• julie-watkins

    hostility to even the appearance of endorsing health care for sexually active women drove the anti-choice coalition to vote this amendment down. 

    Ha!

  • princess-jourdan

    “It’s unclear yet if she’ll be required to sit in her room and write, “I will not be a dirty slut,” 100 times over in her best handwriting and be denied her cartoons for a week. “

     

    LOVE IT!!!! Hahaha!!

  • suburbangrrrl

    Maddow’s show.

     

    Finally, I’m glad the opposition is calling a spade a spade and going on the offensive. Great public education.

  • beenthere72

    anti-choice legislators are wasting the taxpayer’s money and everyone’s time with laws solely designed to harass women making private sexual health choices they disapprove of for reasons of sexism and anti-sex hysteria.

     

    I hope someone is keeping a tally on how much tax-payer money is being wasted on all this proposed legislation legislation?  Just like the NYC National Debt Clock?

     

    I’m sure we’ll get another good Jon Stewart clip out of this.

  • freetobe

    any of our pro-choice Senators will come up with really good ammendments like these? It is about time!

    The ERA comes up this month although I am sure it will be flushed down the toilet but if it ever had a chance to pass women would be freed from all this garbage being thrown at them by the rightie, wrongies.

    So they should make an ultimatum pass the ERA or make ALL women tax exempt. I mean why should women who will have no rights at all in this country have to pay taxes for anything especially since we will not be able to afford to take care of not only our children but ourselves and since we obviously cannot be considered even human since we have no rights.( I mean dogs don’t pay taxes niether do horses. )Why should us non-human women have to either?

  • datasnake

    We NEED to make this a big issue. I think there needs to be some kind of “women’s union”. Think about it: women are a majority in this country. If all women voted the same way, they would pretty much get to set policy. Of course, there will inevitably be Bachmann/Palin/Schlafly type fucktards, but I think you could find enough genuinely good men to make up the difference several times over. The Big Fear™ (to be played up by the Fox Populi) if such a bloc was mobilized would, naturally, be the possibility of “tyranny of the majority”, i.e. a totally matriarchal society with men as a repressed underclass. But there are four reasons such a situation would never arise, all simple enough that even a Fox viewer could probably get it:

    1. Women have consciences (OK, there are a FEW female sociopaths, but you get what I mean).

    2. Most women have men they know and care about personally: fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, and just plain friends. It’s a lot harder to oppress someone when you see them as a human being.

    3. The power of the women’s bloc would depend on a near-unanimous position within the group. Unless ALL women decided to go nuts at the same time, they would be fragmented enough that men’s swing vote could easily prevent anything drastic.

    4. The ERA is, as written, actually completely gender neutral. If ratified, it would guarantee that even if women somehow made up 90 percent of the populace, the remaining 10 percent would be protected.

    Actually, that last point may be just what you need to convince the gynophobes and MRAs that they, too would benefit from the ERA’s passage.

  • kater7

    @DataSnake:

    I’ve often thought about that: if all women could figure out a way to go on strike for a week to show just how much power we have. The world could not run without us and I’m sure there a lot of men who know that and would also go on strike for support. The problem is a plan and a way to connect everyone or enough women/men to make it work without the ‘opposition’ catching on and giving some concessions to make it stop.

     But I’m on board if anyone starts a women’s union!

Mobile Theme