War against Women

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
MyReality
Apprentice
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:21 pm
Location: AZ

War against Women

Post #1

Post by 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.
Image


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?

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #121

Post by dianaiad »

MyReality wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
MyReality wrote: I am not going to enter the argument at this stage unless directly asked a question. I am going to provide a bit of information considering the direction the debate is currently going.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy.

My parents are about to celebrate their 65Th anniversary.
My sisters have been married to their spouses for 35 and 40 years respectively.
Both sets of grandparents celebrated 50th wedding anniversaries before they died.

Out of eight aunts and two uncles, only one was divorced...and her second marriage lasted 50 years. The others, all of 'em, lasted at least 60 years. One set celebrated 75 years.

As far as I am aware, none of them ever had the urge to murder or stray.

Even I got to keep my husband for twenty years. It would have been longer, but he died.

So yeah, it can be done--and y'know something else? No therapy required.

If you're going to quote something make sure to quote it all. I never said it cannot be done, I said.
Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy. Life would not be better, as humans have not evolved to be naturally monogamous especially men. Just look at the divorce rate in America or any country. It is very very rare when compared to the whole of humanity to find a couple who has lasted a lifetime together without cheating, seperation, or remarried.
Your circle while great to know they been together all this time does not make a dent compared to the numbers of divorces/seperations. Probably a bit to personal for you to know, but were their partners the only ones they ever been with?
Y'know, it's true that half of the couples in the USA divorce. That's not a good thing. However, you know what ELSE that means?

That half don't.

50% is not 'very, very rare."

User avatar
JohnPaul
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
Location: northern California coast, USA

Post #122

Post by JohnPaul »

dianaiad wrote:
MyReality wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
MyReality wrote: I am not going to enter the argument at this stage unless directly asked a question. I am going to provide a bit of information considering the direction the debate is currently going.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy.

My parents are about to celebrate their 65Th anniversary.
My sisters have been married to their spouses for 35 and 40 years respectively.
Both sets of grandparents celebrated 50th wedding anniversaries before they died.

Out of eight aunts and two uncles, only one was divorced...and her second marriage lasted 50 years. The others, all of 'em, lasted at least 60 years. One set celebrated 75 years.

As far as I am aware, none of them ever had the urge to murder or stray.

Even I got to keep my husband for twenty years. It would have been longer, but he died.

So yeah, it can be done--and y'know something else? No therapy required.

If you're going to quote something make sure to quote it all. I never said it cannot be done, I said.
Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy. Life would not be better, as humans have not evolved to be naturally monogamous especially men. Just look at the divorce rate in America or any country. It is very very rare when compared to the whole of humanity to find a couple who has lasted a lifetime together without cheating, seperation, or remarried.
Your circle while great to know they been together all this time does not make a dent compared to the numbers of divorces/seperations. Probably a bit to personal for you to know, but were their partners the only ones they ever been with?
Y'know, it's true that half of the couples in the USA divorce. That's not a good thing. However, you know what ELSE that means?

That half don't.

50% is not 'very, very rare."
I doubt that the achievment of you and your family in remaining faithfully married for so many years is in any way typical today, but good for you! I also agree that some of the unbelievably casual attutudes expressed in this thread toward the exploding problem of STDs are "jaw-dropping" and completely irresponsible.

Of course, advising a man to remain celibate outside of marriage to avoid STDs is no more practical than advising him to stop breathing to avoid pneumonia. Since I am among those euphemistically referred to by MyReality above as "in their later years," the problem is largely academic for me now, but my memory is not failing.

Many years ago when I was young, single, serving in the Air Force with an aircrew overseas and making frequent flights to many countries in Europe, "clap" was routinely expected and almost a badge of honor. If you didn't get it, there was something wrong with you. I got it. I don't know from whom, or even what country it came from, but that didn't really matter. When I noticed a burning sensation, I obediently trotted off to the Flight Surgeon's office for a couple of shots of penicillin which soon made the burning go away. That was then. Now I understand that gonorrhea has become drug-resistant and doesn't go away! That is not a pleasant thought!

Back in those days, STDs came in only two flavors, clap and syphilis. Clap was no big deal, but syphilis was. After my shots for clap, I was required to return every month for six months to be checked for signs of syphilis. I had seen several movies of the horrible effects of syphillis as part of my basic training, as I suppose every military person has. It was treated by the military almost as a greater danger than getting shot. I was almost proud of my clap, but you better believe I got my syphilis checks religiously and breathed a sigh of relief when the six months were over.

User avatar
MyReality
Apprentice
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:21 pm
Location: AZ

Post #123

Post by MyReality »

dianaiad wrote:
MyReality wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
MyReality wrote: I am not going to enter the argument at this stage unless directly asked a question. I am going to provide a bit of information considering the direction the debate is currently going.

Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy.

My parents are about to celebrate their 65Th anniversary.
My sisters have been married to their spouses for 35 and 40 years respectively.
Both sets of grandparents celebrated 50th wedding anniversaries before they died.

Out of eight aunts and two uncles, only one was divorced...and her second marriage lasted 50 years. The others, all of 'em, lasted at least 60 years. One set celebrated 75 years.

As far as I am aware, none of them ever had the urge to murder or stray.

Even I got to keep my husband for twenty years. It would have been longer, but he died.

So yeah, it can be done--and y'know something else? No therapy required.

If you're going to quote something make sure to quote it all. I never said it cannot be done, I said.
Although if one thinks that it is realistic that a person can go through life waiting for that one perfect person to get married without any sort of trial and error is in need of therapy. Life would not be better, as humans have not evolved to be naturally monogamous especially men. Just look at the divorce rate in America or any country. It is very very rare when compared to the whole of humanity to find a couple who has lasted a lifetime together without cheating, seperation, or remarried.
Your circle while great to know they been together all this time does not make a dent compared to the numbers of divorces/seperations. Probably a bit to personal for you to know, but were their partners the only ones they ever been with?
Y'know, it's true that half of the couples in the USA divorce. That's not a good thing. However, you know what ELSE that means?

That half don't.

50% is not 'very, very rare."
You seem to really like cherry picking and answering only half a statement rather than taking on the whole statement while applying your meaning on what a person writes. This is what i said.
It is very very rare when compared to the whole of humanity to find a couple who has lasted a lifetime together without cheating, seperation, or remarried.
I was not just talking about divorce but also cheating, separation or remarriage. While implying all the other things that can happen during the life of a couple. It is very very rare to find a couple who has not at any point wavered. I can make it clearer if you like.

Now the main point of my post was about the negative effects of sexual suppression, not only for the individual but for society as a whole. The explanation and link provided is in Post 117 page 12.

But i can see why you would want to concentrate on the tid bit about long term successful marriages.

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post #124

Post by kayky »

For folks from my parents' generation, there was such a stigma attached to divorce and so few opportunities for women that many remained married even in the most miserable of circumstances.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #125

Post by Goat »

kayky wrote: For folks from my parents' generation, there was such a stigma attached to divorce and so few opportunities for women that many remained married even in the most miserable of circumstances.
I also there there was a lack of opportunity to get any kind of gainful employment for women. They didn't have resources to leave , so they stuck through it... despite emotional and physical abuse.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #126

Post by dianaiad »

Goat wrote:
kayky wrote: For folks from my parents' generation, there was such a stigma attached to divorce and so few opportunities for women that many remained married even in the most miserable of circumstances.
I also there there was a lack of opportunity to get any kind of gainful employment for women. They didn't have resources to leave , so they stuck through it... despite emotional and physical abuse.
So.... y'all have decided that the reasons the folks 'from your parent's generation" (and which generation would that be, Goat...Kayke?) was that all the women would have left if they could, because they were all being beaten up?

Is this where I get to say 'prove it?'

User avatar
Fuzzy Dunlop
Guru
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am

Post #127

Post by Fuzzy Dunlop »

dianaiad wrote:...all the women would have left if they could, because they were all being beaten up?

Is this where I get to say 'prove it?'
I am having a hard time finding anyone making this claim. kayky specifically said "many" women so I do not know where you have gotten the idea that "all the women" are being discussed.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #128

Post by dianaiad »

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
dianaiad wrote:...all the women would have left if they could, because they were all being beaten up?

Is this where I get to say 'prove it?'
I am having a hard time finding anyone making this claim. kayky specifically said "many" women so I do not know where you have gotten the idea that "all the women" are being discussed.
OK, I'll expand. by "all the women" I mean "all the women who would have left their husbands in 'our parent's generation" so that the divorce statistics would be approximately the same as they are now," which is implied by the idea that the REASON divorce is more common now than 'back then' is because women were afraid to leave abusive husbands.

As it happens, according to divorcereform.org, the major causes of divorce NOW are;

Poor communication
Financial problems
A lack of commitment to the marriage
A dramatic change in priorities
Infidelity

While spousal abuse (of the wife) is a cause, it doesn't come up nearly as often as the above reasons.

...............................and there is one that seems to be very common indeed: "Father Flight." That is, the guy can't handle/doesn't want the responsibility of children, especially sick children or a sick spouse, so he decamps.

I think, then, that since the claim is that the divorce rate now is the product of women leaving abusive husbands where they did not do so 'before,' some support of that contention is in order. IS this the cause of enough modern divorces to make a substantive difference in the divorce rate--enough that this would be an automatic 'go to' position when discussing modern divorce stats and finding "The" reason why they are higher than they used to be?

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post #129

Post by kayky »

dianaiad wrote:
So.... y'all have decided that the reasons the folks 'from your parent's generation" (and which generation would that be, Goat...Kayke?) was that all the women would have left if they could, because they were all being beaten up?

Is this where I get to say 'prove it?'
I'm sure there were many happy marriages in my parents' generation. Unfortunately my parents' marriage and those of many of my aunts and uncles and neighbors were not among them.

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post #130

Post by kayky »

My mother is 81 years old. My father passed five years ago. He would have been 82.

Post Reply