So, after SCOTUS ruled that it's just fine to assault, intimidate, spit at, attack, even kill women walking into a Women's Health Center, they go on to make sure that more women may end up in that clinic.
First, I'd like to apologize for the next paragraph/rant...just that this really pisses me off.
Yep, I'm referring to the "Hobby Lobby" case. In this case, the plaintiffs make the argument that they should not have to offer certain types of birth control because its against their so called religious beliefs. The plaintiffs feel these are actually abortifacient, even though people with MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC degrees have proven that fairy tale a lie, and because of this LIE, they should not have to pay for them through insurance for their employees. Never mind that they've BEEN paying for these forms of birth control as EARNED benefits the employees have, never mind that the doctors and scientists have proven this is a fallacy, never mind that there is nowhere in the bible that states abortion is or isn't approved by their version of god(and we know that abortion has been around since at least the time of Socrates). Never mind that Hobby Lobby INVESTS in companies that MAKE actual abortifacients...OK for them to make money off of abortion, just not right for employees to receive medical attention for family planning which prevents abortion?????
OK, rant over. Maybe.
First, the batshit crazy rightwing law firm shopped Hobby Lobby to get the "name" status for the lawsuit. See, Hobby Lobby had offered all birth control without a second thought...until the black guy in the white house got a law passed saying that birth control would be covered under the Affordable Care Act. Their religious "crisis" didn't bother them until after the ACA, hmmmm, I smell a rat! Of course, their religious crisis doesn't include spending millions of $$ in China to buy cheap crap to sell either, even tho their money then can be used to pay for abortions in that country.
The case before the Supreme Court ended in its usual 5-4 decision with the catholic males on one side and the fair four on the side of constitutionality. The catholic males also said that this was a very narrow ruling, only dealing with 4 types of birth control and only applied to privately held corporations. Sure.
To begin with, the Affordable Care Act listed 20 types of contraception that must be covered by health insurance offered by businesses. The case that Hobby Lobby was involved in claimed that Plan B, Ella and two types of IUD's were abortifacients which violated their holier than thou religious rights. It didn't matter that all science proves this is not a fact, just cuz the HTT's(Holier Than Thou) believed it, the catholic geezers on SCOTUS went along with it since it gives them a hardon to screw over those that have less.
Justice Alito, who wrote the 5/4 opinion, tried, in the language, to say the scope of this ruling was limited, but then a series of orders released after the ruling show exactly the opposite of "narrow".
The first two dealt with 2 corporations (Autocam and Eden Foods), having catholic owners, by vacating the decisions of the US Appeals Court and said that the Appeals court must rehear the cases due to the Holly Lobby decision. Both of these cases centered around the Appeals Court decision that had rejected that these businesses wanted to eliminate offering any type of the 20 mandated forms of birth control. Even though over 90% of catholic women have used "real" (vs. the "rhythm method") birth control.
And then, there was the decision that the Wheaton IL college doesn't even have to fill out the form to file a religious objection because it violates their frail religious beliefs to even think about icky birth control/private lady bits. Wheaton College did not want to fill out the form that the United States Government requires which then enables the insurance companies to take on the responsibility of paying for those types of birth control that can offend those of such strong, but frail belief system(cuz they have to think about icky lady bits) and have to be smacked with actual scientific facts that these forms of birth control do not cause abortion. All they have to do is write a letter to HHS, saying, "Bad voo doo for religious people" or something like that.
So, with these decisions, the so-called "narrow ruling" has been broadened considerably and SCOTUS has determined that its OK to discriminate against preventative health care for women. You know the old Dred Scott decision? Separate but equal? Yep, this decision feeds on that type of bad decision of the past.
There is an up side to this. The last time that the right wing treated women in this manner, that we didn't count as much as white males and didn't deserve the protection of laws, we came out and voted. Against them. Hard. So, I hope to see many many women using their voting rights(before they take THOSE away) this November and send a message to the old fogies on SCOTUS. We do MATTER and we're angry with your stupidity and bigotry.
Showing posts with label reproductive rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
SCOTUS: American Sharia Law
For the last 6 years, I've been listening to hysterics on the right screaming about stupid things they think President Obama will do: FEMA camps,government implants, taking everyone's guns away, Sharia Law. None of these things have happened due to President Obama, but now, the Supreme Court reactionary justices are enacting christian sharia law....
In at least 2 of the latest 5-4 decisions, the right wing men of the Supreme Court have ruled that women are less than men. We are not worth being treated the same as men, we deserve to be less than men because of the old catholic right wing guys majority.
First the Massachusetts case: The Supreme Court, in a 5/4 decision(like that's a surprise) declared the Massachusetts buffer zone of 35 feet at abortion clinics against the constitution because it did not allow the protesters their right of free speech. By the way, the Supreme Court is just fine with a 100 foot buffer zone at the Supreme Court...hmmm.....
The reason this law was enacted at 35 feet was due to murders that occurred at the hand of those people who allegedly value live fetuses, but have no problem killing live men and women who feel they have the ability to make decisions for themselves...or work at a clinic. So SCOTUS seems to feel that its more important for protesters to be able to scream and spit into the faces of women than the women's right to safety and LIFE. Oh I forget, only fetuses have a right to life. And, as I said before, the Supreme Court buffer zone is almost 3 times that of MA abortion clinic, 100 feet. Guess if we have something to say to justices, we need a bullhorn...or maybe they have psychic, mind reading abilities.
Although the anti-abortion groups are having orgasms over this ruling, it does not take down every state's buffer rule(most are less than 35 feet), but they feel they're mowing them all down. Even tho the ruling does state that the Massachusetts zone was being found unconstitutional because of the length. Not like the groups understand nuance or anything after they hear "we win"....
So, after SCOTUS ruled that it's just fine to assault, intimidate, spit at, attack, even kill women walking into a Women's Health Center, they go on to make sure that more women may end up in that clinic.
But, remember those old guys who voted against a safety zone for women and workers? They feel that they still deserve a 100 foot safety zone from The People.
In at least 2 of the latest 5-4 decisions, the right wing men of the Supreme Court have ruled that women are less than men. We are not worth being treated the same as men, we deserve to be less than men because of the old catholic right wing guys majority.
First the Massachusetts case: The Supreme Court, in a 5/4 decision(like that's a surprise) declared the Massachusetts buffer zone of 35 feet at abortion clinics against the constitution because it did not allow the protesters their right of free speech. By the way, the Supreme Court is just fine with a 100 foot buffer zone at the Supreme Court...hmmm.....
The reason this law was enacted at 35 feet was due to murders that occurred at the hand of those people who allegedly value live fetuses, but have no problem killing live men and women who feel they have the ability to make decisions for themselves...or work at a clinic. So SCOTUS seems to feel that its more important for protesters to be able to scream and spit into the faces of women than the women's right to safety and LIFE. Oh I forget, only fetuses have a right to life. And, as I said before, the Supreme Court buffer zone is almost 3 times that of MA abortion clinic, 100 feet. Guess if we have something to say to justices, we need a bullhorn...or maybe they have psychic, mind reading abilities.
Although the anti-abortion groups are having orgasms over this ruling, it does not take down every state's buffer rule(most are less than 35 feet), but they feel they're mowing them all down. Even tho the ruling does state that the Massachusetts zone was being found unconstitutional because of the length. Not like the groups understand nuance or anything after they hear "we win"....
So, after SCOTUS ruled that it's just fine to assault, intimidate, spit at, attack, even kill women walking into a Women's Health Center, they go on to make sure that more women may end up in that clinic.
But, remember those old guys who voted against a safety zone for women and workers? They feel that they still deserve a 100 foot safety zone from The People.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Republicons and their hatred of women...or is it just Uppity Women?
Since spring, the Republicons have had their foot in their mouth over women and women's rights--employment, health, reproductive, birth control, and what is actually a "legitimate" rape, now, even how some girls "rape easy":
We have Congressman Todd Akin who is now trying to be a senator, saying that women who get raped can't get pregnant cuz their body shuts down the lady parts...or some drivel like that; and when he tried to walk back from that statement, he brought up the idea that the lady parts fizzle only works if its a "legitimate" rape....sure....and the republicons think this guy is smart enough to be a Senator??? Really???
Of course, there is also Rep. Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD) who stated that there are very few women who ever get pregnant from rape and he thinks that one of the main causes for abortion is the baby is the wrong gender or the woman just doesn't want to be bothered.
And the illustrious boy VP candidate, who has co-sponsored "personhood" bills with Aiken, endorsed(and now undendorsed) the state senator that feels some girls are just easy rapes, has compared a woman getting pregnant through rape to "just another form of conception".
There's been Rep. Tom Smith, another one running for a senate seat, this time in Pennsylvania who compared rape to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but these are the ones that are crazy enough to make it to national tv and many of these have been kind of swept under the rug as just some of the more extreme views....pay no attention, dear women voters...we're not really that far out. We'll not take away your rights...well. only the ones we don't agree with.
But...then...look at what many of the state legislatures have been busy with: personhood bills(these not only attack abortion rights, but also birth control and in-vitro fertilization); when there is a referendum on ballots about personhood, its voted down by a large margin, but when taken up in the state assemblies? It is usually passes at least one house...and usually by men, republicon men. Doing just what the republicon platform states.
And now, the piece de resistance? Wannabe senator Murdoch. Mr. Murdoch, when asked about abortion said that he would not support any law that allowed for an abortion due to the woman being raped...violated...attacked...one of the worst things that can ever happen to you without you dying, although there are enough women who commit suicide after a rape.
Now, does a suicide have much to do with a pregnancy, one of "god's will" as Mr. Murdoch puts it? Only if you want to know what the woman may be going through as a human being.
The 2012 Republican platform did address these issues by inserting them into the platform:
"We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."
Of course that "sanctity of life" ends when the baby is born....
And, again, Where are Mitt's tax returns?????
We have Congressman Todd Akin who is now trying to be a senator, saying that women who get raped can't get pregnant cuz their body shuts down the lady parts...or some drivel like that; and when he tried to walk back from that statement, he brought up the idea that the lady parts fizzle only works if its a "legitimate" rape....sure....and the republicons think this guy is smart enough to be a Senator??? Really???
Of course, there is also Rep. Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD) who stated that there are very few women who ever get pregnant from rape and he thinks that one of the main causes for abortion is the baby is the wrong gender or the woman just doesn't want to be bothered.
And the illustrious boy VP candidate, who has co-sponsored "personhood" bills with Aiken, endorsed(and now undendorsed) the state senator that feels some girls are just easy rapes, has compared a woman getting pregnant through rape to "just another form of conception".
There's been Rep. Tom Smith, another one running for a senate seat, this time in Pennsylvania who compared rape to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but these are the ones that are crazy enough to make it to national tv and many of these have been kind of swept under the rug as just some of the more extreme views....pay no attention, dear women voters...we're not really that far out. We'll not take away your rights...well. only the ones we don't agree with.
But...then...look at what many of the state legislatures have been busy with: personhood bills(these not only attack abortion rights, but also birth control and in-vitro fertilization); when there is a referendum on ballots about personhood, its voted down by a large margin, but when taken up in the state assemblies? It is usually passes at least one house...and usually by men, republicon men. Doing just what the republicon platform states.
And now, the piece de resistance? Wannabe senator Murdoch. Mr. Murdoch, when asked about abortion said that he would not support any law that allowed for an abortion due to the woman being raped...violated...attacked...one of the worst things that can ever happen to you without you dying, although there are enough women who commit suicide after a rape.
Now, does a suicide have much to do with a pregnancy, one of "god's will" as Mr. Murdoch puts it? Only if you want to know what the woman may be going through as a human being.
The 2012 Republican platform did address these issues by inserting them into the platform:
"We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."
Of course that "sanctity of life" ends when the baby is born....
And, again, Where are Mitt's tax returns?????
Monday, April 16, 2012
No, Ann Romney doesn't know what it's like to work
Ok, so I was actually rolling my eyes when the 'cons latched onto Hillary Rosen's comment...out of context as usual for the 'cons, about Ann Romney never working a day in her life. Yes, I know that Ms. Rosen was speaking about what Mitt said, that he gets Ann to interpret what women are saying for him because he, umm...doesn't speak wimmentalk, but I'll let that slide for right now.
No, the right has had a field day and played the very old SAHM vs. working mom(cuz we don't deserve capitals in our stereotype) and how SAHM's are undervalued by the "liberals"...and, by the way, the republicons since they've always fought against putting a $ amount to what a housewife does, but cons are great at mouth service, just not actual praise/assistance.
So, from a real working mom(as is Hillary Rosen), the truth is that Ann Romney was born into privilege, married into privilege and the worst problem she's had, in regard to SAHM, is which home are they staying at this month? Don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think I know anyone that owns 5 residences.
And that was the reason for Hillary Rosen's comment. Not trying to slam Ann Romney as a SAHM, but because she has absolutely no idea how the other 98% of us survive. Ann Romney has never had to decide between buying gas or dinner, paying the electric bill now, because we can live without a phone if that gets turned off. Telling her kids that its more special for mom to make them their birthday cake instead of getting a store bought one when the truth is mom can't afford the store bought cake. Those are the economics of a home that doesn't make $20 M annually...or even $20K sometimes.
And this comment of Mitt's(about Ann telling him what women want) was to hide the other very real fact of the republicon's war on contraception and women's rights. Let's rehash for a minute:
Regarding Mitt and not only his flip-floppiness, but his outright lies. Although Mitt came to the defense of his wife's "choice" and SAHM's all over the country, that isn't what he said in January. Now, its true, he was talking about icky nasty poor mothers, but considering more and more of us "middle class" moms became welfare recipients during the Bush recession, how does that play for truth? So, what Mitt actually means is that if you are filthy rich, you can make that choice, but otherwise, "Get to work, you lazy trollop!"? Hmmm....the "dignity of work" for poor mothers does not include taking care of their children. He also said, in his senate race against Ted Kennedy that we no longer have the luxury to have the choice of SAHM in many occasions because its a "new world". And then the Mitt Romney staff gaf on the press conference call about the Lily Ledbetter law and if the Mittster agreed with it....dead silence....and then the caribou barbie answer, "Will have to get back to ya on that." Really???
First, the republicons refuse to allow women to speak about contraception in the congress, then one of the republicon rabid dog, Rush, attacks a private citizen in a 9 hour attack, calling her a "whore", "slut", "prostitute", among other things...and what do the 'cons do? Well, Mitt said he wouldn't have chosen those words, but the right did not tell the rabid mutt to calm down, or that they thought it was wrong, nope....not a peep.
Then we have all of these bills, both in the states and in the federal congress. There have been over 100 bills just trying to limit abortion since the teabaggers "took over" the 'cons...and nary a one on jobs. There was the Blunt amendment to allow all businesses and health care providers to "opt out" of covering birth control, We have the states voting on laws to ensure to humiliate women if they want an abortion, to allow doctors to lie to their patients about procedures if the woman might want an abortion, or the emotional rape of having a metal rod stuck up her vagina for the "transvaginal probe sonogram" that is mandatory now is some states. And we have an overabundance of bills that want to limit birth control--not just to single women, but married ones also...and here I thought republican men liked sex...they've had more than their share of sex scandals...the right has been all over limiting the rights of women to reproductive rights, health care, job safety, pay equity, job equity. Hillary Rosen's comment was about economic inequality and the right's consistent war on women.
No, the right has had a field day and played the very old SAHM vs. working mom(cuz we don't deserve capitals in our stereotype) and how SAHM's are undervalued by the "liberals"...and, by the way, the republicons since they've always fought against putting a $ amount to what a housewife does, but cons are great at mouth service, just not actual praise/assistance.
So, from a real working mom(as is Hillary Rosen), the truth is that Ann Romney was born into privilege, married into privilege and the worst problem she's had, in regard to SAHM, is which home are they staying at this month? Don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think I know anyone that owns 5 residences.
And that was the reason for Hillary Rosen's comment. Not trying to slam Ann Romney as a SAHM, but because she has absolutely no idea how the other 98% of us survive. Ann Romney has never had to decide between buying gas or dinner, paying the electric bill now, because we can live without a phone if that gets turned off. Telling her kids that its more special for mom to make them their birthday cake instead of getting a store bought one when the truth is mom can't afford the store bought cake. Those are the economics of a home that doesn't make $20 M annually...or even $20K sometimes.
And this comment of Mitt's(about Ann telling him what women want) was to hide the other very real fact of the republicon's war on contraception and women's rights. Let's rehash for a minute:
Regarding Mitt and not only his flip-floppiness, but his outright lies. Although Mitt came to the defense of his wife's "choice" and SAHM's all over the country, that isn't what he said in January. Now, its true, he was talking about icky nasty poor mothers, but considering more and more of us "middle class" moms became welfare recipients during the Bush recession, how does that play for truth? So, what Mitt actually means is that if you are filthy rich, you can make that choice, but otherwise, "Get to work, you lazy trollop!"? Hmmm....the "dignity of work" for poor mothers does not include taking care of their children. He also said, in his senate race against Ted Kennedy that we no longer have the luxury to have the choice of SAHM in many occasions because its a "new world". And then the Mitt Romney staff gaf on the press conference call about the Lily Ledbetter law and if the Mittster agreed with it....dead silence....and then the caribou barbie answer, "Will have to get back to ya on that." Really???
First, the republicons refuse to allow women to speak about contraception in the congress, then one of the republicon rabid dog, Rush, attacks a private citizen in a 9 hour attack, calling her a "whore", "slut", "prostitute", among other things...and what do the 'cons do? Well, Mitt said he wouldn't have chosen those words, but the right did not tell the rabid mutt to calm down, or that they thought it was wrong, nope....not a peep.
Then we have all of these bills, both in the states and in the federal congress. There have been over 100 bills just trying to limit abortion since the teabaggers "took over" the 'cons...and nary a one on jobs. There was the Blunt amendment to allow all businesses and health care providers to "opt out" of covering birth control, We have the states voting on laws to ensure to humiliate women if they want an abortion, to allow doctors to lie to their patients about procedures if the woman might want an abortion, or the emotional rape of having a metal rod stuck up her vagina for the "transvaginal probe sonogram" that is mandatory now is some states. And we have an overabundance of bills that want to limit birth control--not just to single women, but married ones also...and here I thought republican men liked sex...they've had more than their share of sex scandals...the right has been all over limiting the rights of women to reproductive rights, health care, job safety, pay equity, job equity. Hillary Rosen's comment was about economic inequality and the right's consistent war on women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)