OK, once again, I'm overwhelmed by all the idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, fucktardary, and stupidity that is now coming from the Republican party!
Now, get this . . . . .
The Republicans are now saying . . . . .
Are you sure you're ready for this?
The Republicans are now saying, that, for contraception . . . . .
OK, before I continue . . . . .
Please be sure you are seated, and strapped down in your chair in front of your computer, so you won't drop to the floor and possibly injure yourself.
I think office chairs should be equipped with a seat belt and shoulder straps before reading the upcoming fucktardary that I'm about to present in this latest NEWS article.
OK, here is it!
The Republicans are now saying, that for contraception, that a woman should . . . . .
. . . HOLD AN ASPIRIN BETWEEN HER KNEES!!!
There, now I said it!
Anyway, here's a link to said article, from The New Yorker, no less.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... berty.html
And here's some more from USA TODAY.NEWS DESK
Notes on Washington and the world by the staff of The New Yorker.
February 16, 2012
On Contraception and Liberty
Posted by Alex Koppelman
Hereâ??s an image that couldnâ??t not go viral: House Republicans hold a hearing on the Obama Administrationâ??s contraceptive-coverage rule. They line up the five witnesses for the first panel, the important one, along a single table. All of them are men. No wonder, then, that two of the female Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, which was responsible for the hearing, walked out. Itâ??s clearly silly to hold a hearing about contraception and not hear from anyone who might actually take birth control.
On the other hand: when Committee Chairman Darrell Issa rejected the Democratsâ?? attempt to get a womanâ??a Georgetown studentâ??on the panel, he wasnâ??t wrong. (At least, not entirely.) Itâ??s all about how you choose to define the issue. And according to the definition that the House Republicans were using on Thursday, a hearing about the contraception-coverage rule is not necessarily a hearing about contraceptionâ??itâ??s a hearing about religious liberty.
â??I really find it so objectionable that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would characterize this as something so narrow as being about contraception,â? Representative Ann Marie Buerkle, a New York Republican who was the only woman from her party at the hearing, said. â??This is a fundamental assault on oneâ??s conscience.â?
It comes down to this: if the issue is contraception, Republicans lose. The polls are clear enough about that. But the numbers do move a bit depending on how you ask the question: if itâ??s framed in part as an issue of religious liberty, the picture looks better for opponents of the rule. There, Republicans have an openingâ??if they can shift the debate away from contraception, and instead make it about the President attacking religion and the religious (and throw in a few winking hints about his personal beliefs), then they have a chance to turn this into a winning issue come November.
Too bad for them, then, that their allies donâ??t seem to be ready to coÃ¶perate fully. Foster Friess, the man backing Rick Santorumâ??s Super PAC, killed their news cycle when he went on MSNBC and shocked even Andrea Mitchell by saying,â??Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasnâ??t that costly.â? (See Amy Davidsonâ??s post for more on that subject.)
And in Virginia this week, Republicans have been busy showing that theyâ??re happy to violate individual liberty if it serves their ends. The Virginia House has passed a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion. In many cases (most, in fact) that would mean having whatâ??s called a â??transvaginal ultrasound,â? in which a probe is inserted into a pregnant womanâ??s vagina to get the necessary image. This may just seem like an attempt to punish women who choose to have an abortion and a way to make the procedure even less attractive than it already isâ??and there may be some element of that involvedâ??but there is a medical reason for the transvaginal ultrasound, at least, if an ultrasound is required by law. Most abortions are conducted at a period during pregnancy when the fetus may be too small to be properly seen with the â??jelly-on-the-bellyâ? ultrasound.
This all makes for an odd spectacle: Republicans in Washington are up in arms over the violation of religious liberty they say is involved in forcing a religious institution to offer insurance that completely covers birth control. But, not far away, their colleagues are working to pass a law that forces a woman to undergo an invasive procedure in order to have an abortionâ??a law which clearly violates that womanâ??s liberty, not to mention her person. On that, they seem to be silent.
Photograph by Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 53136216/1
WOW! Talk about major fucking retardation!!!Political risks abound in fight over contraceptives rule
By Susan Davis, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON â?? Republicans in Congress are exerting their legislative muscle to fight the Obama administration's recent ruling to require religion-affiliated employers to expand health insurance plans to cover women's contraceptives, but the confrontation risks alienating crucial voting blocs in an election year in which voters continue to care more about the economy than social issues.
By Jim Watson, AFP/Getty Images
President Obama, accompanied by Health and
Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,
announces on Feb. 10 a modification to a rule
requiring religious employers provide access
Republicans contend their opposition is not rooted in a woman's ability to access birth control, but in the government's right to mandate religious-affiliated employers, such as Catholic hospitals, to cover contraceptives if it violates their faith.
Democrats are casting the debate as a women's health issue that involves gender equality, not a religious debate, because the American public is not divided about the use of contraceptives. A Pew poll released Tuesday showed just 8% of Americans believe contraception to be morally wrong.
"If government comes in and forces a religious entity to invoke a policy against their religious affiliation, I think that's a slippery slope," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. "I think that for a lot of women, they know what's going on, and it is government trying to overrun the church and they don't like that. They like having those religious liberties."
A CNN poll released Thursday backs up Blackburn: Half of all Americans aware of the ruling said they oppose it, while 44% support it. However, nearly 40% of those polled said they had not heard about the dispute, which means both parties have room in which to define the debate for a large swath of the public.
By Alex Wong, Getty Images
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has introduced an amendment
that would permit health insurance companies to refuse
services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of employers.
Republicans in Congress intend to keep the debate going when lawmakers return from a week-long Presidents Day recess. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing on the legality of the administration's mandate, and the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., to circumvent the Obama ruling by allowing health insurance companies to refuse services that violate religious beliefs of employers.
The ruling puts Obama and the Democratic Party at risk of alienating Catholic voters, who made up 27% of the electorate in 2008. A majority, 55%, of Catholics believe that religious-affiliated organizations should be given an exception to the rule, according to the Pew poll. Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008 by 9 points over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but he lost or tied for the Catholic vote in swing states with high Catholic populations, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
There is concern within the GOP that the party risks alienating voters if the religious liberty debate is inextricably linked with a debate over women's access to contraceptives.
"[Democrats] have done a very good job about making it about contraception," said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo. "From a policy perspective, I think the Republican Party is correct on the religious-freedom part and it's not about contraception." Emerson said the party could be better served to accept the ruling and focus on more pressing issues. "I think getting the president to compromise on [the ruling] was a significant victory, and people should embrace it and move on," she said.
Women make up a larger percentage of the electorate, tend to vote more often for Democrats and broadly support contraceptive coverage. According to 2008 exit poll data, women cast 53% of the vote to men's 47%, and they favored Obama by 13 points.
Democrats, particularly female lawmakers, are encouraging a fight because they believe the politics fall on their side. On Friday, a group of female senators occupied the Senate floor to highlight two events on the issue this week: a House Oversight Committee panel hearing featuring five men who testified against the administration on whether the contraceptive mandate violates the First Amendment, and a highly publicized comment by Foster Friess, a wealthy donor to Rick Santorum's presidential campaign.
On MSNBC Thursday Friess said: "Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly."
Santorum, who is Catholic and currently leading in national polls for the GOP presidential nomination, disassociated himself from the comment. However, the debate has highlighted Santorum's previous statements that have questioned the morality of contraception use.
Republicans noted that the House Oversight panel also heard testimony from two women on a separate panel. They opposed the administration's ruling.
"It was shocking. It was appalling. It was an insult to women everywhere," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who runs the Senate Democrats' campaign operation and is in charge of the party's strategy to maintain control of the chamber, which includes turning out female voters. "In fact, both of these stories are enough to make any woman, regardless of their own politics, very angry."
On Friday, the House Democrats' campaign operation used the Oversight hearing to make a plea to donors, suggesting that Republicans do not respect women. "If Republicans won't allow women to the table to discuss women's health care issues, we need a new table," read the e-mail solicitation. A petition led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calling for a woman to be at the table for any future discussion on the contraceptive ruling gathered 150,000 signatures in less than 24 hours.
"I don't understand why Republican leaders think this is a good way for them to go," said Margie Omero, a Democratic pollster, who cited a Feb. 13 CBS/New York Times poll that showed just one subgroup, Republican men, were a majority in opposing a federal requirement for private health insurance to cover contraceptive costs. In contrast, independent women voters support it 71%-25%.
"Does it help motivate the base? The anti-birth-control, Republican male base, for sure," Omero said.
The administration ruling has injected social issues into a national debate that has been largely dominated by economic concerns since Obama won in 2008, but polling indicates that those issues are still the top priority for voters. In the CBS/NYT poll, 44% said jobs and the economy were their most pressing concerns.
OK, here is what really grinds my gears!
The amendment would permit health insurance companies to refuse services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of employers.
Let's say for example:
I have a job, and the guy I'm working for, he believes in prayer and faith healing, and rejects modern medical science. Now, I'm a diabetic and I require insulin. So, while I'm working for this fuck-tard, I can not get the kind of health insurance that covers the use of modern medicine. Because, to have my employer cover health insurance that would provide modern medicine, that would be a violation of his "religious freedom" since he believes only in faith healing, so, I won't be able to have the cost of the medications I need covered by the company health plans. No, I'll have to go to a church, probably his church, and have his pastor pray for me.
The same would also apply for women wanting contraceptives!
So, the Republicans believe, that having an employer's health insurance company being required to cover modern medicine and contraceptives, would be in violation of the employer's right to his religious freedom.
What about the right, of an employee working for the fuck-tard, not have his employer's religious beliefs forced on him or her? Eh?
Yeah! This proposed amendment, would essentially allow an employer to forced his own religious beliefs on his employees!
And, this is in the name of . . . RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
So, these Republican fuck-tards believe, that religious freedom gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on your employees, if any health care plan goes against your religious beliefs.
Sorry, but this is obviously a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.
I'm glad that I'm not working and I'm glad that I get a disability pension, SSI and Social Security, which also includes Medicare/Medicaid, because if I were to go out to find work, I'll only be putting my life in danger.
If I were to go out looking for work, I would want to know, in advance, the religious affiliation of my potential employer.
Oh! But the Republicans will want to tack on another amendment, that to inquire into the religious affiliation of a potential employer, would be a violation of BOTH his religious freedom AND his privacy.
Hey! If I'm going to work for somebody, I want to know, in advance, if he's some fucking retarded, right-wing religious Ecclesiass-hole who might fucking kill me!
No! This would only serve to discourage people from going out to look for a job, but, to seek welfare and food stamps instead, and go on Medicare/Medicaid, because, getting a job, and working for some religious fanatical fuck-tard, would be to put your life in danger!
Yeah! Working for Joe's Hardware Store might be far more dangerous than working as a rough-neck on an oil filed for Exxon or some other oil company, or a construction worker walking a narrow beam a hundred stories up on a high-rise building.
OK, now, getting back to contraceptives again . . . . .
Contraceptives are not just used for birth control only, but are often used as medical treatment for other problems that women sometime have, like ovarian cysts, for example:
OK, here's another article, this one by THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 ... women.html
Ah! Yes indeed!
Observations and provocations
OBSERVATIONS AND PROVOCATIONS
FROM THE TIME'S OPINION STAFF
Issa's House hearings on contraception:
Where were the women?
February 17, 2012 | 7:49 pm
Let me look at that calendar -- what year is it again? 2012? Because, if you ask the Democrats, on Capitol Hill this week it was really looking like 1991. That was the year that an all-white, all-male Senate committee quizzed female witnesses, black and white, about sexual harassment and sexual innuendo during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
This week, there were no women appearing with the first panel before a House committee, which titled its hearings "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State" but that really was about the healthcare overhaul's requirement that employers' health insurance policies cover contraception.
The Democratsâ?? witness of choice -- a female Georgetown law student whose friend couldn't get access to contraceptive treatment there because of the university's religious affiliation, and who, evidently as a consequence, lost an ovary because of a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts -- was not permitted to testify. That, according to California Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who heads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was because she is not a member of the clergy, unlike the five men who did testify.
A letter to Democratic members from Issa's staff explained the decision not to let the student testify; it said the hearing "is not about reproductive rights but about the administrationâ??s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience."
Issa's colleague, New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, begged to differ:
"What I want to know is, where are the women? I look at this panel and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive healthcare services, including family planning.... Of course this hearing is about rights -- contraception and birth control. It's about the fact that women want to have access to basic health services [and] family planning through their insurance plan."
A second panel later in the day included two women chosen by Issa, both from Christian-oriented academic institutions but neither a clergy member.
The two Democratic women on the committee, Maloney and the D.C. representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with a male colleague, Mike Quigley of Illinois, walked out of the hearing in protest.
Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat, was a member of the House during Thomas' 1991 hearings. She and some female colleagues marched to the Senate side of Capitol Hill to demand that the all-male committee take the sexual harassment allegations seriously.
The next year, 1992 -- later called the "Year of the Woman" -- Boxer was elected to the Senate, and California became the first state to have two women as its senators.
Some of that was replayed about this week's hearings. Boxer said her 16-year-old grandson got a look at the picture of the male clergy members being sworn in and said incredulously, "It's all dudes."
Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi remarked: "Imagine having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel. Duh."
Boxer's Washington state colleague, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who was elected in the same 1992 "Year of the Woman" tide, said that "reading the news this morning was like stepping into a time machine and going back 50 years."
Or at least 20.
Don't ya just love riding in the rumble seat of a time machine!
Well, under different circumstance, it might be cool, but I'm afraid this time, the ride sucks!
Yeah, a women denied access to medical treatment for ovarian cysts.
Because of that, she has to have her ovaries surgically removed, and now, she can't have children for the rest of her life.
Yeah! Nice going, ya fuck-tards!
Well, I guess, if she needed medical treatment to prevent ovarian cysts, she could have held an Aspirin between her knees! Eh?