Let's Just Say It, the Republicans Are the Problem

[Enki]

Hatred of the 1960s won't carry people much farther as fewer and fewer people are alive who remember the 50s.

[Mr. Perfect]

Lots and LOTS of people remember the 80's, and LOVE that Ronald Reagan. He just keeps getting more popular. That will reap dividends for another few decades. More than enough to finish off the Democrats for good.

[cincinnatus]

So, to maintain civility, I'll add to that refocus by saying I find it odd that you, who would mock Spengler for the flawed premise that demographics can't change, have decided that in this case, demographics is destiny. I'll say further, that there is certainly a full-court press to gin up a "war on women" by your party and certain allies in the media (although why a women letting men blow semen in their vagina and demand someone else pay for the birth control doesn't strike me as womens' health care in the previous war on women "controversy"). I guess we'll see the results this and future years. Realistically, I'd like to see numbers. How many people use the services? What are the costs? What is the ratio? What are the alternatives? Can the costs be halved by devolving to the states?

Well the premise as he applied it was flawed as he didn't take immigration into account and all sorts of other things.

I did say that the Republican party would either die out or become a completely different party. The Republican party does become a very different beast every 30 years or so. If the Republican party can change radically then it will be able to survive and recruit. If it turns into a different party, that's fine. This current incarnation won't survive.

Seems to me that a lot of women, even Republican women are not taking too kindly to their treatment by the party. You can insist on this or that, but if the Republican women disagree seriously with Republican men on some core issues, that's pretty relevant don't you think?

Re the first, good. I just doubt there's time for gradual evolution between either party.

Re the second, I'd really like to read what was the reason the GOP ladies voted for the bill, unless they really don't have a problem with a bill about "women" now including men, as the WP story I read covered the reason why the dudes claimed they didn't vote for it. If women leave the GOP enmasse, it will absolutely accelerate their demise. It's interesting, but I really don't care. The sooner we get a unipolar party that has no one else to blame and nowhere to hide from the flaws of their policies, be they D or R, the better. Have at it.

Aside from this specific bill and my disgust with changing a good bill that's gone multiple years with high votes to renew in what appears an obvious partisan ploy, I would want specifics. Are the GOP bad because of opposition to abortion? Availability of women's health clinics? Are they excluded from the central organs of decision-making? Is the argument really that they want to beat women and drag them by their hair to the kitchen?

My honest opinion is that if you believe their policies will/do cause harm to women, then by all means, make a reasoned argument. I dislike when I peel the layer of a story like this and find what seems like the sin of ommission to prove some desired point. I dislike hyperbole to gain political points, especially when it includes an implied inner motive of a fellow citizen (in this case, politicians of the D party who are in reality friendly with their R colleagues, pretending that the R's have some desire to destroy women, but cases certainly be made towards the Rs in how they imply hidden motives in the policies of the Ds). If both sides believed the lavender they spew about the other, they would never shake hands and smile to each other...they'd kill each other to protect us from the evil they claim the other side desires. (Ibrahim, this is my explanation for your comment earlier).

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

[Ibrahim]

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

And this is what strikes people as fundamentally anti-women and unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of adults in America are sexually active, and contraceptive methods are a reality for %99 of women in America. To exclude contraception from health care coverage plans and justify that by saying that, well, maybe women shouldn't have sex then is so backwards and barbaric to me that it sounds like a Taliban policy.

But I honestly believe you have no idea how this comes across, and therefore it is very believable to me that the GOP is fighting a war on women with most of the rank and file not even realizing it.


As for Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications are covered under various health plans in Canada and Europe. I don't have a problem with including them. Sexual function is a normal part of every adult's life and this should be reflected in their medical care/coverage. Regardless of gender.

This is something that could be an issue in no developed nation except the US.

[Mr. Perfect]

And this is what strikes people as fundamentally anti-women and unreasonable.

The polling data mostly contradicts you.

The overwhelming majority of adults in America are sexually active, and contraceptive methods are a reality for %99 of women in America. To exclude contraception from health care coverage plans and justify that by saying that, well, maybe women shouldn't have sex then is so backwards and barbaric to me that it sounds like a Taliban policy.

But I honestly believe you have no idea how this comes across, and therefore it is very believable to me that the GOP is fighting a war on women with most of the rank and file not even realizing it.

Including women. Maybe tampons should be covered next.

As for Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications are covered under various health plans in Canada and Europe. I don't have a problem with including them. Sexual function is a normal part of every adult's life and this should be reflected in their medical care/coverage. Regardless of gender.

This is something that could be an issue in no developed nation except the US.

Most developed nations do not concern themselves on principle with what powers the government should have. They let the gov't do whatever if they feel like. That is why I am an American and not one of you.

[cincinnatus]

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

And this is what strikes people as fundamentally anti-women and unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of adults in America are sexually active, and contraceptive methods are a reality for %99 of women in America. To exclude contraception from health care coverage plans and justify that by saying that, well, maybe women shouldn't have sex then is so backwards and barbaric to me that it sounds like a Taliban policy.

But I honestly believe you have no idea how this comes across, and therefore it is very believable to me that the GOP is fighting a war on women with most of the rank and file not even realizing it.


As for Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications are covered under various health plans in Canada and Europe. I don't have a problem with including them. Sexual function is a normal part of every adult's life and this should be reflected in their medical care/coverage. Regardless of gender.

This is something that could be an issue in no developed nation except the US.

Ibrahim, why is it anti-woman or erectil dysfunctioning men? Am I having a war on women and men? How is it "health care?" Shouldn't health care be about life and limb? Maybe if it was, items like birth control pills and Viagra would be as cheap and available as condoms. Taliban-like? That is ridiculous because the argument isn't about denying someone something and then punishing them for it, such as sending girls to school and then having them doused in acid as a punishment. Nowhere in my argument is a call to deny someone's right to buy what they want. Nor do I call for punishing "sex" as you wrongly accuse (if I argued like you, I'd be calling you a liar right now ). I simply say sex is a choice and it might cost $10 of your own money for that pill or box of condoms. Or ask the man to pull out. Why is that controversial? If it is, might as well say that the alcohol needed to get in the mood should be covered too. Hell, if I had my way, there would be a market for you to start a health insurance plan that covers it and you could get rich! You could even start "pro-f-cking" businesses that only hire employees who demand the company's insurance pay for contraception. If another business chose an insurance plan that didn't cover contraception, they could freely deal with the consequences.

If most American citizens disagree and demand someone else pay, fine. I won't throw acid on anyone's face. That's what the Taliban would do. I'll simply demand free X-Box games as necessary of my mental health. And what religious zealot would deny my mental health over a measly $60 a month for a new game?

[Mr. Perfect]

I think tampons should be covered. All adult women deal with tampons. If you don't agree with that you are like the Taliban, and this would not be an issue in any other part of the developed world.

[Mr. Perfect]

Cinc, of course coverage issues are market based, or they were until over time the 50 state insurance commissioners have heaped mandates like bc coverage over the decades and we are here in this cadillac care/going banrkupt environment. It used to be we had lots of policies and packages to choose from but the state governments have been shutting that down for a long time.

Of course state slavers and socialists may not even realize this, and therefore may not realize that they come off like midwives to oppressive government, again.

[Ibrahim]

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

And this is what strikes people as fundamentally anti-women and unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of adults in America are sexually active, and contraceptive methods are a reality for %99 of women in America. To exclude contraception from health care coverage plans and justify that by saying that, well, maybe women shouldn't have sex then is so backwards and barbaric to me that it sounds like a Taliban policy.

But I honestly believe you have no idea how this comes across, and therefore it is very believable to me that the GOP is fighting a war on women with most of the rank and file not even realizing it.


As for Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications are covered under various health plans in Canada and Europe. I don't have a problem with including them. Sexual function is a normal part of every adult's life and this should be reflected in their medical care/coverage. Regardless of gender.

This is something that could be an issue in no developed nation except the US.

Ibrahim, why is it anti-woman or erectil dysfunctioning men? How is it "health care?" Shouldn't health care be about life and limb?

I would argue that "health" includes all biological functions. Particularly given that there are connections between looking after specifically sexual health and the development of other chronic conditions, again disproportionately effecting women.

Maybe if it was, items like birth control pills and Viagra would be as cheap and available as condoms. Taliban-like? That is ridiculous because the argument isn't about denying someone something and then punishing them for it, such as sending girls to school and then having them doused in acid as a punishment. Nowhere in my argument is a call to deny someone's right to buy what they want. Nor do I call for punishing "sex" as you wrongly accuse (if I argued like you, I'd be calling you a liar right now ). I simply say sex is a choice and it might cost $10 of your own money for that pill or box of condoms.

I think it does punish women for being sexually active, men as well really but moreso women because suffer more biological consequences from unsafe sex. It's not a vial of acid to the face, but there is an element of moralizing in this. The idea that sex is a separate, discretionary part of your overall healthcare. If someone is entitled to health coverage, why should it exclude this aspect of their health except for obscure moral/religious reasons?

Or ask the man to pull out. Why is that controversial?

You are aware of the unreliability of this method, not to mention the fact that birth control pills serve other functions besides specifically preventing pregnancy, right? Even so, the main issue here is excluding sexual health from the rest of an individual's health care. Offering alternative methods doesn't really ameliorate that separation, on an ethical/philosophical level.

If it is, might as well say that the alcohol needed to get in the mood should be covered too. Hell, if I had my way, there would be a market for you to start a health insurance plan that covers it and you could get rich! You could even start "pro-f-cking" businesses that only hire employees who demand the company's insurance pay for contraception. If another business chose an insurance plan that didn't cover contraception, they could freely deal with the consequences.

I don't think Americans need any help actually genuflecting, they just need access to the medical advances that enable them to do so safely and without damaging their health.

[cincinnatus]

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

And this is what strikes people as fundamentally anti-women and unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of adults in America are sexually active, and contraceptive methods are a reality for %99 of women in America. To exclude contraception from health care coverage plans and justify that by saying that, well, maybe women shouldn't have sex then is so backwards and barbaric to me that it sounds like a Taliban policy.

But I honestly believe you have no idea how this comes across, and therefore it is very believable to me that the GOP is fighting a war on women with most of the rank and file not even realizing it.


As for Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications are covered under various health plans in Canada and Europe. I don't have a problem with including them. Sexual function is a normal part of every adult's life and this should be reflected in their medical care/coverage. Regardless of gender.

This is something that could be an issue in no developed nation except the US.

Ibrahim, why is it anti-woman or erectil dysfunctioning men? How is it "health care?" Shouldn't health care be about life and limb?

I would argue that "health" includes all biological functions. Particularly given that there are connections between looking after specifically sexual health and the development of other chronic conditions, again disproportionately effecting women.

Maybe if it was, items like birth control pills and Viagra would be as cheap and available as condoms. Taliban-like? That is ridiculous because the argument isn't about denying someone something and then punishing them for it, such as sending girls to school and then having them doused in acid as a punishment. Nowhere in my argument is a call to deny someone's right to buy what they want. Nor do I call for punishing "sex" as you wrongly accuse (if I argued like you, I'd be calling you a liar right now ). I simply say sex is a choice and it might cost $10 of your own money for that pill or box of condoms.

I think it does punish women for being sexually active, men as well really but moreso women because suffer more biological consequences from unsafe sex. It's not a vial of acid to the face, but there is an element of moralizing in this. The idea that sex is a separate, discretionary part of your overall healthcare. If someone is entitled to health coverage, why should it exclude this aspect of their health except for obscure moral/religious reasons?

Or ask the man to pull out. Why is that controversial?

You are aware of the unreliability of this method, not to mention the fact that birth control pills serve other functions besides specifically preventing pregnancy, right? Even so, the main issue here is excluding sexual health from the rest of an individual's health care. Offering alternative methods doesn't really ameliorate that separation, on an ethical/philosophical level.

If it is, might as well say that the alcohol needed to get in the mood should be covered too. Hell, if I had my way, there would be a market for you to start a health insurance plan that covers it and you could get rich! You could even start "pro-f-cking" businesses that only hire employees who demand the company's insurance pay for contraception. If another business chose an insurance plan that didn't cover contraception, they could freely deal with the consequences.

I don't think Americans need any help actually genuflecting, they just need access to the medical advances that enable them to do so safely and without damaging their health.

Ibrahim, our argument isn't about "moralizing" about sex. It centers on my part on the responsibilities of choices people make and how they can cope with it, and on your part that sexual functioning is a part of the full-spectrum of health care. In my argument, it just so happens to be in a realm where a person makes a choice to engage in an activity that could have negative consequences. Especially if they have the financial means to pay for a box of condoms, or at least a co-pay for meds. See? No call to deny someone anything.

Now, unlike you, I don't call people who disagree liars or the Taliban. Your argument that health care must include sexual health and women suffering a disproportionate amount of cost if contraceptives are not forced into coverage isn't the argument of a Eugenic Commie. I don't think it's unreasonable to debate whether a fully functioning organ that doesn't require medication to continue to be a functioning organ (which defeats my Viagra position) is really health care. Granted, there are always exceptions, such as women who have violently painful periods and the contraceptives help alleviate that. At a minimum, I don't think it is a "war on ______" to say people should at least pay a co-pay for their contraceptives or erectile dysfunction meds.

I'll even say "who knows? I could be wrong" and I'm willing to have a back-and-forth discussion. I'm not trying to play internet big-dick games. I'm trying to have conversations with this group of interesting and diverse people. As for the politics, why worry? NO political party in the U.S. is arguing for my position at all. Even the Repubs are only fighting for the Catholic (vote) charities and hospitals under the guise of religous freedom.

[Ibrahim]

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

And this is what strikes people as fundamentally anti-women and unreasonable. The overwhelming majority of adults in America are sexually active, and contraceptive methods are a reality for %99 of women in America. To exclude contraception from health care coverage plans and justify that by saying that, well, maybe women shouldn't have sex then is so backwards and barbaric to me that it sounds like a Taliban policy.

But I honestly believe you have no idea how this comes across, and therefore it is very believable to me that the GOP is fighting a war on women with most of the rank and file not even realizing it.


As for Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications are covered under various health plans in Canada and Europe. I don't have a problem with including them. Sexual function is a normal part of every adult's life and this should be reflected in their medical care/coverage. Regardless of gender.

This is something that could be an issue in no developed nation except the US.

Ibrahim, why is it anti-woman or erectil dysfunctioning men? How is it "health care?" Shouldn't health care be about life and limb?

I would argue that "health" includes all biological functions. Particularly given that there are connections between looking after specifically sexual health and the development of other chronic conditions, again disproportionately effecting women.

Maybe if it was, items like birth control pills and Viagra would be as cheap and available as condoms. Taliban-like? That is ridiculous because the argument isn't about denying someone something and then punishing them for it, such as sending girls to school and then having them doused in acid as a punishment. Nowhere in my argument is a call to deny someone's right to buy what they want. Nor do I call for punishing "sex" as you wrongly accuse (if I argued like you, I'd be calling you a liar right now ). I simply say sex is a choice and it might cost $10 of your own money for that pill or box of condoms.

I think it does punish women for being sexually active, men as well really but moreso women because suffer more biological consequences from unsafe sex. It's not a vial of acid to the face, but there is an element of moralizing in this. The idea that sex is a separate, discretionary part of your overall healthcare. If someone is entitled to health coverage, why should it exclude this aspect of their health except for obscure moral/religious reasons?

Or ask the man to pull out. Why is that controversial?

You are aware of the unreliability of this method, not to mention the fact that birth control pills serve other functions besides specifically preventing pregnancy, right? Even so, the main issue here is excluding sexual health from the rest of an individual's health care. Offering alternative methods doesn't really ameliorate that separation, on an ethical/philosophical level.

If it is, might as well say that the alcohol needed to get in the mood should be covered too. Hell, if I had my way, there would be a market for you to start a health insurance plan that covers it and you could get rich! You could even start "pro-f-cking" businesses that only hire employees who demand the company's insurance pay for contraception. If another business chose an insurance plan that didn't cover contraception, they could freely deal with the consequences.

I don't think Americans need any help actually genuflecting, they just need access to the medical advances that enable them to do so safely and without damaging their health.

Ibrahim, our argument isn't about "moralizing" about sex. It centers on my part on the responsibilities of choices people make and how they can cope with it, and on your part that sexual functioning is a part of the full-spectrum of health care. In my argument, it just so happens to be in a realm where a person makes a choice to engage in an activity that could have negative consequences. Especially if they have the financial means to pay for a box of condoms, or at least a co-pay for meds. See? No call to deny someone anything.

Of course it does. It's denying them contraception as part of a health care plan.

Now, unlike you, I don't call people who disagree liars or the Taliban.

I call liars liars. Here I compared the separation of female sexual activity from the rest of their health care concerns and describing it as a matter of choice to an attitude about women's sexuality that is reminiscent of that of the Taliban or other religious extremists. Women should shut the genuflect up, pay for their own contraceptives regardless of whether or not they have health coverage, and if they don't want to pay for their pills they can just not have sex or "have the man pull out" as you sagely advised. It is pretty comically backwards thinking, even if the Taliban comparison is hyperbole.

Your argument that health care must include sexual health and women suffering a disproportionate amount of cost if contraceptives are not forced into coverage isn't the argument of a Eugenic Commie. I don't think it's unreasonable to debate whether a fully functioning organ that doesn't require medication to continue to be a functioning organ (which defeats my Viagra position) is really health care. Granted, there are always exceptions, such as women who have violently painful periods and the contraceptives help alleviate that. At a minimum, I don't think it is a "war on ______" to say people should at least pay a co-pay for their contraceptives or erectile dysfunction meds.

I think the attitude of Republicans towards contraception are only one aspect of the proposed "war on women." It was your comment that this "war on women" was a product of Democratic invention, right before espousing precisely one of the views attributed to Republicans as part of this "war on women "that first drew my attention.

I'll even say "who knows? I could be wrong" and I'm willing to have a back-and-forth discussion. I'm not trying to play internet big-dick games. I'm trying to have conversations with this group of interesting and diverse people. As for the politics, why worry? NO political party in the U.S. is arguing for my position at all. Even the Repubs are only fighting for the Catholic (vote) charities and hospitals under the guise of religous freedom.

Well I don't know that your views are so different from those of the Republican party, or at least their initial position before the "war on women" catchphrase started to gain traction. The premise of this thread is that "the Republicans are the problem" in American politics today. That's making a stronger case than I would make, but I do think there is some fire underneath all of the "war on women" smoke.

[Mr. Perfect]

Of course it does. It's denying them contraception as part of a health care plan.

False. There are no laws saying health plans cannot pay for contraception. No one is being denied contraception by the government.

I call liars liars. Here I compared the separation of female sexual activity from the rest of their health care concerns and describing it as a matter of choice to an attitude about women's sexuality that is reminiscent of that of the Taliban or other religious extremists. Women should shut the genuflect up, pay for their own contraceptives regardless of whether or not they have health coverage, and if they don't want to pay for their pills they can just not have sex or "have the man pull out" as you sagely advised. It is pretty comically backwards thinking, even if the Taliban comparison is hyperbole.

No it isn't. People in all nations pay for all kinds of health care related items not covered by government programs. Nothing special about contraception.

Contraception has historically not been covered by private insurance because you can either buy it yourself or pay a higher premium and have an insurance company buy it, sort of a pointless logic loop.

I think the attitude of Republicans towards contraception are only one aspect of the proposed "war on women." It was your comment that this "war on women" was a product of Democratic invention, right before espousing precisely one of the views attributed to Republicans as part of this "war on women "that first drew my attention.

The war on women was completely made up by Democrats on purpose, Republicans have argued against all kind of insurance mandates for decades, and birth control has long been a football in this game. For people actually knowledgeable about the topic when Obamacare made such mandates federal this was just a matter of time for Democrats to use it as a fake outrage story. Predictably the unthinking/dishonest knee-jerk leftist reaction has been what it has been.

Well I don't know that your views are so different from those of the Republican party, or at least their initial position before the "war on women" catchphrase started to gain traction. The premise of this thread is that "the Republicans are the problem" in American politics today. That's making a stronger case than I would make, but I do think there is some fire underneath all of the "war on women" smoke.

Absolutely none. The real war on women in this country is the sexual assualts on women in the airports, perpetrated by the Obama administration.

So once again wrong on all counts.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this idea that the aggressor party introduces new legislation that is not universally agreed upon, and its an "act of war" by the party defending the status quo or their own corporate boundaries. The spirit of President James K. Polk is alive and well.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Youngsters don't vote reliably. Then they become oldters and vote GOP reliably. I like this trend.

But that isn't your problem- by the time they become old they are pretty set in their ways and are further left than the previous generation. Those kids are busy building the infrastructure; just because they don't want to pay for it later doesn't really matter by that point. It's an ablative strategy that works.

So what do you then?

^^This exactly.

In my thirties I can reach teenagers. In my 50s, I cannot. It's really rather simple. The Manhattan Young Democrats organization has grown since 2008 from 25 members to over 300. 300 people between the ages of 18 and 36 can do a lot of outreach. I know people organizing walkouts in the High Schools to protest school closures tomorrow. Those people are reaching THOUSANDS of teenagers and showing them that they actually CAN affect political outcomes. So who is going to reach those young people? The people who are ALREADY ORGANIZING THEM?

The candidate I am working with played a role in taking out Ted Stevens in Alaska, just sayin'.

But you Mr.Thirty Year Old hanging out with high schoolers is just a reinforcement of what they already have learned. You are just trying to get them to act on their prejudices in a habitual manner.

[Aferim]

Aside from this specific bill and my disgust with changing a good bill that's gone multiple years with high votes to renew in what appears an obvious partisan ploy, I would want specifics. Are the GOP bad because of opposition to abortion? Availability of women's health clinics? Are they excluded from the central organs of decision-making? Is the argument really that they want to beat women and drag them by their hair to the kitchen?

You tell me. While I generally lean Republican, the whole wing of religious nutjobs trying their darnest to piss off educated women is a mystery to me.

My honest opinion is that if you believe their policies will/do cause harm to women, then by all means, make a reasoned argument.

Well, the argument here is not about the average woman. The average woman is well-educated and wealthy and responsible enough to make sure that she's using birth control whenever she does not wish to become pregnant.

The argument about state-provided access to birth control is in regards to the most vulnerable woman category - poor, undereducated and probably unemployed. Especially in America, where the medical insurance is often paid for by work. It is such women who are most under pressure, and the marginal cost of throwing $50/mo on birth control will be most keenly felt by them. Some of them are indeed moochers who do not want to work and want someone else to pay for their existence. Some of them are not.

Now, aside from a religious reason, what other argument can there be for denying birth control for these women? You speak of personal responsibility? That won't fly. These women know that they are in a bad financial position to provide for children, and would rather do the responsible thing and not have them. Some of them will try to pay out of pocket, if denied state coverage, while some will simply "wing" it and have sex with less reliable protection (like condoms that often break, or that men refuse to wear), or no protection at all ("I'll pull out, baby"). A proportion of these women will get pregnant without wanting to as a result of this.

No, as far as I can see it, the argument is a purely moral one. On one side there are secularists, who think sex is a perfectly normal activity and people should be free to pursue it, while eliminating the chance of pregancy if they wish to, and on the other side there are a subset of religious people who think sex is a Bad Thing (best saved for someone you love), and want to make sex as painful and difficult to have for these poor people as possible.

Of course, someone will cry out: "Well, have less sex, for crying out loud." Easier said than done. Again, the people we're talking about (the ones most likely to be affected by the policy) are not the most provident forward looking women, but high-school dropouts and the like. That kinda suggests that they have poor impulse control to begin with. They exist, and they will have sex, whether you (or some sect's priests) like it or not. The only question is whether we think we, they and society are better off with such women having more or fewer offspring when their themselves wish not to have more offspring. Personally, I think that a woman who doesn't wish to be a mother would make a relatively bad mother.

I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence.

I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to go skying and demands someone else pay for insurance so they can do so without consequence (if they break their leg).
If you're willing to pay for insurance for someone who breaks their leg while skying, why is it different to pay taxes that cover someone's medical birth-control costs?
The only answer that I can think of is that you think there's something FUNDAMENTALLY different between other health-risking entertainment (such as skying) and sex, that it is SINFUL in some way. You think that having sex SHOULD have consequences, while you don't think that going skying shouldn't have to pay the full cost of medical care. Why is that?

[Mr. Perfect]

Aferim no offense but I think you're way off here:

1: BC has largely not been covered by private insurance even though the gov't does not ban it since the founding and somehow we're all still here and became the most economically successful nation in world history. When you have an item of coverage where you just bump up your premium by the amount of benefit per member per month you form an actuarial logic loop, and insurance on any industry generally does not cover such items. Like say tampons.

2: Nobody is banning BC. Nobody at all. Nobody at all is talking about banning bc. Nobody in the whole wide world is talking about banning bc. Nobody at all.

3: One of the reasons we are in the position we are in with hc is because the gov't keeps heaping these kinds of demands on insurance companies.

4: There actually is a religion that thinks bc is wrong (I do not belong to such a religion and like most non-Catholics do not understand their objection) and while I do not find bc objectionable in any way there are many things liberals want to do that I do find objectionable and unconscionable, and if we give the government the power to force Catholics to do things against their conscience it's just a matter of time until they do it to you, or me, and frankly the government needs to have the power to do such things dramatically curtailed.

[Aferim]

Aferim no offense but I think you're way off here:

1: BC has largely not been covered by private insurance even though the gov't does not ban it since the founding and somehow we're all still here and became the most economically successful nation in world history. When you have an item of coverage where you just bump up your premium by the amount of benefit per member per month you form an actuarial logic loop, and insurance on any industry generally does not cover such items. Like say tampons.

Actually all my employees have BC covered by private insurance. I don't know if what you're saying is true. I'd welcome some figures on the % of plans that include BC. I will say I jumped in on the thread and assumed this is about the minimum state-provided level of health-insurance, a la Massachusetts or Obamacare, not about purely private plans.

2: Nobody is banning BC. Nobody at all. Nobody at all is talking about banning bc. Nobody in the whole wide world is talking about banning bc. Nobody at all.

I made no argument involving banning BC. I made an argument that state-provided (or state-subsidized) health care -including BC- will benefit women who are undereducated and underemployed, while its absence will result in such women having more unwanted children.

3: One of the reasons we are in the position we are in with hc is because the gov't keeps heaping these kinds of demands on insurance companies.

What position are we in?

4: There actually is a religion that thinks bc is wrong (I do not belong to such a religion and like most non-Catholics do not understand their objection) and while I do not find bc objectionable in any way there are many things liberals want to do that I do find objectionable and unconscionable, and if we give the government the power to force Catholics to do things against their conscience it's just a matter of time until they do it to you, or me, and frankly the government needs to have the power to do such things dramatically curtailed.

I dunno about Catholics, but I always thought that if you want to be a pharmacist, you should be willing to sell the drugs that are present in your pharmacy. If you work for a pharma chain that provides BC, you sell BC. If you own your own business, it's entirely your business, of course.

If you will, I think the more fundamental problem here are the tax exemption for health care. If you ask me, employers have no business buying health insurance for their employees. For three reasons: subsidizing (via not taxing) health-plans encourages employers to offer wasteful plans as an alternative to higher wages, which encourages overconsumption of healthcare. Second, healthcare providers react to this situation by charging insanely high fees that the consumer does not feel, since the co-pays are generally tiny. Third, it decreases labor market flexibility by making sick people literally unable to leave their jobs for fear of going bankrupt with horrid bills.

[Aferim]

Post script

When you have an item of coverage where you just bump up your premium by the amount of benefit per member per month you form an actuarial logic loop, and insurance on any industry generally does not cover such items. Like say tampons.

I am not convinced here. 1st, only women can take BC pills. 2nd, not all women take BC pills. 3rd there are other more long-lasting BC methods, such as implants and rings, that represent a major upfront cost, especially for low-income women, where having a regular (small) insurance cost instead makes a lot of sense.

[cincinnatus]

Aside from this specific bill and my disgust with changing a good bill that's gone multiple years with high votes to renew in what appears an obvious partisan ploy, I would want specifics. Are the GOP bad because of opposition to abortion? Availability of women's health clinics? Are they excluded from the central organs of decision-making? Is the argument really that they want to beat women and drag them by their hair to the kitchen?

You tell me. While I generally lean Republican, the whole wing of religious nutjobs trying their darnest to piss off educated women is a mystery to me.

My honest opinion is that if you believe their policies will/do cause harm to women, then by all means, make a reasoned argument.

Well, the argument here is not about the average woman. The average woman is well-educated and wealthy and responsible enough to make sure that she's using birth control whenever she does not wish to become pregnant.

The argument about state-provided access to birth control is in regards to the most vulnerable woman category - poor, undereducated and probably unemployed. Especially in America, where the medical insurance is often paid for by work. It is such women who are most under pressure, and the marginal cost of throwing $50/mo on birth control will be most keenly felt by them. Some of them are indeed moochers who do not want to work and want someone else to pay for their existence. Some of them are not.

Now, aside from a religious reason, what other argument can there be for denying birth control for these women? You speak of personal responsibility? That won't fly. These women know that they are in a bad financial position to provide for children, and would rather do the responsible thing and not have them. Some of them will try to pay out of pocket, if denied state coverage, while some will simply "wing" it and have sex with less reliable protection (like condoms that often break, or that men refuse to wear), or no protection at all ("I'll pull out, baby"). A proportion of these women will get pregnant without wanting to as a result of this.

No, as far as I can see it, the argument is a purely moral one. On one side there are secularists, who think sex is a perfectly normal activity and people should be free to pursue it, while eliminating the chance of pregancy if they wish to, and on the other side there are a subset of religious people who think sex is a Bad Thing (best saved for someone you love), and want to make sex as painful and difficult to have for these poor people as possible.

Of course, someone will cry out: "Well, have less sex, for crying out loud." Easier said than done. Again, the people we're talking about (the ones most likely to be affected by the policy) are not the most provident forward looking women, but high-school dropouts and the like. That kinda suggests that they have poor impulse control to begin with. They exist, and they will have sex, whether you (or some sect's priests) like it or not. The only question is whether we think we, they and society are better off with such women having more or fewer offspring when their themselves wish not to have more offspring. Personally, I think that a woman who doesn't wish to be a mother would make a relatively bad mother.

I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence.

I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to go skying and demands someone else pay for insurance so they can do so without consequence (if they break their leg).
If you're willing to pay for insurance for someone who breaks their leg while skying, why is it different to pay taxes that cover someone's medical birth-control costs?
The only answer that I can think of is that you think there's something FUNDAMENTALLY different between other health-risking entertainment (such as skying) and sex, that it is SINFUL in some way. You think that having sex SHOULD have consequences, while you don't think that going skying shouldn't have to pay the full cost of medical care. Why is that?

Let's keep my personal comments in perspective Aferim....they represent exactly 0% of U.S. political thought. The train has left the station, as you described to Mr. P regarding BC being part of your HC plan. The reason why is probably actuary-related, as a $600 annual BC bill is cheaper for the insurer than a $10-20K pregnancy and birth bill.

As for discussing lower-income folks having "free" or subsidized access, good. I'm all for means-testing. I just scratch my head when highly educated and above-average income folks say they can't afford a cheap co-pay. I also ask if BC is part of sexual health, which is part of health care, why do men not receive their own covered contraceptives and instead have to purchase it? As for trying to paint me as what you want to paint me as (some preacher saying Sex is SIN! Burn!!!" Sorry. No. I am not advocating criminalizing BC, forcing it to be removed from HC plans, etc. I am arguing it is not verboten to discuss it (or to be painted a Taliban or crypto-woman hater for having a conversation). My guess is even if companies were not forced by the Gov to provide BC coverage, they would from sheer actuary reasons anyway. I'm not even arguing that people should have less sex!!! F-ck all you want, but if you can afford a $90 data plan for your IPhone, tell me again why you can't afford $5 for a box of condoms? Sure, low-income people are the exceptions who should be subsidized. But, any attempt to say I want to deny someone anything is wrong and projecting what you want me to be.

The skiing example is an apples and oranges fallacy BTW. The biological norm for intercourse is fertilization of the egg, whereas the norm in skiing isn't dudes breaking their leg. A better example would be if I kept stepping into the ring with MMA fighters and breaking my face, then demanding free facial reconstruction surgery, because that is the statistical norm of what would happen.

I made a statement earlier that I still can't totally square...a normally functioning organ (the uterus) and someone wants a medication so the organ won't function naturally, so therefore this medication/device is part of health care. I really don't understand under that logic why the most basic needs of healthcare aren't free too....food and water. Without those, we die, so how is that not related to health care?

(and to all, my positions on single-payer, free trade, ending globo-cop/empire, the death penalty, war on drugs, gay marriage, gays in the military, corporations and political campaign fundraising would make me an outcast if I were to be a Republican, so I find it amusing that I am now the poster child for the Repubs on this thread. Maybe I hijacked it by adding my personal opinion. I thought it was relevant because the BC argument was when I first started seeing a symbiotic message from the Democrats and echoes in the main media outlets about a war on women, a phrase to that point I'd only heard in relation to violence against women on a CNN nightly show. )

[Enki]

Post script

When you have an item of coverage where you just bump up your premium by the amount of benefit per member per month you form an actuarial logic loop, and insurance on any industry generally does not cover such items. Like say tampons.

I am not convinced here. 1st, only women can take BC pills. 2nd, not all women take BC pills. 3rd there are other more long-lasting BC methods, such as implants and rings, that represent a major upfront cost, especially for low-income women, where having a regular (small) insurance cost instead makes a lot of sense.

This argument also doesn't take into account that Viagra is covered. What about asthma inhalers? Kids who have asthma need those all the time, so why not protest that?

Also, if we allowed bulk orders of BC we could provide it much cheaper.

And finally the problem here is that employers have anything at all to do with how one procures health insurance.

[Enki]

Cincinnatus Part of the problem is that BC is provided for many medical conditions such as endometriosis. By banning BC, it can doom a woman to crippling pain. That was a big part of the argument for anyone who was actually reading what women were complaining about. It wasn't just about controlling for birth, but that the BC pills are hormone therapy that treat a number of pathologies.

[Enki]

So, to maintain civility, I'll add to that refocus by saying I find it odd that you, who would mock Spengler for the flawed premise that demographics can't change, have decided that in this case, demographics is destiny. I'll say further, that there is certainly a full-court press to gin up a "war on women" by your party and certain allies in the media (although why a women letting men blow semen in their vagina and demand someone else pay for the birth control doesn't strike me as womens' health care in the previous war on women "controversy"). I guess we'll see the results this and future years. Realistically, I'd like to see numbers. How many people use the services? What are the costs? What is the ratio? What are the alternatives? Can the costs be halved by devolving to the states?

Well the premise as he applied it was flawed as he didn't take immigration into account and all sorts of other things.

I did say that the Republican party would either die out or become a completely different party. The Republican party does become a very different beast every 30 years or so. If the Republican party can change radically then it will be able to survive and recruit. If it turns into a different party, that's fine. This current incarnation won't survive.

Seems to me that a lot of women, even Republican women are not taking too kindly to their treatment by the party. You can insist on this or that, but if the Republican women disagree seriously with Republican men on some core issues, that's pretty relevant don't you think?

Re the first, good. I just doubt there's time for gradual evolution between either party.

Re the second, I'd really like to read what was the reason the GOP ladies voted for the bill, unless they really don't have a problem with a bill about "women" now including men, as the WP story I read covered the reason why the dudes claimed they didn't vote for it. If women leave the GOP enmasse, it will absolutely accelerate their demise. It's interesting, but I really don't care. The sooner we get a unipolar party that has no one else to blame and nowhere to hide from the flaws of their policies, be they D or R, the better. Have at it.

Aside from this specific bill and my disgust with changing a good bill that's gone multiple years with high votes to renew in what appears an obvious partisan ploy, I would want specifics. Are the GOP bad because of opposition to abortion? Availability of women's health clinics? Are they excluded from the central organs of decision-making? Is the argument really that they want to beat women and drag them by their hair to the kitchen?

My honest opinion is that if you believe their policies will/do cause harm to women, then by all means, make a reasoned argument. I dislike when I peel the layer of a story like this and find what seems like the sin of ommission to prove some desired point. I dislike hyperbole to gain political points, especially when it includes an implied inner motive of a fellow citizen (in this case, politicians of the D party who are in reality friendly with their R colleagues, pretending that the R's have some desire to destroy women, but cases certainly be made towards the Rs in how they imply hidden motives in the policies of the Ds). If both sides believed the lavender they spew about the other, they would never shake hands and smile to each other...they'd kill each other to protect us from the evil they claim the other side desires. (Ibrahim, this is my explanation for your comment earlier).

In terms of "free" birth control meds from the last argument, I disagree with the GOP position that the issue is about religious freedom. I honestly don't think any employer or taxpayer should foot the bill because someone wants to f-ck and demands someone else pay so they can do so without consequence. I don't give a damn about the "it's cheaper to pay that than pay welfare" argument because to me it's not about the fiscal cost, but more of a line in the sand to finally say "for f-ck's sake...at somepoint a person's choice is their responsibility" and chosing to f-ck seems as good a line as any. Exceptions certainly could exist, such as support for lower-income women who have suffered rape. In this same vein, I saw a debate on a CNN program about it, and the "liberal" guest kept saying "what about men? Should they have to pay for the little blue pill too?" I can't for the life of me understand why the "conservative" guest didn't embrace her and yell "amen Sister!"

Well...as my role in politics is creating strategic alliances, I am more interested in the story level and where different groups of people are breaking in their movement. So for me it's not about whether or not *I* personally think that the R party is out to destroy women, it's that a lot of R women have spoken up THEMSELVES about their disappointment with the R party. I have my opinions and have no problem sharing them, but this thread is about the opinions of Republican women specifically.

My personal goals are to bring the Democratic party more Progressive and more Civil Libertarian simultaneously. I'm on the front lines of ending the drug war, and it's a wonderful place to be. Was out in the street with 100,000 of my closest friends yesterday. The Congressional campaign I'm helping run is officially on the ballot.

One thing that in our camp we pretty much universally agree on is that a woman's right to choose shouldn't even be an issue we are debating in government. Whether or not to provide birth control shouldn't even be an issue. If R's think it should be, well, we strongly disagree with them on that. And it is clear that at least as it regards this one particular issue, there is a serious gender divide within the R party.

It's not even my main issue, my main issues are the rise of the police state, debt-slavery, the insane increase in prison population since the privatization of prisons and all that. I really believe we are fighting against slavery. Not pseudo-slavery or kind of like slavery, but a system where one person owns another.

I don't think that R women are going to break Democrat, but I do think that the demographic realities within the R party are going to be very very important to its future. I have been over the past couple of days speaking to people about the nature of old institutions trying to recruit young people to avoid having their institution die. This is a very prevalent problem in this nation, all across the board. If you don't understand that this is a problem, then you're not really seeing what's going on. I see in local institutions and transnational ones. And if people believe that the R party cannot simply die out and become a relic of history, they are fooling themselves. We are an increasingly urban constituency PARTICULARLY Gen Y. What is the Republican party doing to appeal to those young people? As far as I can tell, they're not appealing to them.

[cincinnatus]

Cincinnatus Part of the problem is that BC is provided for many medical conditions such as endometriosis. By banning BC, it can doom a woman to crippling pain. That was a big part of the argument for anyone who was actually reading what women were complaining about. It wasn't just about controlling for birth, but that the BC pills are hormone therapy that treat a number of pathologies.

Enki, how many times and ways do I have to defend against an accusation of which I am not advocating? I am not for a ban on BC, abortion, closing rape crisis centers, making it legal to beat/rape women, or any other false choice analogy that someone would care to toss my way. My guess is if businesses and insurance companies were not forced to add BC coverage, they'd do so anyway for a variety of reasons (cheaper than paying for pregnancy, access to the full range of qualified job candidates). And in my mind, BC used to treat non BC pathologies isn't BC...it's a life/limb health issue (IOW, great use of modern medicine to treat a medical problem). Same way many stroke meds have been used to treat chronic migraine/headache pathologies. The asthma inhalers actually is a perfect example, my mom pays a co-pay for that!

[cincinnatus]

Well...as my role in politics is creating strategic alliances, I am more interested in the story level and where different groups of people are breaking in their movement. So for me it's not about whether or not *I* personally think that the R party is out to destroy women, it's that a lot of R women have spoken up THEMSELVES about their disappointment with the R party. I have my opinions and have no problem sharing them, but this thread is about the opinions of Republican women specifically.

My personal goals are to bring the Democratic party more Progressive and more Civil Libertarian simultaneously. I'm on the front lines of ending the drug war, and it's a wonderful place to be. Was out in the street with 100,000 of my closest friends yesterday. The Congressional campaign I'm helping run is officially on the ballot.

One thing that in our camp we pretty much universally agree on is that a woman's right to choose shouldn't even be an issue we are debating in government. Whether or not to provide birth control shouldn't even be an issue. If R's think it should be, well, we strongly disagree with them on that. And it is clear that at least as it regards this one particular issue, there is a serious gender divide within the R party.

It's not even my main issue, my main issues are the rise of the police state, debt-slavery, the insane increase in prison population since the privatization of prisons and all that. I really believe we are fighting against slavery. Not pseudo-slavery or kind of like slavery, but a system where one person owns another.

I don't think that R women are going to break Democrat, but I do think that the demographic realities within the R party are going to be very very important to its future. I have been over the past couple of days speaking to people about the nature of old institutions trying to recruit young people to avoid having their institution die. This is a very prevalent problem in this nation, all across the board. If you don't understand that this is a problem, then you're not really seeing what's going on. I see in local institutions and transnational ones. And if people believe that the R party cannot simply die out and become a relic of history, they are fooling themselves. We are an increasingly urban constituency PARTICULARLY Gen Y. What is the Republican party doing to appeal to those young people? As far as I can tell, they're not appealing to them.

This should have been the first entry in the thread Enki. It is reasoned, well written, and devoid of hyperbole or buzz word attempts to polarize. Bravo.

I am glad you've found your calling with the political strategist gig. I hope you get satisfaction (and results). Personally, I can be court martialed for directly taking part in politics (always thought only in uniform, but recent guidance says any direct political activity other than voting or donating cash is verboten).

One question though:
RE "Whether or not to provide birth control shouldn't even be an issue." If that is the case, voting for BC coverage shouldn't be a virtue, and voting against shouldn't be a sin. It should be a neutral issue where folks can disagree without vitriol or insults.

[Mr. Perfect]

Cincinnatus Part of the problem is that BC is provided for many medical conditions such as endometriosis. By banning BC, it can doom a woman to crippling pain. That was a big part of the argument for anyone who was actually reading what women were complaining about. It wasn't just about controlling for birth, but that the BC pills are hormone therapy that treat a number of pathologies.

Nobody is banning bc. Nobody is banning bc. Nobody is banning bc. Nobody is banning bc.

This is just more of your war on truth.