House Bill Would Decimate Women’s Health Care in Cities and Rural Areas, Governors and Mayor Say


In a conference call today, the Governors of Connecticut and Vermont and the Mayor of New York City described the devastating effects the GOP’s cuts to Title X and Planned Parenthood would have on women in their states as well as on the fiscal health of their region.

Juxtaposing the needs of women in one of the nation’s largest cities (New York City) and in Vermont, one of the nation’s most rural states, the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg and the Governor of Vermont, Peter Shumlin spoke today about how cuts to both Title X and to Planned Parenthood would undermine the health of the populations they represent. Each of their concerns were echoed by Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy.

Last week, the GOP/Tea-Party-dominated House of Representatives passed both a Continuing Resolution (CR) that effectively eliminates funding for Title X programs, and the Pence Amendment to the CR that specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), prohibiting federal funding of preventive health care services provided by the organization.

Over 90 percent of services provided by Planned Parenthood clinics are made up of preventive care, including breast and cervical exams, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and contraceptive supplies.  PPFA clinics serve more than 5 million clients across the country each year. If the House budget and the Pence Amendment are passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama, literally millions of women and men will lose their only source of health care.

“[Cuts to] Title X and the Pence are not about fiscal responsibility or cutting the U.S. budget,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “These cuts are purely about politics.  And they will have serious consequences for women’s health care across New York City and the nation.”

In fact, rather than reducing government spending or the deficit, both governors and the mayor underscored the dramatically increased financial burdens that would arise from cutting preventive care, which in turn means more and more expensive illness down the road.

More than 8 million people live in New York City, for example; more than half the population is 25 years of age or younger. And over 15 percent of the population lives at or below the poverty level. Planned Parenthood provides access to essential preventive care to more than 50,000 residents of New York City each year, conducting more than 79,900 tests for sexually transmitted infections (including HIV), 12,000 life-saving cervical cancer screenings, and 56,000 contraceptive visits.

“These clinics are often the only place where poor and working women can see someone for care,” said Bloomberg. 

Moreover, he noted, increased access to contraceptives has reduced the rate of abortion in New York City in the last decade.  “Our numbers are going in the right direction,” Bloomberg stated. But, he continued:

“If you want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions, cutting funds to Planned Parenthood is not the way. It would take us in the other direction, and it would cost us money. Everyone is talking about how the government is spending too much money, but cutting [preventive care provided by Planned Parenthood] will cost more money and lead to more unintended pregnancies and abortions.”

Bloomberg also noted that the loss of funding for family planning services and the consequent increase in unintended pregnancies would adversely affect both infants and small children because without access to contraception, more women will have “more unintended pregnancies, more closely spaced,” which is harmful for both mother and infant.

Governor Shumlin raised deep concerns about the effects these cuts would have on rural women in his state which is, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, “atypically rural.” Planned Parenthood of Northern New England sees more than 19,500 patients each year, and provides more than 24,700 STI tests (including HIV tests), 5,500 cervical cancer screenings, 9,600 breast exams and 17,000 contraceptive visits.

“Here in Vermont, cutting Title X money would be devastating,” warned Shumlin. “In a small rural state like Vermont, Planned Parenthood clinics oftentimes are the only source of health care [rural] low-income women get and the only access they have to critical health care, not only to avoid unintended pregnancies but for general health care.”

“This is more about politics than policy,” Shumlin stated.

Connecticut Governor Malloy said he’d written to Connecticut’s congressional delegation, urging them to “come to their senses” when it comes to cuts to programs such as Title X and funding for Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood of Southern New England sees more than 62,300 patients each year, providing more than 90,400 STI tests (including HIV tests), 16,700 lifesaving cervical cancer screenings, 5,200 breast exams and 55,300 contraceptive visits

Shumlin and Bloomberg also stated they’d written to both their delegations and to House leadership.

Eliminating these funds would, they all agreed, increase rates of undiagnosed and untreated cervical and breast cancer, leading to increased deaths among women, higher rates of infections, and higher rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

“We have a choice,” Shumlin concluded. “We can play politics and cut off our nose to spite our face, or we can do the right thing and fund Planned Parenthood.”

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • beenthere72

    I’m happy to hear that Mayor Bloomberg, among these other leaders, are speaking up.   

     

    I’m kinda thinking they should be taking the approach of what all this lack of health care will mean to MEN.     Maybe that will put a little more fear in their PANTS. 

  • invalid-0

    Yes, please.  Go ahead and do that.  Because only men must be the ones opposing planned parenthood.

  • beenthere72

    The majority of those that oppose PP are men.   Privileged white men.

  • invalid-0

    The majority of the house of representatives are privileged white men.  What’s your point?

  • forced-birth-rape

    That it is not mens genitals on the line, but men love to sign up women, little girls, and female rape victims to have extreme unwanted genital pain against their will, and have to fear being forced into having extreme unwanted genital pain against their will. It is not enough that we are all ready scared of being raped by a penis.

    Amplified bible. Genesis 3:16
    “I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and cravings will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

    If you were a female rape victim you would care and know that women have a right to say no to what happens to their vaginas, but christians say someones right to life gives them the right to use and cause a female extreme unwanted genital pain against her will. And the christians are going to make sure she cannot escape it.

  • invalid-0

    If you were a female rape victim you would care and know that women have a right to say no to what happens to their vaginas

    Don’t tell me what I am and am not allowed to believe because of my life experience.  If you want pro-lifers to go away, explain why we’re wrong, not why our opinion doesn’t matter.  I’m an American too, dammit.

  • goatini

    Poster suffers from an advanced case of “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.  

    Poster should say what he really thinks:  “The day that Randall Terry, Phill Kline and Jill Stanek explain why I’m wrong to demand the imposition of involuntary servitude upon female US citizens in favor of a single-cell fertilized egg, is the day I’ll ‘go away’.  As in, NEVER!!!”

  • mechashiva

    Alright. You’re wrong because making abortion illegal causes more suffering and ultimately results in higher costs in healthcare and social services. It is simply better for the country to keep abortion legal, accessible, and without stigma.

  • arekushieru

    Exactly.  Since we have explained, over and over, why they are wrong.  And which is exactly what FBIR just did.

  • arekushieru

    Someone brought up a pretty interesting point on FB.  If pregnancy is supposed to be punishment – since, apparently, before Adam and Eve sinned (disobedience to God), pregnancy wasn’t the primary focus of creating a child, but probably something similar to the removal of Adam’s rib for the creation of females and the ground for the creation of males – then why do non-human animals get pregnant when they didn’t eat from the fruit of that tree?  

  • forced-birth-rape

    I just told you why your opinion is wrong, because no one should be allowed to cause someone else genital pain against that persons will for any reason. All of America does not own my vagina and cannot feel what happens to my vagina.

    Because you are an American you get to dictate womens genitals and have a say in what women have to do with their genitals, something that scares and hurts women? NO!

    You could not be any more heartless to rape victims could you arex?

  • invalid-0

    *shakes head*

    I have NEVER made any point in support of rape, and I have NEVER taken a position on whether restricting abortion is good fiscal policy.  I don’t know Terry or Stanek or any other pro-life personalities other than my own.

    Hell, I’ll concede the point that it is good fiscal policy to allow abortion.  Let’s say teens lead happier, healthy lives.  Let’s say women who get pregnant and have an abortion have a lower chance at breast cancer, have healthier marriages are are financially more successful.  I’ll even grant you that providing birth control and sex education to ten year olds somehow reduces the risk of unintended pregnancies.

    I’ll concede all of those points, but abortion still… kills… a human being.  And I have yet to hear a good argument (a) that it is NOT a human being, or (b) it’s a human being that a woman should be able to kill if her life is not threatened and she was not raped.

  • invalid-0

    Nevermind the fact that you’re putting words in my mouth.

    It must take an awful lot of drugs to get to the point where you can consider parenthood an equal to slavery with a straight face.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    What the hell kind of argument are you making? Rape isn’t wrong because it causes someone “undue genital pain”. In fact, causing someone pain isn’t wrong– mental, physical or emotional– per se. I don’t know how you got from disallowing abortion to being heartless to rape victims, but I’m sure there are literally millions of women in the world who would find your characterization of rape being the equivalent of being disallowed to obtain an abortion to be highly offensive, at best.

     

    I hope you’re lampooning pro-choicers.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You should probably go back and read the Bible.

  • crowepps

    You’re free to believe anything you want, but your beliefs and opinions really don’t matter except to you.  Nobody else is obligated to change their behavior to fall in line with your religious credo or personal beliefs or opinions you’ve arrived at.

     

    The only opinion that should or does matter to the woman actually in the situation who has to make the decision is her own and those of her loved ones.  She doesn’t have any obligation to do things because strangers believe they should be able to tell her what to do.

     

    Abortion stops a pregancy.  It raises the percentage of pregnancies which fail from the naturally occurring 60% to perhaps 70%.  You may be obsessed with controlling women because you think it’s ‘unnatural’ not to want 10 children but most of the rest of us can cope with the realities of life without being overwhelmed by urges to force everyone around us to live the way we think they should.

  • goatini

    I assume we will be hearing no more nonsense about “fetal pain”, then.

     

    But seriously…  “causing someone pain isn’t wrong– mental, physical or emotional”… sounds like one of the main rationales to support this unprecedented attack on the Constitutional rights of female US citizens to life, liberty, property and privacy.  

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    I do not believe it is a human being.

    And as some one who could not say “NO” I do not want this for my body and vagina. I know that you do not tell any one man or woman they have to have unwanted genital pain for any reason.

    “And I have yet to hear a good argument (a) that it is NOT a human being, or (b) it’s a human being that a woman should be able to kill.”

    So you are admitting that it is ok to cause a woman unwanted genital pain against her will when she says NO?

    I as someone who was used for sex as a child think sex education would be very empowering to children who are being sexually abused.

  • crowepps

     In fact, causing someone pain isn’t wrong– mental, physical or emotional– per se.

    Well, yeah, actually it seems to me that unless one is, for instance, a medical provider inescapably causing pain for a highly specific purpose, then deliberately causing or being indifferent to causing pain is indeed wrong.

     

    I’d be interested in hearing your explanation of the basis on which you think causing people mental, physical of emotional pain could be right.

  • rebellious-grrl

    And now your telling us we’re “druggies?” Give me a break.

  • crowepps

    I don’t believe she was referencing parenthood but instead pregnancy.  I believe she was speaking of being forced to endure, involuntarily, an unwanted pregnancy when you do not want to be a parent, on the basis that the product of your servitude will provide somebody else with a baby, without your being compensated for doing so, is indeed “involuntary servitude” or forced use of a person’s body without compensation.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    I assume we will be hearing no more nonsense about “fetal pain”, then.

     

    Just as soon as pro-choicers give up arguing that abortion is moral because the unborn aren’t sentient. Otherwise, no.

     

    But seriously…  “causing someone pain isn’t wrong– mental, physical or emotional”… sounds like one of the main rationales to support this unprecedented attack on the Constitutional rights of female US citizens to life, liberty, property and privacy.  

     

    The right to privacy is an invented right contained nowhere in the Constitution, and with good reason. The right to property does not entail the right to own another human being. The right to liberty does not entail the right to act however you please. And the right to life does not entail the right to act at all.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    I’d be interested in hearing your explanation of the basis on which you think causing people mental, physical of emotional pain could be right.

     

    The law won’t throw your husband in jail for cheating on you with your sister, nor will they prosecute someone who accidently trips and knocks you to the ground.

  • rebellious-grrl

    FBIR exactly! I think it was La Plume that said ” A uterus is not public property.”  No one has the right to tell us what to do with our bodies. No one can force us to give birth against our will!

  • datasnake

    So if I were to come to your house and whack you in the balls with a sledgehammer, there would be nothing wrong with that? Or is it only “not wrong per se” to cause OTHER people pain?

  • forced-birth-rape

    You people know nothing about rape.

    Some one can rape another person with something other then a penis, such as an instrument.

    “I don’t know how you got from disallowing abortion to being heartless to rape victims, but I’m sure there are literally millions of women in the world who would find your characterization of rape being the equivalent of being disallowed to obtain an abortion to be highly offensive, at best.”

    I have been sexually abused dumb jerk.

    I could not say no.

    I had to anticipate unwanted genital pain.

    Someone else dictated my body not caring what I wanted.

    And I as someone who was sexually abused as a littl girl knows pro-lifers do not give a damn, about rape.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    No. That would be assault/battery, and it’d be assault/battery whether or not you caused me pain.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Arex, we’ve been over this before. Most of us here believe that a fetus is not a person and doesn’t have the same rights as a person, doesn’t have the same rights as a pregnant woman. You may be unaware of the strategies of other anti-choicers (forced birthers) they are often opposed to birth control as well and are opposed to abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Not only are they dictating that all pregnancies must end in a live birth but that we have no access to birth control to prevent a pregnancy.

     

    I agree with Forced Birth is RAPE. I was forced to give birth against my will I would consider that a rape of my body.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    To restate myself, rape isn’t rape because of “unwanted genital pain”, for if it was then everything which caused “unwated genital pain” would be rape, in which case kicking some poor guy in the balls would also, by extension, be rape.

  • mechashiva

    a) Species is irrelevant, and so is the personhood debate. Bodies are bodies, and “personhood” is intangible. Sheesh, the way pro-lifers harp on about how important human bodies are, you’d think we were an endangered species.

     

    b) Location and cognition are everything (and they are tangible/observable). I see no reason why a woman should not be allowed to decide how her body is used by other bodies, in a general sense. I don’t see an issue with killing a body that has not attained the ability to suffer. So, there’s no sense in restricting abortion prior to the development of that ability. (For the record, I see “abortion prior to cognitive development” as a separate issue from “abortion after the fetus has perceptive capabilities.”)

     

    Abortion may be “immoral” or it might not be, and I’m not particularly concerned about that because other aspects of the issue are so important as to make that one negligible.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Are you a man?

  • mechashiva

    You didn’t show that such actions are right. All you showed is that some immoral actions are still legal.

  • crowepps

    You are confusing “wrong” and “illegal” as well as failing to recognize that “deliberately” tends to be a predicate to “wrong” and there’s rarely moral culpability involved in “accidentally”.

     

    Most civilized persons VOLUNTARILY hold themselves to a much higher standard than the bare minimum of “don’t do things which result in jail”.  It may not be against the law to be a jerk, but continuing to be one will result in divorce, an estranged family, no friends and a reputation as a person to be avoided.

  • invalid-0

    I’m going to hope that your taking of oppositional banter as literal truth won’t require further discussion than me saying: “chill out”.

  • crowepps

    Male, possibly.  I’d even say likely.  As a matter of fact, I’ll stick my neck out and guess he’s today’s rep from What About Teh MENZ?

  • goatini

    to get to the point where you can consider an unwanted pregnancy as equal to parenthood with a straight face.  

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Incorrect. What’s right and what’s wrong are dictated by the law. This is not the same as something being moral or immoral, as some actions which could be considered moral are deemed as wrong by the law, and others which are immoral are deemed as being a-okay. Anyway, just so you know, actions are not a dichotomus right or wrong. They’re either considered to be right, wrong or neutral. Just because an action isn’t wrong, doesn’t mean it’s right. I don’t need to show that said actions are right, because I never said they were.

  • crowepps

    “Oppositional banter”?  What an ADORABLE little phrase.

     

    It almost desguises how similiar “oppositional banter” is to “comments … that threaten or demean others, or undermine the civility of discussion.”

  • invalid-0

    I see no reason why a woman should not be allowed to decide how her body is used by other bodies, in a general sense.

    I don’t either.  The fact is that where a woman is NOT raped, presumably she has elected to engage in sexual intercourse.  I would consider that a blatant waiver of any alleged ‘right to not be pregnant’, even where birth control is involved.  

    (I should note that I advocate against conceived-in-rape pregnancies as well, but acknowledge a sincere legal issue as to whether a constitutional right to privacy would extend to the situation.)

    With all due respect, I candidly disagree that the development of cognition is an observable event.  Nevertheless, location and cognition are certainly no MORE observable than the deterimination as to whether a human being exists at all.

    Separately, I disagree that the ability to suffer is a viable basis for the discrimination.  Certainly you would agree that I have no right to kill the sleeping or the unconscious?

    Finally, I agree that humans are by no means an endangered species.  But this has never been the basis for our protection of life.  We guard each other’s lives with the law because everyone – each human being – is endowed with certain inalienable rights – something that separates us from the animal kingdom.  I assume that was a joke of an argument?

  • beenthere72

    being disallowed to obtain an abortion

    You make it sound like ‘being disallowed to go to the prom’ like it’s only a temporary set back and we’ll get over it. 

  • goatini

    so noted:  anyone other than white male landowners have NO Constitutional rights.  

  • rebellious-grrl

    ‘The Daily Show’ Takes On Republicans vs. Planned Parenthood (VIDEO)
    I love Jon Stewart!

     

    Link to video:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/the-daily-show-takes-on-g_n_826982.html

  • mechashiva

    Those are the rules… that I just made up!…and I’m backing it up with this gun, that was lent to me from the National Rifle Association.

    You are defining terms as you see fit. Most people define right/wrong as moral/immoral (or the most moral/immoral option available) and make a distinction between those and legal/illegal. It’s fun watching you talk in circles, though.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Assumptions kill. I’m not white, nor do I own any land.

  • crowepps

    some actions which could be considered moral are deemed as wrong by the law

    The law does not determine or judge things to be “right” or “wrong” but instead outlines what acts are permitted and what acts are not and what the punishment might be for committing them anyway.  I’ll agree that some laws, like segregation and religious discrimination, seem immoral according to our present understanding.

     

    Right and wrong are pretty commonly used almost interchangeably with moral and immoral and the words appear in the definitions of moral/immoral.

  • crowepps

    Appreciate it!

  • nonsense-nonsense

    The law does not determine or judge things to be “right” or “wrong” but instead outlines what acts are permitted and what acts are not and what the punishment might be for committing them anyway.

     

    Which is a nice way to say “The law outlines what actions are wrong”, precisely what was said. Find something else to nitpick.

  • colleen

    I’ll concede all of those points, but abortion still… kills… a human being.

    I don’t believe you care about ‘human beings’? You know why? Because in a thread titled:

    House Bill Would Decimate Women’s Health Care in Cities and Rural Areas, Governors and Mayor Say

    You are so indifferent you’re cannot muster a comment on the topic of the thread and, indeed, you and your comrade are only intent on insulting, demeaning, slut slamming. Nevermind that when women cannot access healthcare we tend to die in droves. You, pathetic little republican that you are, cannot even butt the fuck out of any conversation WE might be able to have on the actual topic and all your (spit) church wants is the right to kill us if our bodies cannot sustain an existing pregnancy.

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    Colleen you ROCK!

  • crowepps

    When a nit wit shows up here, picking is almost irresistable

  • colleen

    I’m not white, nor do I own any land.

    Your impersonation is flawless.

  • beenthere72

    Dumb, dumb, dumb Michelle.

     

    I love Jon.

  • crowepps

    Since you’re non-white, and don’t own land, Scalia isn’t interested in your rights or guaranteeing you the franchise.  White (Christian) landowners are the only persons of value to strict Constructionists.

  • ldan

    Err, no, it defines what is and is not permitted.

     

    There is nothing inherently wrong with me having a goldfish pond out in front of my house. But there are often laws against it, for various reasons that (sometimes) makes sense when looked at from the frame of the effect on the larger community my house is sitting in.

     

    It also means that apparently right/wrong change with the congressional winds. Alcohol is wrong (prohibition), now its right (repeal). I don’t think most people operate under this assumption.

     

    This explains a lot of your arguments that come at us that somehow imply that we’re incorrect in believing it’s wrong to expect women to be life support systems to unborn ‘people’ just because the law says that they don’t get to independently chose whether or not to be life support systems once they hit the 3rd trimester of pregnancy according to the law. You’re arguing from a completely different framework on right/wrong than the rest of the board.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    So this is your otherwise lame attempt at pigeonholing everyone with whom you don’t agree into some neat fit category? Because if it is, then it leaves much to be desired. Maybe you need to spend more time outside, and less time on the computer throwing around claims of sexism and misogyny.

  • julie-watkins

    I’ll concede all of those points, but abortion still… kills… a human being.

    I just shake my head at people who believe a woman not accepting and voluntarily attempting to end a pregnancy is a larger moral problem than the systemic sexism of nature and the systemic sexism and classism of society.

    “Willingly engaging in sex” is just handwaving, when culture and nature puts so much more burden on women & poor people … and the evidence of nature is on the side of females having a choice about when is a good time for pregnancies, and nature is on the side of miscarriages when the gene mix isn’t viable.

  • colleen

    So this is your otherwise lame attempt at pigeonholing everyone with whom you don’t agree into some neat fit category?

    No, seriously, you sound just like Clarence Thomas.

     

  • crowepps

     The fact is that where a woman is NOT raped, presumably she has elected to engage in sexual intercourse.  I would consider that a blatant waiver of any alleged ‘right to not be pregnant’, even where birth control is involved.  

    The fact that YOU consider that a blatant waiver is irrelevant, because what actually is important is whether SHE considers it a waiver.  If she does not, if her plan is to follow up a birth control failure with abortion, then obviously in HER opinion she didn’t waive her right to reject pregnancy.

     

    As a matter of fact, if she CHOSE to get pregnant because she WANTED to be pregnant and changing economic circumstances, pregnancy complications or health threats are making it impossible for her to continue, she can CHANGE HER MIND and reject the pregnancy later.  She owns her body and has 100% of the rights to make decisions about what it will do or not do.  The mere existence of a zygote/embryo/fetus does not destroy her rights on the basis that YOU think she has an obligation.  Particularly an obligation that you are totally and permanently exempt from ever having to meet.

     

    It’s sure easy for people to decide that OTHER people ought to WANT to be martyrs, and pontificate on and on about how OTHER people should sacrifice THEIR lives for ‘morality’.  Knowing when the bill is presented, it won’t ever be them personally who has to pay a penny of it.

     

    “The first thing a principle does is kill somebody.”  Dorothy Sayer

  • goatini

    Constitutional right to abortion = “slavery”

    * therefore *

    Constitutional right to property = the evil murdering woman obviously thinks the fetus is the property in question.

    Logic held by the same kinds of people who think that a POTUS who is a noted US constitutional law expert = “Marxist elitist”.

    Now, for the reality-impaired:  it wouldn’t occur to a forced-birther that subjecting a woman to almost a year of involuntary servitude, with health risks up to and including death, would, without question, deprive her of real PROPERTY.  

    * Loss of income.
    * Loss of health insurance, if job-related.
    * Incurring of medical expenses up to and including vast amounts over an insurance cap, if applicable; or all out of pocket, if applicable.
    * Forced divestiture of personal property due to loss of income and associated financial losses.
    * Forced divestiture of personal assets, in order to be eligible for state and/or Federal aid, should the woman, the born child that was forced upon the woman, or both, become permanently disabled as a result of the forced pregnancy.
    * Forced seizure of assets, including bank accounts, to satisfy medical debts, and any other debts that may default due to forced loss of income.   

    I could go on, but I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that to forced birthers, the female US citizen is just a breeding container whose property rights are nullified at the instant that an egg gets fertilized.  Regardless of the fact that over 80% of fertilized eggs never even get implanted in the uterine lining, much less make it to full term.  

  • beenthere72

    I would clue you in to exactly who you’re talking to, but it creeps me out that I know as much about him as I do.   Just google Bei1052.    When you use the same screen name all over the internet (and the *exact* same arguments about abortion under other names), not hard to find out quite a bit about that person.

     

    *Brandon, did you ever get into grad school?

     

     

  • ldan

    No more so than kicking a woman in the vagina, though both would count as sexual assault.

     

    Rape is more predicated upon non-consent than pain. Which, frankly, does have reasonable parallels to forced birth. Using a woman’s genitals and other reproductive organs against her will sounds pretty rape-y to me.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    There’s a reason why SCOTUS didn’t rule that disallowing a woman from having an abortion violates her right to property, and that is because it’s such a ridiculous notion. Even assuming that all of the things you outlined are property (they aren’t), the right to own property does not preclude giving up one’s right to own property, or even the property itself. If you would have read the 14th Amendment, you would notice that the Amendment states just this.

     

    I could go on, but I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that to forced birthers, the female US citizen is just a breeding container whose property rights are nullified at the instant that an egg gets fertilized.

     

    In your worldview, this might be true, but not here in reality.

    Regardless of the fact that over 80% of fertilized eggs never even get implanted in the uterine lining, much less make it to full term.  

     

    100% of the population eventually dies. Would you argue that it’s therefore moral to kill someone whenever, as they’re going to die anyway. Surely you wouldn’t. Refusing to note the difference between having someone die naturally and artificially ending their life doesn’t exactly help your position in the long-run. In fact, it hurts it.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    So you’re stating that Blacks have to think the way the liberal overlords want them to think? If that’s not what you’re saying, then your Clarence Thomas quip doesn’t mean anything.

  • ldan

    Precisely.

     

    Even if I were somehow to be convinced that a blastocyst is a person, the fact that all of the burden of sex, and sexual gatekeeping, then falls to women creates a world that is disgusting and messed up to live in.

     

    I have no desire to return to a world where men can have sex, pressure women about sex, and generally continue on the same way they have been for hundreds of years without general consequence, while women need to lock up their sexual agency entirely lest it quite literally screw them over.

     

    Even if I believed blastocysts and bean-sized embryos were people, I’d sacrifice them for the generally healthier society we get when women aren’t held back by nature’s sexism. As crowepps pointed out, we’re bumping the ‘fertilized eggs that don’t get to be born’ percentage in the range of 10% from 60% to 70%. They’re no great loss to society as a whole, after all, abortion has been happening ever since humans could figure out how to manage it. There’s no loss to the fetuses in slipping from one side of nature’s lottery to the other at that point. On all moral scales, I can’t see a reason for the rabidness of anti-choice rhetoric.

  • crowepps

    You might thoughtfully consider that “the liberal overlords” at lesat acknowledge that Blacks CAN think, unlike “the conservative overlords” who won’t accept that ANYBODY can think unless they provide proof by making (or inheriting) their first couple million.

  • forced-birth-rape

    He told me he wished my mother had been raped, then mocked me about it.

  • goatini

    My bank accounts are not my property.

    My income is not my property.

    My health insurance, if provided by my employer as part of my income, is not my property.

    My car is not my property, should it have to be sold, or should it be seized, in order to bring the unwanted pregnancy to term.

    The payments I have already made into my car are not my property, should it be repossessed in default due to failure to pay due to loss of job.

    My home is not my property, should it have to be sold, or should it be seized, in order to bring the unwanted pregnancy to term.

    The payments I have already made into my home are not my property, should it be repossessed in default due to failure to pay due to loss of job.

    Any other real property, were I forced to sell it or otherwise divest myself of it in order to bring the unwanted pregnancy to term under my involuntary servitude, is not my property.

    Got it.  Women can’t be property owners.

  • mechashiva

    It is not legal to sign away your rights. That’s why consent to sex does not mean you sign away the rights that have been used to make abortion legal. Being aware of risks does not mean that you cannot make decisions regarding what to do about them should they actually come into play. (I became aware of this working with my friends’ circus. Visitors sign a waiver stating they understand they could be hurt, but it is not legal for them to sign away their right to sue if they are. Not meant to be an analogy, it’s just that the same legal principles apply.)

     

    What I meant by tangible/observable is that consciousness is a physical process, which distinguishes it from the purely intangible idea of personhood. It is possible to detect consciousness (even to distinguish between different states of consciousness), and that is what I mean by observable. We know during which weeks of gestation different cognitive capabilities are attained by the human fetus, because scientists have studied (and continue to study) the subject. This makes using such events useful in outlining restrictions on abortion, as gestational age is always measured prior to an abortion procedure.

     

    Read my comment again and notice that I explicitly stated:

    I don’t see an issue with killing a body that has not attained the ability to suffer.

    Fetuses are different from sleeping born people or born people in comas because they have never been conscious to begin with. I see a distinct difference between killing something that has the potential to become conscious and killing something that already has been conscious.

     

    I don’t see what the big deal is about killing a fetus, and I never have (not from the first time a friend, who was pro-life, told me what abortion was). It is just a body that has never formed thought, never had desire, never experienced pleasure or pain because it is not capable of it (yet). It’s an “empty” (meaning “devoid of experience”) human body (for now). That doesn’t mean people can’t feel attached to it in a personal way or have hopes and dreams for its future. A fetus is unique and can be sentimentally valuable just like anything else can be, but that doesn’t change what it is. And it is something that has not lived yet.

     

    Actually, I was only half-joking about the species thing. I don’t think humans are more special than other animals, and they aren’t at the top of the list of “species whose lives I want to guard.” Even with tasty animals, I care more about their lives than I do human fetuses’… because animals can experience suffering to a greater capacity.

  • crowepps

    There are lots of laws that don’t necessarily have a moral dimension and some that don’t take into consideration the moral dimension a minority of people load on them.

     

    Laws about being required to pay for a business license, or having to have slip and fall insurance or needing a valid driver’s license don’t have a moral dimension, or at most a very slight one.

     

    If it is illegal to sell cigarettes to a person aged 17 years, 364 days and legal to sell cigarettes to a person aged 18 years, and a person believes the SELLER is immoral to make a living purveying death, then the morality of the action itself has isn’t covered by the law at all, since it is concerned instead with the buyer being old enough to decide to do something dangerous.

  • colleen

    So you’re stating that Blacks have to think the way the liberal overlords want them to think?

    No I’m saying that your impersonation of Rush Limbaugh is flawless.

  • goatini

    Over 80% of fertilized eggs never get implanted in the uterine lining = “100% of the population eventually dies”.

    Aside from the fact that you insult not only the lives of female US citizens, but ALL lives of living, breathing individuals, when you term the contents of the uterus that are sloughed-off monthly, as “DEATH” -

    Your job prospects ARE looking up, as when Bobby Franklin starts hiring his Tampon Sniffing Posse, you should be at the top of the hire list, being as you have the skill to discern with the naked eye a failed fertilized egg on a used menstrual product, or in a toilet. 

    NiN is relishing the day that he can execute a search warrant on your toilet.  

  • freetobe

    “Finally, I agree that humans are by no means an endangered species.  But this has never been the basis for our protection of life.  We guard each other’s lives with the law because everyone – each human being – is endowed with certain inalienable rights – something that separates us from the animal kingdom.”

     

    Who then are women? Are women really human beings? I say this because how can I as a woman not have more rights over a parasite in me ,than me -the born here first HUMAN BEING?

     

    I guess you are admitting that woman are actually HUMAN BEINGS, that we are here first. That gives us the inalienable rights first.

    Stop trying to force us to think like you do. It will NOT work. Not all women love children or motherhood. I was done after one that was enough for me no more. We are not all clones we are not all baby machines just because we were born female does not mean we HAVE to live that role as YOU see fit or anyone else who is anti-women and forced birth. i say anti-women because you are thinking that ALL women want to be mothers! NO!

    When one cannot get sterilized at an early age it makes it even tougher.

    Don’t tell me to not let you have it I can say what I want whether you like it or not it works both ways! You came here to harass women and force us to consider rethinking how we think but that is wrong and you know it. So why waste your time? Guilty conscience?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You might thoughtfully consider that “the liberal overlords” at lesat acknowledge that Blacks CAN think…

     

    Which would explain the propensity to outright claim, or even insinuate, that any Black person who doesn’t think the way they want them to think is an ‘Uncle Tom’ (look at Colleen’s post for proof of this and the general accusations levied against Clarence Thomas).

     

    …unlike “the conservative overlords” who won’t accept that ANYBODY can think unless they provide proof by making (or inheriting) their first couple million.

     

    Liberals poll better among those making in excess of $200K per year than do conservatives. I should also note that they also poll better among people making less than $50K per year. Between the two extremes, it’s a wash. So what, exactly, are you talking about?

    I found this funny.

  • squirrely-girl

    … would still be just as big of a douchebag if he were white. :/

  • colleen

    Which would explain the propensity to outright claim, or even insinuate, that any Black person who doesn’t think the way they want them to think is an ‘Uncle Tom’ (look at Colleen’s post for proof of this and the general accusations levied against Clarence Thomas).

    Before you complete your devolution into sounding as loopy as Clarence Thomas’s wife, I said nothing of the sort and would certainly never call someone an ‘Uncle Tom’. I said and implied nothing more than that you do a good job of impersonating a white conservative male. It’s absolutely true. Your impersonation is indeed flawless.

    I think of you as a guy who has been banned from posting here and still continues to crawl back and make an ass of himself.

     

  • colleen

    … would still be just as big of a douchebag if he were white. :/

    precisely. as would bei

  • colleen

    He told me he wished my mother had been raped, then mocked me about it.

     

    conservative men are all douchebags under the skin

  • ahunt

    So arex…where do you propose low income women go for their breast and reproductive aparatus health care…just wondering?

     

    This assumes you actually care about the lives of women…possibly a mistake.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    The only reason people who generally lean liberal mention Clarence Thomas’ name is to speak of him in a bad light, usually in an attempt to claim that he’s a “sell out” or he does “what the white man wants him to do” (i.e., being an Uncle Tom). Both you, I and everyone here knows this, though your friends will rush to your defense regardless of what you type. The fact is that you mentioned his name in an attempt at a failed slight, somehow trying to insinuate that I’m doing what the “white male conservative wants”, which is ridiculous, especially considering that in the U.S. there’s a 40/40/20 split when it comes to those labeling themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal, respectively, and that the number of people self-identifying as conservative poll higher than people self-identifying as liberal, regardless of gender.

     

    And, as has been the case lately, whenever someone starts the you’re someone else line, I just end the conversation and go do something else, as I have far better things to do than sit here and play a game of “Guess Who?”. You’re free to play by yourself, though.

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Boosh!  Well said. 

  • goatini

  • wendy-banks

    What an asshat! Like I said before, Fenton anti-creep-stick time >:(

    *Waves and goes back to lerking*

  • crowepps

    My opinion of Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his skin color.  I has to do with the fact that he is a sexist pervert and a misogynist, the fat that he flat lied during his confirmation hearing, the fact that he is incompetent, and the fact that he is a reactionary bigot.  If he turned into a Scandanavian blonde tomorrow my opinion wouldn’t change one iota.

     

    There’s nothing at all interesting for you here.  Please, feel free to go ahead and do something else.  We’ll miss you terribly, but we’ll get over it.

  • crowepps

    (Sarcasm)

     

    They shouldn’t “make poor choices” and get breast cancer.

    They shouldn‘t “make poor choices” and need health care for their reproductive apparatus.

    Sex is for rich people.

    Health care is for rich people.

    Surviving cancer is for rich people.

    Surviving pregnancy is for rich people.

    Having your baby survive is a privilege reserved for rich people.

    But Arex’ church will be THRILLED to point out to poor people how God appreciates it when they “offer up their suffering”.  Isn’t that the whole POINT of their efforts?  To increase the suffering of women and children as much as possible so their God can bask in the waves of it as the moans and screams rise towards Him?

     

    Seriously, Baal was an absolute pussycat compared to the Catholic God.  Baal only required the sacrificial death of the firstborn son — his priests didn’t run a pedophile ring to facilitate sexually abusing the children of the congregation and the priests didn’t claim that Baal was pleased by the torture and deaths of women or that children suffering was holy.

  • arekushieru

    But, uh, you want me to scan the page in for you and link to it, here, just so you (and everyone else) can see just how much of your Nonsense IS nonsense? 

    Sure, I can do that!

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, maybe because it’s in the DOI, not the constitution?  

    Actually, having someone die naturally vs artificially, isn’t at all different.  You are just as DEAD if you die, naturally, as opposed to artificially.  

    Too bad you keep proving that this isn’t about life, for you, eh, but punishing women for the natural functions of their bodies….

  • arekushieru

    Maybe not moral culpability but definitely just as much concern, as in the case of miscarriages on the part of ProLifers?

  • arekushieru

    Good thing this isn’t ABOUT the unborn being sentient/non-sentient, or isn’t ABOUT the unborn being property, but the woman’s BODY, then.  Or isn’t about the right to liberty being used as a right to act however you please.

    Gotcha, the right to life does not entail the right to act, at all.  So, the fetus does not have the right to act to save its life.  Thanks for making such a great argument for abortion.

    If laws are not based on whether one experiences pain because of a specific act, then laws should NOT be based on whether a FETUS experiences pain or not due to a specific act.  Typical, though that you didn’t understand the argument.  More of that deliberate obtuseness? 

    Besides, you’re right that rape and being ‘disallowed’ to procure an abortion shouldn’t be put on the same level.  Being ‘disallowed’ to procure an abortion magnifies the violation of rape, 100 fold, after all.  Why?  Let me list a few of the reasons.  Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death behind HIV/aids, worldwide? Check.  Pregnancy lasts nine months?  Check. Pregnancy physically changes/injures a woman’s body irreparably?  Check. Pregnancy/labour/delivery are the greatest physical burden imposed on one group of each set of organisms, but humans especially?  Check. 

     

  • arekushieru

    Every time you support non-consensual pregnancy, you support non-consensual sex.  

    And I have yet to hear a good argument a) that an organ recipient is NOT a human being, thus should not be granted a right to live at the expense of all other rights or b) they’re human beings that an organ donor should be able to kill if their life is not threatened and they were not complicit in the failure of the recipient’s organ.

  • beenthere72

    Wow, but not surprising coming from him.   As Bei, his true sociopathic colors shined bright.    Everything was ‘funny, if I raped you…’  ‘funny, if I murdered you…’

     

    Zero respect for women.   We are mere objects.  Incubators with tits. 

     

    I’m betting he still lives at home, but wonder how he treats his own mother.

  • crowepps

    What’s it’s “about” is Nothing’s misconception that the whole thing is all about HIM — that he can demand that the woman’s decision be acceptable to HIM — that the moral agency at the center of the decision is HIS — that the woman is ‘disallowed’ from doing things on the basis they annoy / offend / dismay HIM.   Because it’s his unconscious assumption that no matter what the issue is that arises, no matter what facts are in question, when the point is reached where real decisions have to be  made by real people, the VITAL CENTER of the entire question is satisfying HIM

  • squirrely-girl

    … Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930

     

    Granted, I lack the chance for a good differential diagnosis but based on the lengthy posts over time I’ve narrowed it down to that, Asperger’s, or Bipolar I where the manic episodes cycle into psychoses (which, by the way, is actually more likely in black men than other groups). 

     

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    You should probably stop pretending you have

  • rebellious-grrl

    goatnini great cartoon! This is going up on my refrigerator.