96 replies to this topic

[imatfaal]

I was reading an article at Huff Post on the Arizona Birth Control Act (here) prompted by Moontanman's excellent thread. This bill (now on its way to Senate for a vote) allows to Employers to withhold contraception on religious grounds (not only if the organisation is a religious foundation - but any body can opt out) - and women who seek reimbursement for contraception will be able to be interrogated on the reasons they, in consultation with their doctor, decided contraception was necessary; they will also be required to prove it was for medical reasons. I was shocked that this would be seriously considered - but I suppose after the vitriolic rants of Rush Limbaugh on a similar matter on the national level I should have been more prepared.

Whilst I was reading that article a headline in the sidebar caught my eye: "Penn Governor makes unexpected remarks on Ultrasound bill" - now I had no idea what this could be about, and expected a story about another politician making an arse of himself when talking about science/medicine. But when I read the article I could not believe what I was reading:

Corbett reaffirmed his support for the "Women's Right to Know" Act, which would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a patient, offer her two personalized copies of the image and play and describe fetal heartbeat in detail before she can have an abortion -- "as long as it's not obtrusive."
...
Asked if he thinks the bill goes too far to make a woman look at the ultrasound image, Corbett responded, "You can't make anybody watch, okay? Because you just have to close your eyes.

Whilst posing as a women's rights issue - the bill is an attempt to hamper and further remove a woman's right to an abortion. From brief research very similar bills are at various stages through the legislative bodies of different states North Carolina (Senate is seeking to overturn Governor's veto - the House already has), Texas has already passed it, Ditto Minnesota....

Whilst reading about this bill/law that seems to mandate state invasion of a woman's body on religious grounds (trans-vaginal ultrasound are not ruled out) - I could not miss this link. Kansas, and Arizona are considering bills (Oklahoma has already passed one!) which allows doctors (by removing the possibility of "wrongful birth lawsuits") to lie to female patients about the health of their unborn child in order to prevent abortions. there are already 8 states that have enacted similar legislation.


I am horribly afraid that, in my ignorance, I have merely scratched the surface of this problem and my presentation of three bills does not demonstrate the enormity and scope of this movement away from women's right of self-determination and bodily privacy. But even from these three areas it is hard to conclude anything other than the religious right is determined to reduce the status and rights of women. The right of self-determination over reproduction is often seen as the most important step that a developing country can make towards an end to poverty, better societal rights in general, greater inclusivity etc. That a fair proportion of states in America are actively working in the opposite direction is criminal and moral barbarism - it is a return to the rights of women being trumped by the desires and passions of middle aged men. Women who have no control over their own reproduction are at a severe disadvantage in society - and the conclusion I am bound to make is that this is the very goal of these legislators.

[CaptainPanic]

That's all quite shocking! Is the US (or at least a number of states) turning into a fundamentalist religious country?
What's wrong with those people? Can't they see that this is just the same as the Taliban is doing in Afghanistan? It's nothing but religious oppression!

But then again, nobody in the religious states cares about the opinions of a Dutchman anymore. We have been dismissed as murderers of elderly people in the media, by the Santorum camp. (And when confronted with the fact that they used fabricated data, and plain lies, the spokesperson of Santorum did not answer).

My feeling about this is like with a natural disaster: I mourn for the victims. But at the same time, I am fascinated by it.

[iNow]

That's all quite shocking!

It's par for the course, really. It's stuff like this (and there IS more) that feeds the passion in some of my responses and replies, as it's not only embarrassing as all hell, but it's downright backwards, naive, and ignorant.

[Klaynos]

I've recently been reading more about this kind of thing and notably the stories of atheists who have "come out" to their families. It scares the bejessus out of me!

[Phi for All]

This is the result of a couple of generations of underfunding public schools. We have a huge amount of uneducated people (specifically science education) who are happy to let their church and political leaders make all the tough decisions for them because it makes their heads hurt to attempt rational thinking.

It's pathetic, and it fits in so well with our present economic/political climate that it almost seems engineered. Keep 'em dumb, rile 'em up over emotional issues so we can step in with control so they feel safe, and they'll never suspect what we're really doing.

[dimreepr]

It’s very scary stuff extrapolation leaves you with the possibility of a new crusade type campaign, with who knows who as the target.

[CharonY]

Wait what? The "Women's right to know act" actually passed? When I heard about it, I thought it was just rhetorics to galvanize the religious zealots, but what the heck?

[iNow]

It's gaining momentum in multiple states right now, actually.

http://whyevolutioni...ity-in-the-u-s/

[insane_alien]

bloody hell. how did they get away with that? surely thats all kinds of unconstitutional?

[Phi for All]

bloody hell. how did they get away with that? surely thats all kinds of unconstitutional?

And it will probably all boil down to that, lots of hand-waiving for something that will inevitably be struck down. In the meantime, it will galvanize the religious right to support the Republicans, and also take the focus off all the skeletons in the GOP closets, as well as help people ignore forget what happened with the last Republican president.

This will be especially important if the GOP doesn't field a popular enough candidate out of the four frontrunners. They may have to rally around Jeb Bush.

[insane_alien]

why are they allowed to pass such laws and bill if it is illegal then?

shouldn't proposals have to be vetted for such obvious things as this before they can be submitted for voting?

surely there is something in their procedures that means they check if it will be overruled by a more fundemental(i'm not too savvy on the US political/legal systems) law?

maybe i'm just looking at this from the wrong point of view. i only have experience of making rulesets and SOP's in the pharma industry where they have to work and be non-contradictory and always legal.

[Phi for All]

why are they allowed to pass such laws and bill if it is illegal then?

shouldn't proposals have to be vetted for such obvious things as this before they can be submitted for voting?

surely there is something in their procedures that means they check if it will be overruled by a more fundemental(i'm not too savvy on the US political/legal systems) law?

maybe i'm just looking at this from the wrong point of view. i only have experience of making rulesets and SOP's in the pharma industry where they have to work and be non-contradictory and always legal.

The bill passed the House of Representatives and is being sent to the Senate. It's not a done deal yet.

It's entirely possible that a bill can be pushed through Congress only to be thrown out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Of course, this Supreme Court also voted to give corporations the rights of people a few years ago.

This is so typical of US politics, bringing up all kinds of stupid, shitty initiatives when there are thousands of more important things they should be focused on. All to pretend they really care about the non-political concerns of a large block of voters. And shame on the religious right for bringing their Church into our State.

[swansont]

Funny how providing V1agra and C1alis doesn't seem to evoke any moral outrage. Does anyone check to see if the man is married? Does the wife get notification of the prescription being filled?

[JustinW]

Color me ignorant but I think I'll speak. This conversation seems too one sided, so I think I can give you guys a few reasons to yell at me.
Most employers pay for their employees health insurance, so why wouldn't they have a say in what kind of insurance that applies to? If you don't want them mandating what type of treatment they pay for, then pay for it yourself. Sounds kinda simple to me. Also sounds like people are whining that they're getting something for free but it's not good enough.

Also a reasonable arguement(in my mind) on the whole ultrasound with abortion issue, is "why not"? (ignorant, I know) But you wouldn't want a woman to have an abortion without fully understanding exactly what they're doing would you? How many do you think may regret an abortion after they've had one? How many would have a change of heart after seeing that ultrasound? Do you think any would be greatfull afterward? I don't see what the big deal. You gotta look at what you kill. Can't be pullin' the trigger with your eyes closed. And if you have a bad feeling about doing it, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

[Phi for All]

Color me ignorant but I think I'll speak. This conversation seems too one sided, so I think I can give you guys a few reasons to yell at me.
Most employers pay for their employees health insurance, so why wouldn't they have a say in what kind of insurance that applies to? If you don't want them mandating what type of treatment they pay for, then pay for it yourself. Sounds kinda simple to me. Also sounds like people are whining that they're getting something for free but it's not good enough.

For starters, because they're applying it to women only. Is that the way you want your country to treat women (ask your wife if you're unclear; she's probably like you and doesn't like one-sided arguments). As swansont said, they aren't going to be asking why the man is taking Viagra, even though there's a huge amount of men who take it but don't have erectile dysfunction. Your employer is paying for their fun, as opposed to unwanted pregnancies.

[JustinW]

For starters, because they're applying it to women only.

It would be kinda weird if they didn't.

Is that the way you want your country to treat women

And how is exactly is that a mistreatment?

Your employer is paying for their fun, as opposed to unwanted pregnancies.

And my first point was, they're paying, their decision.

[Vent]

Most employers pay for their employees health insurance, so why wouldn't they have a say in what kind of insurance that applies to?

Employers don't pay for the health insurance, the employee does, it's just not written on your payslip so it can be labelled as an incentive to work for said company. Your salary is lower because of these incentives.

[JustinW]

Employers don't pay for the health insurance, the employee does, it's just not written on your payslip so it can be labelled as an incentive to work for said company. Your salary is lower because of these incentives.

Could be. But. That can reasonably be denied.

[Vent]

<br />That can reasonably be denied.<br />

You betcha ;-)

[Phi for All]

It would be kinda weird if they didn't.

I didn't expect intellectual dishonesty from you, Justin.

And how is exactly is that a mistreatment?

Singling out women for doctor-prescribed birth control or abortion requirements when they aren't targeting men who get doctor-prescribed penile enhancement drugs. What if it was the woman's husband or boyfriend who wanted his lady to get the abortion? This bill doesn't require HIM to watch one being done.

And my first point was, they're paying, their decision.

Absolutely not. Your medical insurance is part of your compensation package, not some gallantry on the part of the employer. If your employer were trying to deny this on his own, he'd get thrown in jail. This bill is just trying to make it legal for your employer to ignore the complaints they'd be bound to get.

Edited by Phi for All, 16 March 2012 - 09:15 PM.
addition of another point