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?

[nursebenjamin]

@ East of Eden, Your posts are are almost always off topic. Please stop being rude and take tangential arguments to another thread.

[East of Eden]

@ East of Eden, Your posts are are almost always off topic. Please stop being rude and take tangential arguments to another thread.

That's funny, you calling someone else rude. As far as your complaint, see #16 of the forum rules.

[nursebenjamin]

We shouldn’t even be discussing what is required of employers; we should instead be discussing what is required of health insurance companies.

Why? … [Employers] should be able to determine what is and isn't included in the plans they offer.

P.S. The rule isn’t even new; it has basically been in effect for over a decade. Republicans are up in arms now because the new rule concerning preventive health services for women was issued under Obama’s watch. And Republicans are nothing but a Do-Nothing Party that opposes everything associated with Obama.

“In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,[7] which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.�[8]

The following year, a group of employees sued their employer for failure to comply with the EEOC rule. The Court ruled that the employer’s prescription drug plan discriminates against its female employees by providing less complete coverage than that offered to male employees. The court ORDERED the employer to cover all prescription contraception and contraception-related services.[9] The employer lost on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case.

The only difference between the EEOC ruling of 2000 and Department of Health and Human Services’ 2012 rule is that (A) the co-pay most go away, (B) the EEOC rule excluded employers who employed less than 15 people, and (C) the HHS rule exempts certain religious organizations that employ only religious workers.

So, tell me please, why were conservatives not up in arms with Bush, who for eight years, did nothing to alter or withdraw the EEOC rule? Is there any reason other then blatant and unapologetic hypocrisy?

[micatala]

@ East of Eden, Your posts are are almost always off topic. Please stop being rude and take tangential arguments to another thread.

That's funny, you calling someone else rude. As far as your complaint, see #16 of the forum rules.

Moderator Comment


It is true that members should not comment on or accuse others of rules violations in the thread. This should be done via the report feature.


It is also true that there are a number of off topic issues being brought into the thread. Please focus on the questions raised in the OP.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[East of Eden]

And Republicans are nothing but a Do-Nothing Party that opposes everything associated with Obama.

Did you complain when the Democrats did the same to Bush?

It isn't just Republicans opposing Obama, the only bi-partisan thing about Obamacare was the opposition to it.

Obama's budget was just defeated 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the house. Must be a lot of do-nothing Democrats also.

[nursebenjamin]

And Republicans are nothing but a Do-Nothing Party that opposes everything associated with Obama.

Did you complain when the Democrats did the same to Bush?

Off-topic.

It isn't just Republicans opposing Obama, the only bi-partisan thing about Obamacare was the opposition to it.

You were misinformed. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 passed, and votes where largely along party lines.

Obama's budget was just defeated 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the house. Must be a lot of do-nothing Democrats also.

WTF? This is off topic. But just for the record, the bill that was defeated unanimously was not the budget proposal submitted by Obama, but a Republican-sponsored bill that they named "Obama's Budget"[11]. It was a gimmick to get ignorant people to think that the budget proposal submitted by the Obama White House was defeated unanimously.

And since you didn't respond to anything else in my last post, I can only assume that you agree that "outrage" over this Department of Health and Human Service rule is faux since the rule has, for the most part, already been in effect for over a decade.

[East of Eden]

And Republicans are nothing but a Do-Nothing Party that opposes everything associated with Obama.

Did you complain when the Democrats did the same to Bush?

Off-topic.

You're funny, it's only on-topic when you're beating on the GOP?

You were misinformed. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 passed, and votes where largely along party lines.

No Republicans supported it, unlike Medicare and other important legislation. At one time Obama said it should not be passed on partisan lines. At a time when Democrats had overwhelming majorities, it barely passed due to threats and payoffs like the 'Louisiana purchase', etc. Right now I'm more interested with it rightly getting thrown out in the SCOTUS.

And since you didn't respond to anything else in my last post, I can only assume that you agree that "outrage" over this Department of Health and Human Service rule is faux since the rule has, for the most part, already been in effect for over a decade.

I don't know enough about it to opine, but it you're saying hypocrisy is bi-partisan, I agree.

[MyReality]

Sorry for not being here to respond, had a lot of stuff happen all at once. I read through the entire thread and wish i was here to respond. I will try and go back and respond to most posts.

[ThatGirlAgain]

The hypocrisy here is sickening, if not surprising.

Moderator Comment

Please find less provocative language to express your points.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[dianaiad]

We shouldn’t even be discussing what is required of employers; we should instead be discussing what is required of health insurance companies.

Why? … [Employers] should be able to determine what is and isn't included in the plans they offer.

P.S. The rule isn’t even new; it has basically been in effect for over a decade. Republicans are up in arms now because the new rule concerning preventive health services for women was issued under Obama’s watch. And Republicans are nothing but a Do-Nothing Party that opposes everything associated with Obama.

That's a good thing. Of course, it seems a little, er....dumb? to blame the Republicans for the problems when the Democrats have had FULL control of the congress for all but one of the last SIX years, and full control of the government for three of 'em...the first two years of Obama's term.

There is quite literally NOTHING the Republicans COULD do to stem the tide. How ironic that you are now BLAMING them for the problems.

“In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,[7] which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.�[8]

Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? In other words, it's not about the Catholics contracting health services with, oh...Kaiser Permanente or something, where Kaiser offers a range of plans and the Catholics pick one that best fits their needs.

This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion. Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.

The following year, a group of employees sued their employer for failure to comply with the EEOC rule. The Court ruled that the employer’s prescription drug plan discriminates against its female employees by providing less complete coverage than that offered to male employees. The court ORDERED the employer to cover all prescription contraception and contraception-related services.[9] The employer lost on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case.

Well, the Catholics don't offer birth control pills to guys, either. That should settle that one.

The only difference between the EEOC ruling of 2000 and Department of Health and Human Services’ 2012 rule is that (A) the co-pay most go away, (B) the EEOC rule excluded employers who employed less than 15 people, and (C) the HHS rule exempts certain religious organizations that employ only religious workers.

So, tell me please, why were conservatives not up in arms with Bush, who for eight years, did nothing to alter or withdraw the EEOC rule? Is there any reason other then blatant and unapologetic hypocrisy?

How about...there is a difference between what a third party insurer does,and what is required of self insured religious institutions?