omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:52 PM
Original message |
So they yanked out all the coverage for male reproductive health, too, right? Viagra? Prostates? |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 04:52 PM by omega minimo
Vasectomies? Urinary issues? Testicular cancer? :wow:
|
FLDCVADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:53 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Federal dollars don't pay for abortions now |
|
and federal dollars won't pay for abortions after this bill has passed.
What is different? Why all the hysteria?
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Oh nice use of the word "HYSTERIA" |
FLDCVADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
katandmoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. Because those fucking restrictions are so misogynistic and religion-based and WRONG |
FLDCVADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
And they're the same restrictions that have been in place for 30+ years. My point is that people are being dishonest about what this bill does and doesn't do. Outlawing abortion? Outlawing abortion coverage in insurance? Bullshit.
Not a single thing vis a vis federal coverage of abortion is going to be different the day this bill takes effect than it is now. But people are acting like this is banning abortion.
Like I said, bullshit.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. Yours is the dishonesty and bullshit. |
|
Why do you think the language is in the bill?
|
FLDCVADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. You've made the claim |
|
so prove it.
What in this bill changes ANYTHING regarding federal funding for abortion? Who won't be able to get an abortion because of this bill that can get one now?
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
18. what claim have I made? don't try to pull that SHIT!! |
|
Don't play word games. You're on thin ice as it is :evilfrown: YOU back up YOUR "claims." YOU answer the question. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7274491
|
FLDCVADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
24. You're claiming that abortion coverage is being yanked |
|
as if federally funded abortion coverage is currently available - it's not.
Why the false claim?
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
VanW
(222 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
15. NOW is calling this a "sweeping anti-abortion law". |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 05:28 PM by VanW
Those are their exact words.
|
FLDCVADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
But they won't put forth a single fact based argument that proves their point, just like no one on DU does.
Lots of screaming about how this changes everything, but not a single fact based example. Perhaps you'll be the exception.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. Repeating your false claims proves nothing. Read the link. Then think. |
|
You're the one screeching. Go away and educate yourself.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. VanW "Maybe they've been overcome by uterine secretions and are no longer in their right minds." |
|
Maybe you"re on the wrong discussion board. :puke:
|
VanW
(222 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 05:29 PM by VanW
to the other poster calling opponents of this bill "hysterical".
Sorry, a bit too sarcastic.
|
uppityperson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
25. "Maybe they've been overcome by uterine secretions and are no longer in their right minds. "? WTF? |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 05:27 PM by uppityperson
ah, now you edit to add :sarcasm: Ah.
|
VanW
(222 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
Someone was calling opponents of the bill "hysterical". It was an attempt at sarcasm. I'll take it out.
|
uppityperson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
23. However, it does change other things so why NOT abortion coverage? |
katandmoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
26. I have news for you. For the first two years of Clinton's presidency, federal employees DID have |
|
abortion coverage.
They can do it if they fucking want to.
They just don't want to! Obama is a fucking chickenshit on the subject -- talks big, but either takes no action to support his words, or displays an utter willingness to throw a woman's right to choose under the bus (just like on gay rights) in order to have a bill, ANY bill, to sign for his Hawaiian beach photo op.
Abortion is a medical procedure that affects only women, and it is thus expendable -- not just "birth control" abortions but abortions when carrying to term would endanger a woman's health. If not having an abortion would KILL her, only then is abortion covered, for an ever expanding group of women now.
And if you are a woman who can't afford an abortion, this bill is the same as banning abortion.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
29. "And if you are a woman who can't afford an abortion, this bill is the same as banning abortion." |
|
Speaking of his words: listening to Obama talk about women's rights has always been strikingly underwhelming, always using his noncommittal lingo and rushing right to reassuring whoever the opponent of women's rights are.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 05:39 PM by omega minimo
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 05:39 PM by omega minimo
|
debbierlus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Yeah, where the hell is the seperate policy for all of that! |
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:sarcasm:
That's another thing. How come we never hear from the Christofascists about this? Does it not bother them some men may use these drugs to facilitate adultery or fornication? Some may even use them in the commission of ...gasp...homo-sex-u-al acts. Can't be in keeping with their beliefs. We may need to let them know their tax dollars could pay for drugs that lead to all this wickedness.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. It's a sin to spill the precious seed. |
leftstreet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Teehehehehehe, "yanked". |
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
:yoiks: :spray: :wow: ..............:bounce::bounce:
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:05 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Alice, you need to stop eating those mushrooms. n/t |
Jamastiene
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |
16. No, they just wanted to make sure women weren't covered. |
Tommy_Carcetti
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:21 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Abortion is a different issue than vasectomies, urinary issues, testicular cancer, or ED. |
|
It should also be pointed out in all fairness, however, that abortion is a different issue than pre-conceptive birth control as well.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
32. Of course it is, because the men in charge of these matters are not the one's who have the power |
|
to give birth.
"It should also be pointed out in all fairness, however, that abortion is a different issue than pre-conceptive birth control as well."
On that point, it should also be pointed out that -- unless it is -- it's none of your business.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-19-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
33. Abortion is about women's health as much as those other procedures |
|
you mention are about men's health, yet it's framed as a choice issue, not a medical issue. I haven't seen any billboards, protests or murders regarding vasectomies that are also a reproductive choice of men.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:29 AM
Response to Original message |