narrative that he went on a rant Thursday, accusing Democrats of trying to convince women they need the government to help them "control their libidos."

"Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women," Huckabee told his audience at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting in downtown Washington. "That's not a war on them. It's a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it."

Huckleberry's utter stupidity never ceases to amaze me as he try to defend his remarks...
Huckabee rips critics of ‘libido’ comments

Quote :

WASHINGTON – Mike Huckabee says he is mystified by the liberal criticism of his remarks on women, contraception and libido, which erupted yesterday as the former Arkansas governor actively weighs a presidential campaign.

Huckabee, a Fox News host, says his comments were “virtually identical” to what he said on his network show last weekend, which he said produced no reaction.

Ummm,maybe because your audience consists of far-right wackadoodles like yourself?

Another can't miss tactic  
GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers: Men Must Speak "Down To A Woman's Level" If They Want To Be Understood

Quote :

Did you know that pie charts and graphs are really hard to understand, particularly for women (apparently)? And, that is why all you silly librul women do not understand these Republican men that you think are waging a war on women (according to the Congresswoman). So, Congresswoman Renee Ellmers of North Carolina has some advice for her GOP male colleagues. She says they need to speak "down to a woman's level" so that they can be understood.

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

 

Quote :

Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers says that men need to dumb down their conversations because women aren't able to understand pie charts.

   On Friday, a group of the more conservative Republican women in the U.S. House of Representatives attended an RNC Women conference focused on how to talk to women voters about Republican policies. Most of the attendees were members of the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee, a group of 170 House Republicans who think the GOP-led House isn't tough enough on the budget and are opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion for any reason. As there are only 19 women Republicans in the House, it wasn't a large meeting, which may be why there mainstream media ignored it.

   Among those attending was Rep. Renee Ellmers, a two-term Congresswoman from North Carolina who made a name for herself last fall by opposing Obamacare on the cable news channels with such fervor -- and false facts -- that even her constituents took to her Facebook page to lambast her for embarrassing them and their home state.

   Rep. Ellmers on Friday had a few words of advice for her Republican colleagues on "Taking Back the Future." Perhaps its best to let the Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow explain, as she did in "The Republican plan to change the 'war on women' narrative needs work."

   “Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level,” Ellmers said. “Many of my male colleagues, when they go to the House floor, you know, they’ve got some pie chart or graph behind them and they’re talking about trillions of dollars and how, you know, the debt is awful and, you know, we all agree with that.

   First she’s saying that men (perhaps only Republican men) don’t know how to connect with people. Second, she’s saying people are too stupid to understand pie charts.

   Ellmers then said that women mainly want more time in their lives (don’t men as well?) and the first example she gave was that women wanted “more time in the morning to get ready.”

   As for connecting to women specifically, Ellmers drove it home with a line that, had there been liberals in the audience, would have made the news.

   “We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level and what everything that she is balancing in her life — that’s the way to go,” Ellmers said. (Emphasis added.)

So clearly that must be the (messaging) problem right there. Republican men are just toooo smart (what with all their pie charts, graphs, and stuff) for women to understand. So, they just need to bring it down to a "woman's level".

Yeah. I'm sure that'll work.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

   

Supreme Court will hear Obamacare contraception challenges
My crystal ball tells me that the neanderthals on the right will soon paint themselves into a corner on this issue. Contraception issues should be between a woman and her Dr,not her boss!

Do you perhaps need some Windex for that crystal ball of yours?

Nope,it's working just fine,thank you very much...
Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

Quote :

More than two-thirds of U.S. women voters oppose allowing corporations to refuse to cover contraception in their health plans because of religious objections, according to a new poll released Monday by Hart Research Associates.

The poll, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Women's Law Center, surveyed women between the ages of 18 and 55 ahead of the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The Christian-owned craft supply chain will argue before the court on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act violates its religious freedom rights by requiring it and other for-profit employers to cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives in their health plans.

But 68 percent of the female voters who would be affected by the Supreme Court's decision disagree with Hobby Lobby, according to the new poll, and more half say they disagree "strongly." Eighty-four percent of women agreed with the statement that the decision to use birth control "should be a woman’s personal decision, and her boss should not be able to interfere with it."

"Overwhelmingly, the women who are most likely to be affected by the Hobby Lobby decision say that corporations should not be entitled to exempt themselves from the requirement to cover prescription birth control, even on religious grounds," said Geoff Garin, President of Hart Research Associates. "As a matter of principle, these women don’t believe corporations should be able to use religion to pick and choose which laws they will obey."

The poll shows that women also oppose other kinds of religious freedom laws, such as the one recently considered in Arizona that would let businesses refuse to serve same sex couples because of religious objections to homosexuality. Eighty-one percent of women polled said businesses should not be able to refuse service to gays and lesbians, and the same number said pharmacies should not be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control on religious grounds.

Women of all demographics overwhelmingly support the provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to cover contraception and other preventive health services for women, including 92 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of independents, 63 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Catholics.

"This is the kind of issue that has the potential to become a litmus test for many women about whether their leaders side with them or side with corporations instead," Garin said.

Artie60438 wrote:

 
Sorry you don't approve of the poll I referenced. Do you have any proof other than your personal wingnut bias that would prove it wrong?

Women age 55 and younger specifically reject corporations’ claims that
they should be exempted from covering prescription birth control in their
health plans because of religious objections to contraception.


Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. Based on this response, the wording of the question had to have been clearly misleading.



These findings—underscoring strong objections to religious exemptions for
corporations—are consistent with other public polls on the topic that show that
more than half of all voters oppose allowing employers to opt out of covering
prescription birth control in their health plans as required under the Affordable Care
Act.


Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. Based on this response, the wording of the question had to have been clearly misleading.




More than two in three (68%) women voters say that corporations
should not be able to exempt themselves from the requirement of
covering prescription birth control in their health plans if they object to
contraception on religious grounds.


Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. Based on this response, the wording of the question had to have been clearly misleading.




Should corporations be allowed to exempt themselves from the
requirement of covering prescription birth control in their health plans
if they object to birth control on religious grounds?


Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. Based on this response, the wording of the question had to have been clearly misleading.



At the same time, women voters are not especially persuaded by the case that
corporations like Hobby Lobby make about why they should not have to comply
with the provision to cover birth control in their employees’ health plans.


Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. Based on this response, the wording of the question had to have been clearly misleading.



I firmly believe in a person's right to practice his/her religion but I also firmly believe in the separation of church and state.


So does Hobby Lobby.
And the Supreme Court.



Religion has no place in the work place. No one should have to worry about job security
because their belief system differs from their employers.


The employees of Hobby Lobby were in no danger of losing their jobs based upon anyone’s belief systems.
It is clear from these responses that the questions were skewed to make those being polled believe that the owners of Hobby Lobby were refusing to cover all methods of contraception and that they were forcing their employees to adhere to the owners' belief system.
From the standpoints of credibility and accuracy, the poll is total horseshit.
QED.

happy jack wrote:

Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. Based on this response, the wording of the question had to have been clearly misleading.

Yeah. Well it's true that Hobby lobby was only targeting "morning after pills" and IUDs. But that's not what the decision says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby#Cases_following_SCOTUS_ruling

Quote :

[b]Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[1] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's conservative majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5-4 vote.[2] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative is already being provided for religious non-profits. The ruling could have widespread impact, allowing corporations to claim religious exemptions from federal laws.[3][4]

happy jack wrote:

It is clear from these responses that the questions were skewed to make those being polled believe that the owners of Hobby Lobby were refusing to cover all methods of contraception and that they were forcing their employees to adhere to the owners' belief system.

The poll wasn't just about Hobby Lobby, it was about the decision to allow closely held corporations to withhold contraceptives based upon religious beliefs.  You are correct that Hobby Lobby still covers other forms of contraception, and if this poll was only about Hobby Lobby, the corporation, rather than the Hobby Lobby decision, your view that the questions were misleading would also be correct.

But that's not the case, Jack.

Scorpion wrote:

   The poll wasn't just about Hobby Lobby, it was about the decision to allow closely held corporations to withhold contraceptives based upon religious beliefs.  You are correct that Hobby Lobby still covers other forms of contraception, and if this poll was only about Hobby Lobby, the corporation, rather than the Hobby Lobby decision, your view that the questions were misleading would also be correct.

But that's not the case, Jack.

I see.
I guess I was fooled by the headline of the artlicle.



Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

Posted: 03/24/2014 2:57 pm EDT Updated: 03/25/2014 3:59 pm EDT Print Article



So what you are saying is that the poll is valid but the article, much like the person who knowingly posted it, is entirely dishonest.
OK, I guess I can accept that opinion.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   The poll wasn't just about Hobby Lobby, it was about the decision to allow closely held corporations to withhold contraceptives based upon religious beliefs.  You are correct that Hobby Lobby still covers other forms of contraception, and if this poll was only about Hobby Lobby, the corporation, rather than the Hobby Lobby decision, your view that the questions were misleading would also be correct.

But that's not the case, Jack.

I see.
I guess I was fooled by the headline of the artlicle.

Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

So what you are saying is that the poll is valid but the article, much like the person who knowingly posted it, is entirely dishonest.
OK, I guess I can accept that opinion.

No. That's not what I'm saying.  I said that the poll is based upon the consequences of the decision.  As far as the headline goes... yeah, that's a bit misleading, but the actual article is not... and I don't know that I would characterize the headline as "entirely dishonest."   After all, the Hobby Lobby case is what led to the decision, which, as I said, is what the poll is all about.