Immunity for US forces in Iraq »« When the rich cry poor

Whom the US Supreme Court views as persons

meh

(Thanks to Sarah Baker)

The whole issue with restricting access to safe, affordable birth control shows that if there is one thing that conservatives in the US hate, it is the thought that women should have the freedom to decide when and where they have sex and with whom. Denying them contraception is a means of restricting their choices by threatening them with the possibility of a pregnancy.

Comments

  1. says

    And immigrants. They hate immigrants! And teh ghey. Ooh, and trans people. Hate them bunches.

    Also atheists, Marxists,, Black people, brown people, Jewish people, people who speak languages other than English, soccer fans, environmentalists, rap music, and those droopy pants.

    They have a whole rainbow spectrum of diversity to hate. Don’t try to lmiit their freedom to hate, they hate that.

  2. busterggi says

    Is that a cis-woman or a trans-woman? Doesn’t matter, the right wing Christofascists hate both.

  3. says

    If it doesn’t matter, busterggi, why did you leave the comment up?

    Also, here’s a key tip: you can’t usually tell by looking at someone. That’s kinda the point, for many trans folk.

    Also also, why the hell does it matter to you? Were you planning on having sex with her? If not, I cannot imagine in what possible respect this is your business.

  4. BobGee says

    Oh, that’s not fair…. there ought to be a fourth picture, a second “meh”… a baby immediately after birth… that’s exactly the moment they cease to matter to wingnuts

  5. busterggi says

    CaitieCat @ 4. “If it doesn’t matter, busterggi, why did you leave the comment up?”

    Because I wanted to say that the right-wing hates women of any sort. Sorry I did so poorly. Sometimes I express myself badly.

    And no, I’ve been retired from dating since the late ’90′s so I wasn’t planning on having sex with her – I haven’t done well in relationships.

  6. Glenn says

    Is it possible to have a religion if you have no soul?

    For a corporation to have religious rights, ought not it first be proven that a corporation with person-hood has a soul?

    And that its prospects of going to heaven will be compromised by actions it is compelled to take under law?

    And if it is owned by another person, is it not a slave to be freed from its illegitimate owner?

    And if it is unable to speak on its own behalf, like a wealthy infant, should not its guardian be accountable to some authority to guard against unjust enrichment of its caretaker?

    There are many religions that profess all other religions are not true. How do we know that the human speaking on behalf of the corporation can know the mind of the corporation and, furthermore, is not lying just to further some unstated agenda of his own?

    What does it profit a corporate person if it gains the world but loses its soul (if it ever had one)?

  7. jws1 says

    Glenn, Glenn, Glenn. Don’t you know corporate personhood is only invoked when it’s convenient, without all your logical points and legitimate questions?

  8. oldoligarch says

    The issue is that women should pay for their own birth control.It is not the federal taxpayers responsibility to protect you from the consequences of your decisions. As far as this conservative is concerned these left wing ninnies should use birth control EVERY time they have sex. Those who view pregnancy as a ‘disease’ have a pathological condition and they and their societies are destined to be selected aganist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>