War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[Slopeshoulder]

I also don't think it's ideal to promote a culture of 'have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you feel like it.'

Just as an aside, I think this is actually a great thing to be doing, at least for single people. We need more sex. It's healthy, fun, relaxing, and affordable. It promotes well being and a happy populace. In many places it's one of the few forms of entertainment. Variety and range of experience also helps people gather information and choose a more permanent partner, as well as to get certain things out of their system (it certainly helped me stay monogamous in marriage).
BUT we can only send this message if we ALSO send the message that it must involve consent, sobriety, mutuality, justice, honesty and responsible use of birth control nd STD prevention technology. we should focus on those values IMO. Focus on promoting values, not proscribing acts. And "punish" failings around values, not acts.

[East of Eden]

I also don't think it's ideal to promote a culture of 'have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you feel like it.'

Just as an aside, I think this is actually a great thing to be doing, at least for single people. We need more sex. It's healthy, fun, relaxing, and affordable. It promotes well being and a happy populace.

Shouldn't humans be held to a higher standard than dogs, for instance? Actually promiscuity results in STDs and unwanted pregnancies leading to single parents. Children in such homes are twice as likely to be in poverty. That is the big factor those in the race business constantly overlook. For example, blacks growing up in an intact family do about as well as their white counterparts. How many young males in gangs have a father at home?

Variety and range of experience also helps people gather information and choose a more permanent partner,

Do you have documentation for this? I would think the opposite is true. It is a fact that couples that live together before marriage have less successful marriages than those who have not. I saw a study a while back that said that committed Christians who entered their marriages without a promiscuous past had more sexual satisfaction than others. IMHO people who enter marriage with lots of past partners are emotionally 'scattered', especially women.

as well as to get certain things out of their system (it certainly helped me stay monogamous in marriage).

How does monogamy and promiscuity go together?

[dianaiad]

I also don't think it's ideal to promote a culture of 'have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you feel like it.'

Just as an aside, I think this is actually a great thing to be doing, at least for single people. We need more sex. It's healthy, fun, relaxing, and affordable.

and dangerous.

It promotes well being and a happy populace. In many places it's one of the few forms of entertainment.

.......and in those places it is also a very effective population CONTROL issue, given the prevalence of AIDS and other STD's.

.....................I wonder why people who are so intense about educating others regarding the proper use of birth control and condoms in order to prevent STD's and figure that an STD is a well understood and 'natural' risk of having sex, don't include pregnancy in that list of 'things that sex is responsible for?"

it astounds me that, when we talk about making babies, people blithely say 'it's OK...we can kill the fetus and make it go away, so don't worry about it--it's your RIGHT to have sex anywhere, when, or with whom...." but when you are talking about the "clap,' suddenly everybody is told to be more responsible in using preventative methods?

there is something very wrong with the culture that screws up priorities this way.

Variety and range of experience also helps people gather information and choose a more permanent partner, as well as to get certain things out of their system (it certainly helped me stay monogamous in marriage).

that's good.

Er, you certainly don't have to answer; in fact, I would prefer that you did not, but....did you get a clean bill of health before you married your spouse?

........................and what would you have done if you hadn't?

BUT we can only send this message if we ALSO send the message that it must involve consent, sobriety, mutuality, justice, honesty and responsible use of birth control nd STD prevention technology. we should focus on those values IMO. Focus on promoting values, not proscribing acts. And "punish" failings around values, not acts.

One can do both. Or rather, one can point out that refraining from the acts is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD's. Short of that, RESPONSIBLE use of birth control isn't too much to ask; after all, in terms of simple responsibility to future partners and the parent of your future children, you owe it to him/her to be responsible now.

[Slopeshoulder]

I also don't think it's ideal to promote a culture of 'have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you feel like it.'

Just as an aside, I think this is actually a great thing to be doing, at least for single people. We need more sex. It's healthy, fun, relaxing, and affordable. It promotes well being and a happy populace.

Shouldn't humans be held to a higher standard than dogs, for instance?

YES!!! Dogs cannot elevate it to an art form for example. Dogs are clueless in the sack and favor only one position.

Actually promiscuity results in STDs and unwanted pregnancies leading to single parents.

This is minimized with technology and sobriety and reasonable choices. It's safer than driving a car, if you drive defensively and wisely. I agree thse bad potetnial consequences SHOULD be minimized. But I haven't sold my car. We do our best.

Variety and range of experience also helps people gather information and choose a more permanent partner,

Do you have documentation for this?

Mine's a lifetime of anecdotal and readin' stuff I forget where. It's just opinion. It's what many report.

I would think the opposite is true. It is a fact that couples that live together before marriage have less successful marriages than those who have not.

I suspect the reason is that it is because these are people who are more liberal minded in general, who demand more, who are more empowered, consider choice always an option, consider themselves more free, etc. In other words, I don't think it's a cause and effect between promiscuity and divorce. I think it's more suggestive of other dynamics that include both. That seems to make better sense of the facts. But I've seen these facts manipulated to try to make the false claim that there is a cause and effect in order to scare the young.

I saw a study a while back that said that committed Christians who entered their marriages without a promiscuous past had more sexual satisfaction than others.

If true (and it probably is), I think the reason for that is that they have fewer expectations, a lower satisfaction threshold, and less information for comparison. Seems reasonable. So they may report more satisfaction sujectively, but might have less actually/objectively in a way.
But I think either way works. To each his own. My parents and my in-laws were all virgins at their weddings (as far as I know) and they're both still together. I'm cool with whatever choice and I think both have benefits. But maybe they'd all be happier if they were free to search more and find better matches?

as well as to get certain things out of their system (it certainly helped me stay monogamous in marriage).

How does monogamy and promiscuity go together?

A promiscuous past can sometimes drive a desire to settle and a lack of interest in additional variety. As in, I tried the rest, I got the best. I have NO interest in anyone else. No sir, no way, no time. Not even if they're paying! Monogamy for me, until death do us part, and hopefully not even then. (BTW, I was only average promiscuous; I always tended toward monogamy myself).

But all in all, and to be serious, I do think we'd benefit as a species/culture if we preached things like intimacy, honesty, love, justice, mutuality, respect, and responsibility rather than to try to proscribe VERY popular acts which are themselves morally neutral. Overall, rather than abstinance for the few, I'd rather see values for the many. That seems reasonable and win-able to me. And so rather than calling someone a slut just for being active, we can call them an idiot or a jerk for being active with bad values. I know an attractive woman with an M.Div. in ethics and theoligy and a Ph.D. in psych. She's been single for 25 years, after a very young divorce from a mistaken marriage, and she's always been sexually ACTIVE. She's neither a slut nor an idiot. She carries herself with grace, dignity, and intelligence. Good values. No problems. It does happen. Not everyone ends up on Jerry Springer.

But if someone has a low libido, shyness, or a preference for inactivity, fewer partners, or virginity, that's their right and I have no problem with it. Vive la differance. I find it rather charming. As long as it is their free choice and not the result of undue pressure of one kind or another (because respect and consent works in both directions).

[Slopeshoulder]

Diana, I think most of what you wrote is counter-factual, subject to interpretation, and not what I said. But I'll answer below a few things.

Er, you certainly don't have to answer; in fact, I would prefer that you did not, but....did you get a clean bill of health before you married your spouse?

Oh yeah. I got married at 23, in '83. STD's were not on anybody's mind.
Then again at 40, after having been monogamous.
I'm clean and fixed, safe and responsible, but unavailable.

........................and what would you have done if you hadn't?

Sought medical attention.

BUT we can only send this message if we ALSO send the message that it must involve consent, sobriety, mutuality, justice, honesty and responsible use of birth control nd STD prevention technology. we should focus on those values IMO. Focus on promoting values, not proscribing acts. And "punish" failings around values, not acts.

One can do both.

Why should we?

Or rather, one can point out that refraining from the acts is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD's.

And staying home is the best way to avoid injury in an auto collision. In the end, we as individuals and a society make choices based on cost-benefit analyses. Additionally we read the facts on the ground, and the libido of the young and the approaching mortality of the older are powerful facts.

Short of that, RESPONSIBLE use of birth control isn't too much to ask; after all, in terms of simple responsibility to future partners and the parent of your future children, you owe it to him/her to be responsible now.

I could not agree more.
And I would add consent, sobriety, mutuality, respect, intimacy, honesty, non-predatory behavior, authenticity, justice, etc. Let's teach young people those. It always worked for me. Never had a problem.

[dianaiad]

Diana, I think most of what you wrote is counter-factual,

Exactly what is it that I wrote that was 'counter-factual?"

That the most effective preventative measure against STD's and pregnancy is abstinence?

That STD's are becoming anti-biotic and drug resistant?

That those with multiple sex partners are at higher risk for infecting future sexual partners?

Exactly what DID I write that was contrary to fact?

[East of Eden]

I also don't think it's ideal to promote a culture of 'have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you feel like it.'

Just as an aside, I think this is actually a great thing to be doing, at least for single people. We need more sex. It's healthy, fun, relaxing, and affordable. It promotes well being and a happy populace.

Shouldn't humans be held to a higher standard than dogs, for instance?

YES!!! Dogs cannot elevate it to an art form for example. Dogs are clueless in the sack and favor only one position.

Actually promiscuity results in STDs and unwanted pregnancies leading to single parents.

This is minimized with technology and sobriety and reasonable choices. It's safer than driving a car, if you drive defensively and wisely. I agree thse bad potetnial consequences SHOULD be minimized. But I haven't sold my car. We do our best.

Variety and range of experience also helps people gather information and choose a more permanent partner,

Do you have documentation for this?

Mine's a lifetime of anecdotal and readin' stuff I forget where. It's just opinion. It's what many report.

OK, I get that, lots of info. I put out here is the same.

I suspect the reason is that it is because these are people who are more liberal minded in general, who demand more, who are more empowered, consider choice always an option, consider themselves more free, etc. In other words, I don't think it's a cause and effect between promiscuity and divorce. I think it's more suggestive of other dynamics that include both. That seems to make better sense of the facts. But I've seen these facts manipulated to try to make the false claim that there is a cause and effect in order to scare the young.

I've seen a study that found that promiscuous women find it harder to bond to their husbands.

If true (and it probably is), I think the reason for that is that they have fewer expectations, a lower satisfaction threshold, and less information for comparison.

I have to reject that, it is negative, unfounded speculation.

But I think either way works. To each his own. My parents and my in-laws were all virgins at their weddings (as far as I know) and they're both still together.

And they didn't have STD's, right?

But all in all, and to be serious, I do think we'd benefit as a species/culture if we preached things like intimacy, honesty, love, justice, mutuality, respect, and responsibility rather than to try to proscribe VERY popular acts which are themselves morally neutral. Overall, rather than abstinance for the few, I'd rather see values for the many. That seems reasonable and win-able to me. And so rather than calling someone a slut just for being active, we can call them an idiot or a jerk for being active with bad values. I know an attractive woman with an M.Div. in ethics and theoligy and a Ph.D. in psych. She's been single for 25 years, after a very young divorce from a mistaken marriage, and she's always been sexually ACTIVE. She's neither a slut nor an idiot. She carries herself with grace, dignity, and intelligence. Good values. No problems. It does happen. Not everyone ends up on Jerry Springer.

But if someone has a low libido, shyness, or a preference for inactivity, fewer partners, or virginity, that's their right and I have no problem with it. Vive la differance. I find it rather charming. As long as it is their free choice and not the result of undue pressure of one kind or another (because respect and consent works in both directions).

This is where we differ. Like past generations, I consider promiscuity immoral, and like most things God prohibits, has serious negative consequences. If doing it God's way results in no single parents/unwanted pregnancies, no STDs, and higher marital satisfaction, why not?

[Slopeshoulder]

Diana, I think most of what you wrote is counter-factual,

Exactly what is it that I wrote that was 'counter-factual?"

That the most effective preventative measure against STD's and pregnancy is abstinence?

That STD's are becoming anti-biotic and drug resistant?

That those with multiple sex partners are at higher risk for infecting future sexual partners?

Exactly what DID I write that was contrary to fact?

Stuff about people caring about STD's and not pregnancy, stuff about flushing away unwanted babies just because someone isn't abstinent, stuff about sex being so dangerous. I mean, really. At least, as I said, it's subject to interpretation or not what I said.

[Slopeshoulder]

I've seen a study that found that promiscuous women find it harder to bond to their husbands.

By what definition?
From what "objective' and "reliable" source?
That sounds wrong and tainted on its face, and I do research for a living.

If true (and it probably is), I think the reason for that is that they have fewer expectations, a lower satisfaction threshold, and less information for comparison.

I have to reject that, it is negative, unfounded speculation.

It's not meant to be negative. It's reasonable. A person without experience has less information and therefore less of a frame of reference for choice. How is this wrong? How is this negative? And it's not speculation, it's interpretation of facts that I granted. How is your interpretation better? Try to stay rational here.

But I think either way works. To each his own. My parents and my in-laws were all virgins at their weddings (as far as I know) and they're both still together.

And they didn't have STD's, right?

This isn't relevant. Neither did I. And I even once slept with (horrors) a black woman (albeit a tyra banks look alike attending a top 30 school)!!

But all in all, and to be serious, I do think we'd benefit as a species/culture if we preached things like intimacy, honesty, love, justice, mutuality, respect, and responsibility rather than to try to proscribe VERY popular acts which are themselves morally neutral. Overall, rather than abstinance for the few, I'd rather see values for the many. That seems reasonable and win-able to me. And so rather than calling someone a slut just for being active, we can call them an idiot or a jerk for being active with bad values. I know an attractive woman with an M.Div. in ethics and theoligy and a Ph.D. in psych. She's been single for 25 years, after a very young divorce from a mistaken marriage, and she's always been sexually ACTIVE. She's neither a slut nor an idiot. She carries herself with grace, dignity, and intelligence. Good values. No problems. It does happen. Not everyone ends up on Jerry Springer.

But if someone has a low libido, shyness, or a preference for inactivity, fewer partners, or virginity, that's their right and I have no problem with it. Vive la differance. I find it rather charming. As long as it is their free choice and not the result of undue pressure of one kind or another (because respect and consent works in both directions).

This is where we differ. Like past generations, I consider promiscuity immoral, and like most things God prohibits, has serious negative consequences.

Now you've changed the subject. Neither I nor the M.Div. I referenced agree with you regarding how to read and apply sexual ethics as a Christian today. So we're at an impasse on another topic.

If doing it God's way

That's subject to interpretation.

results in no single parents/unwanted pregnancies, no STDs, and higher marital satisfaction, why not?

One is free to make that choice. No worries. (And honestly, when it comes to the mindless, irresponsible, drunken, lying, disrepectful, animalistic masses, I wish they would. Give 'em the old time religion and put Jerry Springer, Maury Povitch, and most divorce lawyers out of business).

One is also free to not have a car or to keep one's money in a mattress. One is free to miss out on life and to pass off all responsibility and risk to others, in this case a skydaddy god. But I believe my god wants me to have and use my gonads a bit more than that, to engage life a bit more, to make things, if sometimes only smiles.

But if one meets one's love and has a happy lifelong marriage from say 16 to 90, they have my envy and respect. If they like, they can learn skills from books and porn and not have to actually experience others. It's all good. I hope they are truly happy.

[dianaiad]

Diana, I think most of what you wrote is counter-factual,

Exactly what is it that I wrote that was 'counter-factual?"

That the most effective preventative measure against STD's and pregnancy is abstinence?

That STD's are becoming anti-biotic and drug resistant?

That those with multiple sex partners are at higher risk for infecting future sexual partners?

Exactly what DID I write that was contrary to fact?

Stuff about people caring about STD's and not pregnancy,

What's counter factual about that, in the way that I presented it? Teaching about protection, responsibility and all that is the FOCUS of STD prevention. Nobody talks about how easy it is to get rid of an STD, and that if you happen to get one, oh, well, just take a pill and it's gone. The emphasis, rightfully, is on PREVENTION, not 'cure." I've never heard anybody talk about how it's not possible to resist having sex, so...here's some antibiotics because it's not FAIR that one of the risks of pre-and extra marital sex (more than one partner, either participant) is getting an STD, so...go ahead, enjoy, we'll just take care of it when you get one.

Oddly enough, when talking about STD's, people seem to take preventative measures a great deal more seriously than they do when talking about the human lives that get created as a result of having sex.

So yeah; I think that it is pretty obvious that "people" take STD's more seriously than they take pregnancy.

...stuff about flushing away unwanted babies just because someone isn't abstinent,

Oh, back that one up. Please find and quote me saying anything of the sort.

stuff about sex being so dangerous. I mean, really. At least, as I said, it's subject to interpretation or not what I said.

Sex IS dangerous. Very much so. At least, sex with multiple partners is. According to the Guttmacher institute, 21%of sexually active women is at direct risk of an STD, and 23% are at indirect risk...that is, THEY may not have more than one partner, but their partner has had, and may continue to have, more than one partner. That's HALF the female population of the USA.

Now what would YOU call an activity that gave you a 50/50 chance of getting a rather nasty, perhaps drug resistant, disease that can cause infertility, brain damage, damage to any children you may eventually have...and even death?

I mean, hello?

Navy Seals in combat have a better chance of making it out unscathed.

Don't know about you, but, er....that's DANGEROUS.