Operation Golden Shower: I’m only half kidding »« Romney back on the logical fallacy bandwagon

Shorter wingnuttia: What war on women? Now, about that WAR on women

I sometimes dream that we progressives will enjoy the same fruits our opponents feast so gleefully on. See, for them, consistency and principle is not an issue; you can both declare there is no such thing as a war on women, and bemoan the war on women, with little fear of “Republicans fractured and in disarray” headlines popping up all over.

(HuffPo) — Spotlighting the issue of sex-selective abortions is an increasingly common tactic that the anti-abortion community has been using lately to turn the “war on women” around on Planned Parenthood, to galvanize social conservatives and to push legislation that would restrict abortion access. “In 2010, more than 9 out of 10 PPFA’s services going specifically to pregnant women were abortion,” National Right to Life president Carol Tobias wrote in a recent opinion column. “Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That’s the real war on women.”

Do You See? There is no war on women, all those bills up in statehouses from coast to coast trying to limit reproductive rights and birth control access are … I dunno what the line is these days, made up? It’s a contrived media storm? There is NO war on women!? Don’t You See … ?

Except of course when lifers need a soundbyte, then we’re all sternly lectured about the real war on women … I guess this helps explain why jokers like Romney can be at odds with himself. Or maybe why lifers are complacent about decades of promises of at least trying to declare fertilized and/or unfertilized eggs worthy of citizenship, with zero results even put before the SCOTUS, but the same court somehow managing to rule favorably on corporations enjoying that same human status right out of the gate. Do You SEE?

Comments

  1. markdowd says

    Half of abortions are performed on girls. Ergo, there is a war on women.

    ….

    Does anyone else see the problem?

  2. d cwilson says

    “Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That’s the real war on women.”

    So, half of the abortions are performed on unborn girls. Does that mean the other half are performed unborn boys?

    Wow!

    That’s like the supervisor who got upset when he found out 40% of all sick days taken by his employees were on either Mondays or Fridays?

    Math is not a wingnut’s friend.

  3. leftsidepositive says

    I love how they gripe that 9 out of 10 services “going specifically to pregnant women” are abortions…no shit?! For one thing, pregnant women are automatically eligible for Medicaid in most if not all states so they have options for care that they wouldn’t have at the same income level if they weren’t pregnant. So, if pregnant women who want to be pregnant have lots of places to go for care (that don’t include crazies outside screaming at them!), and pregnant women seeking abortions have just about no other options (thanks, wingnuts!), how do you EXPECT the math to work out?!

    And I don’t see how you can really hold it against PP if they don’t have the means to provide full prenatal care in all their facilities (although I have heard accounts from a few women–I don’t know where they were located, because Interwebz–who did receive at least part of their prenatal care at their local PP and were very satisfied with their experience).

    Moreover, pregnant women aren’t likely to be asking for birth control, and if they are getting pap smears or breast exams when they happen to be pregnant, is this wignut math including that as health care “specifically” to pregnant women? Do they have any way of knowing what percentage of the well-women visit patients happen to be pregnant at the time they receive those services?

  4. jakc says

    Plus the claim that 90% of planned parenthood services involve abortions strikes me as wrong

  5. iknklast says

    Yes, this reminds me of that story (possibly apocryphal) that Ronald Reagan was upset when he found out half of all children were below average in school.

  6. alexmartin says

    My word.
    So, I’m a conservative independent. I happen to know a young lady who sought an abortion. Then she had a sonogram performed. Terrible, terrible. She then concluded, after the test, hearing a heartbeat, that she was carrying a living human being within her, her child, her progeny, her baby, and foolishly aborted the abortion.

    Terrible. Just terrible.

    A missed opportunity. To have rid herself of that terrible, malignant parasite.

    This is the war on women. She should have been force-marched into that abortuary and made forcibly to excise that vermin scum within her womb for her own good, for reproductive freedoms’ sake, to negate the war on women that I and my ilk on the far-fringy right are waging against her gentle sex.

    Or did 23 yr old Andrea in fact express her freedom and reproductive choice in the informed decision that she made? Hmmmm, I wonder.

    At any rate, I have concluded that only a miscreant of a diseased brain could possibly proclaim that an entire segment of the population or political persuasion in these United States could possibly be waging some kind of “war” on women of any kind, as knowingly suicidal and stupid as that notion must be to them.

    And what– over birth control? BIRTH FUCKING CONTROL? Get fucking serious. I don’t know a single soul who gives a damn whether Woman X uses, obtains, supports or advocates the use, possession or promotion of birth control pills, unguents, appliques, implements, patches, creams, or the like.

    And neither do you, if you could possibly be honest with yourself.

    Do I believe that Catholic or other religious institutions, hospitals, employers and agencies should be FORCED to supply birth control pills or devices or abortifacient drugs and/or abortion services to parishioners, laity, staff, employees, patients, or service recipients in contravention of their conscience and constitutional rights, purportedly for the greater “public good”? Hell naw. Ever heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution?

    Quit forcing stupidity on the issue. You confuse yourself.

    The alleged “War on Women” supposedly inflicted by the Republican Party and the right wingis just a stupid libel cooked up by amoral leftist assholes to suck in and dupe the gullible into voting them, Democrats, back into power.

    Period.

  7. Makoto says

    @9 Alex – Wow, where to begin…

    I know a few people who care about birth control. Specifically, those who use it, or wish they could. The only people I “care” about using birth control are myself and whoever I have sex with. I don’t care if you use birth control, or how you get it, or who pays for it.

    But I do care that it should be available to all those who need it. Because you know what? Abortions are traumatic. If for no other reason than that people protest at anything resembling an abortion clinic, and shout at people using that clinic’s services, whether the person is there for an abortion or not, and even if they’re there for an abortion, the protesters don’t care why (is it a malformed fetus? A miscarriage? A person / family that can’t afford more children? A case of rape?). Perhaps the woman thought long and hard about getting an abortion. Perhaps it was a medical necessity. You know what I’m fairly sure of? She isn’t just getting an abortion because she feels like it. Condoms, birth control pills, plan-b, all of those are far cheaper than an abortion, with or without insurance. And these new insurance coverages don’t change that.

    So, please, tell me more about the war on women. Tell me about how repealing equal pay laws isn’t against women, just because it apparently is clogging up the legal system with too many lawsuits (Gov Scott Walker). Tell me more about the war on women that isn’t there even though we can legally cover viagra, even for non-productive couples, but a mandate to insurance companies (please note, no federal dollars go to this mandate) about birth control is horrible and wrong.

    Perhaps you’ve heard of the first amendment to the Constitution – it has been held to say that you can’t impose one religion over another. This also means you can’t impose your religion over another. Just because you think abortions are wrong because of your religion, that doesn’t mean that you can prevent someone else from getting an abortion. This also means you can’t impose your religion on their insurance company, their emplyer, or the state or federal government.

    I care about women, just as I do about men. I also hope that every child born is cared for before and after birth, and goes to a caring home, whether that is with the birth parents or not. This also means that I hope everyone learns about all options in birth control, including plan b. And I even hope they learn about the possibility of abortions. There are far too many issues for me to across the board condemn abortions – are they for medical reasons? In instances of rape? Did other methods of birth control fail, and the partners didn’t realize it until later?

    So, if you want to prevent abortions – lobby for better sex ed. Lobby for free prenatal care for all mothers. Lobby for easier and quicker adoption services. All of these will reduce abortions, as has been shown in countries with looser abortion laws and better birth control education and other services.

  8. bad Jim says

    I really shouldn’t add this, but still

    I don’t know a single soul who gives a damn whether Woman X uses, obtains, supports or advocates the use, possession or promotion of birth control pills, unguents, appliques, implements, patches, creams, or the like.

    is so mind-fuckingly oblivious that it shouldn’t escape comment. Can there actually be people conscious enough to use the internet that they’ve never heard of the Catholic Church or the Republican party, or are entirely unaware of what they advocate? Probably not. No one who is not utterly mendacious could write such a thing.

    There’s no point in arguing with them. Our three tools are pointing and mocking …

  9. alexmartin says

    Makoto,
    Did you read my post?
    I was a bit sardonic. Did you notice that we agree with one another?

    But then again, am I not The Enemy of which this OP is targeted?
    So, I don’t agree with infanticide, which, to me, abortion truly is.

    Sue me.

    That terrible Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin who reformed his state back from the hell of entitlement bankruptcy to fiscal sanity and (gasp!)a budget surplus wants to institute tort reform, somehow mutates into a Salvo Against All Women Whom He Hates?

    ‘dja get that from Rachel Maddow or Tingles Matthews, the DNC or the whitehouse, perhaps?

    Don’t believe the contorted hype.

    To reiterate and clarify, some woman’s birth control pills just ain’t my business and I don’t give a damn about the issue. Isn’t that the way you want it? Shouldn’t I be kept out of your bedroom as you have always demanded?

    Ok then, fine. I will.

  10. alexmartin says

    –Oh, and Bad Jim, did you even read my post? I’m not Catholic and I don’t know any freakin’ Catholics. So like I said, Bad Jim, “I don’t know a single soul who gives a damn” if a woman uses birth control or not, or who aspires to deprive women of that basic, fundamental right..

    If you can’t control yourself, you should maybe STFU.

    I ask again, did you even read my post, BadJim?
    What, exactly, and specifically, with neutral sourcing, does the “Republican Party” advocate regarding birth control?

    Please to enlighten us all.

  11. godlesspanther says

    Makoto covered it, bad Jim added to it.

    What’s left?

    Hey alexmartin — fuck you.

  12. alexmartin says

    Thank you, godlesspanther.
    We all now know your limitations.
    As a famous Clint Eastwood character once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations”, or some such.

    You have hence established your parameters.

  13. Stacy says

    The alleged “War on Women” supposedly inflicted by the Republican Party and the right wingis just a stupid libel cooked up by amoral leftist assholes to suck in and dupe the gullible into voting them, Democrats, back into power

    Mmm, yeah. Forcing women to have transvaginal ultrasounds; criminalizing miscarriages; forcing insurance companies to STOP offering coverage for birth control when birth control is normally covered and it’s in their economic interest to cover it because the company paying for the insurance has a religious problem with contraception; holding a congressional hearing on the issue without a single woman present on the panel.

    Nope, no war on women there. No siree.

    Terrible, terrible. She then concluded, after the test, hearing a heartbeat, that she was carrying a living human being within her, her child, her progeny, her baby, and foolishly aborted the abortion.

    Terrible. Just terrible

    Strawman much, sweetie? ‘Cause ya know, we’re all about forcing women who don’t want them to get abortions.

    Oh, wait, no, we’re not. We’re about respecting a woman’s autonomy. We’re about choice. You’re the one who wants to deny women that.

  14. Zarron says

    Alex,

    Do you seriously believe half the stuff you just said? Really?

    You seem to be under the delusion that pro-choicers want women to have abortions. We do not. You’ve bought into this common right-wing lie that a pro-choicer is some kind of monster who wants to promote some kind of abortion-as-birth-control scheme. It is a lie. While we pro-choicers do not believe that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being, we also recognize that late-term abortions are not a desirable outcome. Pro-choicers, generally, want a world where abortion is legal, safe, and rare.

    We pro-choicers recognize that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to support education and equality for women, and to support the low-cost or no-cost availability of birth control. This is a plain fact, and no amount of moral posturing will change that.

    Very simply; your anecdote regarding a woman deciding to keep a child after an ultrasound is a fine story. Because she chose to have the ultrasound, of her own free will, presumably. She exercised her freedom to seek an ultrasound, and exercised her freedom to decide whether to take the pregnancy to term or not. This is a choice that every pro-choicer wants women to be able to make. We are pro-CHOICE, after all. But we also want women to be able to make the OTHER choice, while many right-wingers would deny them that autonomy.

    And then there is the fact that there are these state laws working their way through republican-controlled legislatures that would FORCE women seeking abortions to have ultrasounds or even transvaginal ultrasounds before having an abortion procedure performed. Surely you can see the difference here, between your anecdote, and this situation, right?

    We on the left see these restrictions on abortion rights and violations of womens’ autonomy as part of a greater ‘war on women’ because women are disproportionately affected negatively by these things. In the right’s fetishistic desire to ‘save innocent babies’, the real lives of women are ruined.

    You right-wingers like to act like it’s such a simple thing to just, you know, have the baby and just put it up for adoption if you don’t want to take care of the child, and that it’s SO much morally better to do that than it is to have an abortion, even a very early-term one. This is pure fantasy.

    In today’s world, women can and DO lose their jobs for getting pregnant. It happens all the time, especially among the working poor. Furthermore, many poor women cannot AFFORD to take time off for pregnancy, and without mandatory paid maternity leave, these women might end up on the street, due to the decision to have a baby, even if they plan to put it up for adoption. And even further, despite great leaps in medical technology, giving birth is still a health risk and a traumatic experience that requires recovery, and involves risk of permanent injury or rarely even death. And I’m not even going to go into the hellish world that is the American adoption system.

    Basically, in order to claim that carrying the pregnancy to term is a legitimate option in ALL cases, Alex, the following things need to be true.

    – There are no economic repercussions to carrying a pregnancy to term (Firing someone for being pregnant must be HIGHLY illegal, and enforced vigorously. Paid maternity leave must be mandatory).
    – There are no health risks to carrying a pregnancy to term
    – Adoption should result in a happy life for the vast majority of children (Hint: It doesn’t, currently, and Christians, as a political force, are doing nothing to help this situation; it’s just not on their list of causes)

    Until all of these things are true, restriction of abortion rights DO entail part of a war against women. Many of us on the left think that the actions of right-wingers show that this abortion issue is mostly about punishing women for DARING to think that they have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, more than it is about ‘saving the babies’. It’s also quite telling that anti-abortion activists are not ALSO spearheading a push to legally mandate that men provide more support for women they conceive a child with. But no, men are free to sleep around, and punishment for deadbeat dads is a slap on the wrist, and enforcement is often spotty. Do you really not see the misogyny here?

    Moving on…you claim that you don’t know a single soul who cares whether a woman obtains or uses birth control. You’re either woefully ignorant of your own party’s political spectrum, or you are being dishonest. There is a significant faction in the religious right who are genuinely advocating the idea that states have the right to ban contraception.

    And lastly, you claim that Catholics should have some right to prevent their employees from getting contraception coverage (Even when the insurance company would have otherwise provided it for free, since it saves them money in the long run). This is ridiculous. If a Catholic institution employs and serves the public, who may or may not be Catholic, why should their religious views be forced upon the non-Catholic employees?

    There are rules for participating in business in a society that values freedom of religion (IE religious pluralism). And part of that is that you can’t push your religion on your employees. And you don’t get carte-blanche to ignore a law just because you have a religious objection to it. Even arch-conservative SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia knows that. I don’t know why the rest of you right-wingers don’t.

  15. Zarron says

    Whoops. Fix that first paragraph. It should read, “While we pro-choicers do not believe that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being…”

  16. Zarron says

    Oh, and I couldn’t leave this one alone. Alex…you seriously think that Scott Walker has improved Wisconsin and left us with a budget surplus? That is laughable, to say the least.

    I live in Wisconsin. There’s a reason it’s looking like he’s going to be the first governor recalled in Wisconsin history. And it’s not because he improved our economic situation or our budget.

  17. alexmartin says

    Zaron says- {Sorry, too dumb to work the tags}
    “Moving on…you claim that you don’t know a single soul who cares whether a woman obtains or uses birth control. You’re either woefully ignorant of your own party’s political spectrum, or you are being dishonest. There is a significant faction in the religious right who are genuinely advocating the idea that states have the right to ban contraception.”

    Show me.

    But also, if I hold that a 5 month pregnancy, for example, is a near-viable baby, and I do, how abhorrent, how repugnant would it be for me that some medical butcher gets to slice and dice that child to pieces or burn him/her to death in utero or some shit?

    Hellish, actually. But I defer to you “choicers” wishes in that regard, personally. A monstrous act for a monstrous people, in my opine.

    Lastly, I shall again be your sample Enemy. Now, 50 years ago, the Catholics could determine whether they wanted to offer health coverage to their folks. And 40 years ago, 30, 20, 10. You get the point. Plus a natural religious exemption, because just as one might have a right to work, one also has the right to work SOMEWHERE ELSE. What if they’d gone all 1099 on your candy ass? (Sorry, got a little Rock there).

    –What do you demand of them then?

    Can your employer tailor their health coverage or decline to carry it all together? Yes? No? Why or why not?

    So, this issue was no issue ever before, substantially, but now it’s all the rage,and you get to pontificare about it and get all righteous and holy, and swear fo’ god it’s a civil rights and social justice shebang?

    Seriously?

    Does my mom’s church HAVE TO cover birth control for the church secretary?

    Why’s that?

  18. alexmartin says

    Zarron, spelled correctly, I note that you place the cart before the horse and force the tail to wag the dog. So, if the Catholics employ people, just as if you employed people, you would get to determine if the healthcare coverage you provide, partially at your expense, covers birth control pills or condoms or whatever the fuck if you or they wanted to. Just on principle.

    Who the hell are YOU?

    Based on all your big talk, who’s forcing who’s views on whom, exactly?

    What’s all that bully-talk y’all keep squalkin’ about?

    Scott Walker? Don’t be a moonbat. Read:
    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7t6oQZZPSzMAJB5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0cDVxNGg2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1FJMDI4XzE4OQ–/SIG=13a3gtjgf/EXP=1335276072/**http%3a//wisupnorth.com/2012/04/wisconsin-act-10-success-saves-tax-payers-over-1billion/

    (Remember that I am an unreformable technical idiot. Please to forgive.)

  19. alexmartin says

    But for what it’s worth, naw, I don’t agree with forcing any woman to endure trans-vaginal ultrasound. I don’t agree with forcing women to have ultrasound prior to fetal extirpation.

    Abortion is an abhorrent practice. Some people are loathe to let it happen and to allow what they see as children to be killed. They would like to encourage expectant mothers to change their minds on the matter. That, to me, does not exemplify hatred of, or “war” on women.

    These tactics at worst comprise, possibly, misplaced compassion run amok.

  20. Zarron says

    Alex-

    “Moving on…you claim that you don’t know a single soul who cares whether a woman obtains or uses birth control. You’re either woefully ignorant of your own party’s political spectrum, or you are being dishonest. There is a significant faction in the religious right who are genuinely advocating the idea that states have the right to ban contraception.”

    Check out Robert Bork, for starters. He is a top advisor for Mitt Romney this election cycle. This position is just as common as the idea that states should have the right to criminalize consensual homosexual sex acts that occur in private. There are a large number of politically-active preachers who also advocate this position, as well.

    But also, if I hold that a 5 month pregnancy, for example, is a near-viable baby, and I do, how abhorrent, how repugnant would it be for me that some medical butcher gets to slice and dice that child to pieces or burn him/her to death in utero or some shit?

    Hellish, actually. But I defer to you “choicers” wishes in that regard, personally. A monstrous act for a monstrous people, in my opine.

    Nice ad-hominem there. If all else fails, demonize your opponents with emotional appeals, since the facts are not on your side.

    We pro-choicers feel that your position is ‘monstrous’. But note that I have never implied that you truly are ‘monstrous’, even if I believe your position is misguided or wrong.

    Again, let me point out: We pro-choicers generally want to reduce the number of abortions. We want abortions, especially late-term abortions to be very rare. But we also want them to be legal and safe. The policies we advocate have been shown, time and time again, to ACTUALLY REDUCE the number of abortions. On the other hand, when you right-wingers get your way, your policies tend to increase the number of abortions, when you include illegal, unsafe, and self-induced abortions.

    Yes, the actual methods used to perform late-term abortions are abhorrent. We pro-choicers do not find it desirable. But we often find it LESS horrible than the alternatives. Again, pro-choicers generally do not believe that a fetus is a human being until some point late in the pregnancy, and thus, we prioritize the well-being of the human being who ACTUALLY exists (The woman) over the possible life of a human being who may or may not exist in the future. We often find the prospect of the abortion to be less horrible than the suffering of a mother and child living in abject poverty, or a child growing up subject to abuse, or without a mother. Again, this is because we do not regard a zygote/embryo/fetus to be a human being until late in the pregnancy.

    And we’re not speaking of late-term abortions, exclusively, either! Only a very small number of abortions are performed late, and go into these abhorrent methods that you have described. Are you going to say that Plan B is just as abhorrent as late-term abortion? Or what about an abortion in the first trimester, or the early second? I don’t understand you people who believe that little balls of cells, or embryos (Which are physically difficult to distinguish from a chicken embryo), are human beings.

    Anyway, your indignancy over whether purely religious employers will have to provide contraceptives to their employees is absolutely misplaced. They won’t, even under the administration’s new rules. Employers who ONLY employ and service members of their religion, for a religious service, get exemption. That includes your mom’s church and the church secretary. Religious employers have always been able to bend some rules, like for example, they are able to discriminate in employment decisions on the basis of religion, whereas normal employers are not.

    However, the Obama administration’s new rules apply to Catholic organizations that employ and serve non-Catholics, and take federal or state tax dollars/subsidies for various purposes. Catholic hospitals are NOT religious employers. They are healthcare organizations run by Catholics. But they cannot ignore the rules, if they want to get public money, or employ non-Catholics. It’s that simple.

    You are misrepresenting the facts here. Up until now, Catholic hospitals have had to obey the laws of running a secular business that employs non-Catholics and takes federal tax dollars, etc. Catholic hospitals have never had an exception to this. The difference is that now, healthcare laws state that all non-religious employers must offer insurance that has access to contraception as part of the plan. And since Catholic hospitals are non-religious employers, they must follow the rules, same as before. They don’t get carte-blanche to ignore the rules, just because they have a religious exemption.

    Do you think businesses run by Scientologists should have the right to prevent their employees from having traditional mental health services covered by insurance? Or maybe Muslims should be able to dictate that the insurance policies THEY offer not include coverage for doctor’s visits to a doctor of the opposite gender as the patient (Yes, that is a real opinion on Sharia law, which strictly forbids such mixing of genders). Because all these things are logical conclusions of the argument you are making.

  21. says

    Alexmartin

    Remember that I am an unreformable technical idiot.

    FIFY

    And exactly why should I forgive your misogynist asshattery? I don’t care what the Catholic – or any other – church was allowed to get away with in previous years, it does not make it right.

    It’s a – stay with me here, I know this is hard for your narrow and shallow brain to follow – logical fallacy.

    *”Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

    The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate people’s popular belief.”

    *Your logical fallacy is dot com

  22. M Groesbeck says

    So “alexmartim” apologizes for the typos, but doubles down on the blatant lies. Time for a round of Troll Bingo?

  23. Stacy says

    These tactics at worst comprise, possibly, misplaced compassion run amok

    Compassion? Bullshit.

    Anybody whose concern for a fetus, which is not sentient, requires them to punish a woman by mandating an invasive medical procedure, in order to pressure her into bearing a child against her will*, is not demonstrating any sort of compassion.

    Some people are loathe to let it happen and to allow what they see as children to be killed.

    So I’m sure if you were in the proverbial fertility-clinic-on-fire and had to choose between saving a single toddler vs. a drawerful of 100 zygotes, you’d choose to rescue the 100 “children” and let the toddler burn, right?

    Right? ‘Cause they’re children.

    Can the emotional hyperbole. If you’d do that, you’re a monster.

    But then, if you wouldn’t, if you chose to save the (actual) child over the potential children–you’re a hypocrite.

    * Oddly enough, I’m willing to bet it would be against your principles of “freedom” and “liberty” for the government to force you to donate a kidney, even if it were the only way to save the human life of an actual born, conscious, sentient human being. Yet you have no problem insisting that women be forced to serve as incubators.

  24. Zarron says

    Alex said:

    Zarron, spelled correctly, I note that you place the cart before the horse and force the tail to wag the dog. So, if the Catholics employ people, just as if you employed people, you would get to determine if the healthcare coverage you provide, partially at your expense, covers birth control pills or condoms or whatever the fuck if you or they wanted to. Just on principle.

    This is part of a rule that EVERY non-religious employer must follow. Again, you are misrepresenting the state of affairs.

    Catholic hospitals do NOT get to ignore the laws of the land just because they have a religious objection.

    Your position would allow catholics to force their religious views on their non-religious employees. If Catholics hospitals so much wish to be able to bend these rules, then they must act as RELIGIOUS employers. This means that they would only be able to employ Catholics, and they would not be able to accept any federal or state money. Them’s the rules. We live in a society committed to religious pluralism. That means that if I work for you, in a non-religious context, you don’t get to force your religious beliefs on me. And I wouldn’t get to force my religious beliefs on you if you worked for me either. That’s how it works.

    Maybe you want a country in which employers can arbitrarily force their religion on their employees. I think that would be a scary country, and totally at odds with freedom of religion.

  25. Stacy says

    Scott Walker? Don’t be a moonbat. Read

    lol. Read Scott Walker’s website! He’ll tell ya how much money Scott Walker has saved Wisconsin!

  26. alexmartin says

    Zarron, you present a chicken-and egg proposition here: which came first: them Rules or the U.S. Constitution?

  27. alexmartin says

    Hey Stacy– did it happen or not? Is Wisconsin presently or imminently financially solvent or not? Are the official claims made on a quasi-governmental web page accurate or not?

    Git back wit’ me on that.

  28. Zarron says

    The US constitution is on my side, and the rules are perfectly consistent with it, Alexmartin.

    Freedom of Religion does not mean that you get to do whatever you want to do as long as you have a religious justification. Apparently, lately, you right-wingers seem to believe in that absolutely looney interpretation of it.

    Catholic hospitals have NO innate right, under the constitution, to deny contraceptives to their non-Catholic employees, since they are a SECULAR employer (IE, they serve and employ non-Catholics and take public money).

    Freedom of Religion means a lot of things. And part of it is that you don’t get to force your religious beliefs on me, no matter what our relationship is. Even if you employ me. Catholic hospitals have no right to force their religion on non-Catholic employees. Period.

    The constitution does not mean what you think it means.

  29. Zarron says

    alexmartin-

    Regarding Walker, you may be interested in this.

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jan/29/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-he-eliminated-wisconsins-36-/

    This, unlike your link, is a nominally impartial political fact-check organization.

    In case you’re too lazy to read, I’ll tell you what it says. The health of the Wisconsin deficit depends on the accounting method used. Using the more REASONABLE accounting method, Wisconsin still has a 3 billion dollar deficit under Walker. All Walker has done is push the deficit into the future.

    When Walker claims he balanced the budget, he is using a style of accounting where he can push debt into the future and claim that the budget is ‘balanced’ because hey we’re going to make the money next year and we TOTALLY promise to pay it.

    If you use the more standard accounting method, that doesn’t allow you to pull tricks like that, there is still a 3 billion dollar deficit. Walker is in fact campaigning on the fact that we’re still 3 billion dollars in the hole according to this other accounting method. It’s rather incredible. So on one hand, he balanced the budget. On the other hand, we’re still in the hole, so we need a deficit hawk like Walker. Which is it, Mr. Governor?

  30. alexmartin says

    “Catholic institutions have no right to force their religion on me thus I can force them to provide both medical coverage to me if I work for them even if they deign not to even provide it and even a given arbitrary item within that coerced coverage just because I want it” doesn’t even past the idiot test.

    This president’s HHS decree will fall at the Supreme Court level.

  31. Zarron says

    “Catholic institutions have no right to force their religion on me thus I can force them to provide both medical coverage to me if I work for them even if they deign not to even provide it and even a given arbitrary item within that coerced coverage just because I want it” doesn’t even past the idiot test.

    This president’s HHS decree will fall at the Supreme Court level.

    I’m afraid YOU don’t pass the idiot test here.

    The government is forcing ALL secular employers to do this. Catholic hospitals are free to become religious employers to avoid it; this means they would have to ONLY employ and serve Catholics, AND they would have to stop accepting public money.

    Again, you don’t seem to understand that it violates the freedom of religion of an employee if an employer gets to bend federal healthcare regulations to deny them insurance coverage that is mandated to everyone else.

    You have the freedom of religion to believe that contraceptives are wrong. You even have the freedom of speech to TELL other people that contraceptives are wrong. What you don’t have is the freedom to bend federal healthcare rules just because you have a religious objection to some aspect of them.

    If you did, then Scientologist employers would be able to deny psychiatric care coverage to employees. Some of the more looney fundamentalist Christians out there would be able to get away with not offering healthcare at all, because they believe that any care outside of faith healing is unnecessary and immoral. I could go on and on.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath that the HHS’s interpretation of the contraception requirement will be overturned by the supreme court. As I said, even Antonin Scalia agrees with me on this one. This means that you are even more of a far-right extremist on this issue than Scalia. And you claim to be a ‘moderate’. Yeah, right.

  32. alexmartin says

    Zarron, two points: with necessary budget cuts, future budgetary projections are on-point and on track.

    Second: $3billion state debt. Interesting.
    look at California versus Texas. Liberal budgetary policy means a moribund state budget in California, a death spiral momentarily forestalled through confiscatory taxation, causing tax-paying base to flee (to Texas), causing ever greater fiscal damage. Flat line imminent.

    Texas– cut taxes, no state income tax for residents, low tax rate for business, -friendly, hospitable environment, a contained entitlement system = balanced budget and balanced books, a fiscal house in order, and a high state employment rate. High influx of sane former Californians.

    Wisconsin follows the conservative model. Not beholden to rapacious, pyrrhic, pernicious and parasitic (and blood sucking)public-sector unions; county and city governments solvent, state on road to fiscal health, yes, in that projected future– if YOUR KIND CAN’T OVERTURN THAT PROGRESS.

    Follow the California moonbat model. Reinstate progressive socialism, sell your souls to the unions, jack up taxes; that mere $3billion deficit would again balloon to the stratosphere and you’d pine for the halcyon days of manageable debt.

    Scott Walker is FIXING the budget and deficit, as necessary. ’nuff said.

  33. alexmartin says

    Game on, Zarron. The Establishment Clause trumps even established precedent. No matter the number and scope of questionable mandates churned out by this or any other recent administration, in the acid test of constitutionality, specious extra-constitutional mandates fall. As will this one.

  34. alexmartin says

    Wow, and such churlish name-calling! I am now become a “far-right extremist”? Wow-wee! That’s a first. Little ol’ me. Enemy of the people, enemy of the State.

    Oh. boy.

  35. Zarron says

    I find it strange that you think Texas is an economic model for the rest of the country, Alex. Texas has a plethora of problems, and is not particularly well-off in many ways. Their situation is much more complex than the rosy picture you paint. Their unemployment rate is nominally low, but the underemployed and the ranks of the working poor are HUGE, and because of your “contained entitlement system” (nice euphemism, there!), the plight of the poor there is pretty bad. There are also a lot of people who have simply stopped looking for work, there too, and they don’t show up in your unemployment number. Texas does, in fact, attract a lot of businesses, but being capital of the plutocrats is not doing too many favors to the residents in general. The top end of the economy is doing fine there, but if you scratch the surface, the picture ain’t pretty.

    California is in a bad way, but painting it as the fault of democrats alone is overly simplistic and just wrong, on an objective level. California’s problems are much more complex than that. I’m not particularly knowledgeable about California’s politics, and even I know that there has been a failure of state government there at every level, by both political parties.

    It seems that, in general, you see complex situations as simple, and advocate simple, knee-jerk, ineffective responses to complex problems.

    Scott Walker has damaged Wisconsin with crony capitalism, and his gutting of unions does not provide significant savings to the state; it was more of a political move designed to eliminate unions as a political force. The fact that you think Act 10 saves significant money and puts Wisconsin on the road to fiscal health speaks for itself. It’s simply not true, and it reveals you as a partisan, willing to believe anything if it suits your narrative. Whatever money Act 10 did save (it wasn’t much) was offset by his tax giveaways to special interests early in Walker’s term. Under Walker, Wisconsin is still in the hole, just as much as it was before.

  36. alexmartin says

    Zarron, as this discussion is off-topic to the thread, it’s 4a.m. and I am tired, can we agree to an at least temporary truce on the matter of state governance?

  37. Zarron says

    Game on, Zarron. The Establishment Clause trumps even established precedent. No matter the number and scope of questionable mandates churned out by this or any other recent administration, in the acid test of constitutionality, specious extra-constitutional mandates fall. As will this one.

    You have not established how this mandate could POSSIBLY violate the Establishment Clause, other than simply claiming it does. Can you come up with a convincing argument for this?

    On the other hand, I have illustrated how allowing employers to get around this (or any other mandate of this nature) would violate the first amendment rights of employees. You seem to be simply ignoring this fact. This is all about freedom of religion. The right of employees to not be subject to the religion of their employers. That is a necessary part of civil society, if you value religious pluralism. Do you really think employers should be able bend employment rules if they have a religious reason to?

    Wow, and such churlish name-calling! I am now become a “far-right extremist”? Wow-wee! That’s a first. Little ol’ me. Enemy of the people, enemy of the State.

    Oh. boy.

    Ah yes. Now I’m being lectured on name-calling by the man who called me (and everyone on my side of the debate) ‘monstrous’ earlier in the thread, and implied I was an idiot shortly after that. I love it. If you want respect, treat other people with respect. People tend to respond in kind when you come out of the gate with insults, or insinuate that they are something less-than-human because they disagree with you.

    Far-right extremist was intended as an accurate description of your political views on this matter, not as an insult, or an attempt to demonize you. You are literally to the right of arch-conservative Antonin Scalia on this issue; he literally penned a seminal opinion on the limits of religious freedom, stating that you cannot invalidate laws and regulations just by having a religious objection to them. That is part of the necessity of living in a society that values religious pluralism. I think that is both far-right, and extreme, hence why I said it. It was not intended to silence you or discount your opinion, but rather, point out where you are on the political spectrum, and that in fact, many religious people and conservatives disagree with you.

    Regardless, I have work in the morning, and I need to get to bed. I’m sure someone else will show up to listen to your ranting in my stead.

  38. alexmartin says

    Zarron, fiend, your word-count is at least triple mine. “Rant” is subjective.

    Further, the matter at hand had lain dormant and largely unobjected to till this administration, and now the matter of definitional religious exemption shall be put to the test.

    I assert my personal viewpoint that, as the institutions in question are in fact the possessions or assets of the Catholic Church and it’s assigns, the aggregate of those institutions holds as CATHOLIC in sum, no matter the capacity or complement of non-catholics involved. I hold that the exemption holds firm regardless of that capacity, whether hospital, adoption agency, etc., in toto.

    Good night.

  39. Antares42 says

    @jakc #5

    Plus the claim that 90% of planned parenthood services involve abortions strikes me as wrong

    Oh, they got you. :-) Read again:

    more than 9 out of 10 PPFA’s services going specifically to pregnant women were abortion

    So if the woman was already pregnant, chances are she came to PP for an abortion. The anti-choicers managed to make that sound way more dramatic than it was.

    Mission accomplished.

  40. says

    Come on Alex, human beings are going to want to control when they give birth. It’s that simple and if a bunch of old scolds wearing funny hats waving a Bible interfere those people will resent it. There’s nothing complicated about this.

  41. drivebyposter says

    You get the point. Plus a natural religious exemption, because just as one might have a right to work, one also has the right to work SOMEWHERE ELSE

    That alone makes you so fucking stupid you don’t qualify as a human any more. Jesus childfucking christ….do you need a reminder to breathe?
    You’re a fucking animal

  42. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Is there any blog that misogynistmartin doesn’t clog up with his constant blatant lying?

    really loving the hilarious bullshit about walker. Not a single bit of honesty in sight, yet everyone ELSE is a “moonbat”.

    Misogynstic troll is boring and repetitive. boring and repetitive. boring and repetitive.

  43. sanban says

    alexmartin is a liar, a hypocrite and a misgynist. No name calling here, just calling it like I see it.

    He lies when he says he knows no one who cares whether women uses birth control. Surely he knows people who are on both sides of this issue and has discussed the issue with them (or does he save this for ‘net trolling?) Surely he cares about the women he has sex with using birth control. Hell, every heterosexual woman from menarche to menopause that I know care about birth control, both for themselves and their partners! So, if this poster knows any heterosexual women, he knows people who care about bc use.

    He’s a hypocrite when he claims that he believes a fetus is exactly the same as an infant. He praises the woman who chose to carry her pregnancy to term – who praises a person for NOT killing a child? Not to mention his sidestepping of the clinic on fire hypothetical question.

    His misogyny shows in his complete disregard of the bodily autonomy of the woman. His expressed concern about blastocysts and fetuses is a red herring, meant to distract us from the fact he regards women as not fully human, not deserving of the same human rights he would claim for himself: the right to decide when and how and for whom and how long to use one’s own body, tissues and organs to sustain another person, even if refusal or withdrawal of such would cause the other’s death.

    This poster objects to the government’s insisting that tax money must not serve a strictly religious purpose (which is what it means when the gov stops gov’t-supported RCC-owned businesses from restricting health care provision according to their religious beliefs), can you imagine how he’d scream if the gov’t decided he HAD TO give up some of his food, or blood, or bone marrow, to serve a secular purpose, saving lives? And well he should! But he has no qualms declaring that women who choose to discontinue such support are “monstrous.”

Leave a Reply