WTH?! So glad I do not live in Virginia

[Iniquitous]

Virginia House Passes Personhood Bill

.... ughs. I am supremely happy that I do not live in Virginia and I sincerely hope that the state senate shuts this down. This is disturbing as hell - and on top of this one, they passed a law now that any woman wanting an abortion HAS to have a transvaginal ultrasound to SEE and HEAR the fetus' heartbeat before she can get an abortion.

Seriously? WTH?!

[Wolfy]

<_<>_>...Am I the only one who stopped reading at "Republican-Led" and wrote this off as Lunacy? :D

[Trieste]

Thank god the legislators are concerned with what goes on in the bedroom and the doctor's office. I mean, if they didn't busy themselves with stuff like this, all their time might be taken up by trying to bring down the unemployment rate or stimulate the economy, and we can't have that.

[Iniquitous]

I'd say I was shocked to read this ... but I'm not. I am irate over it though. It is ridiculous to think that they have the right to dictate to females what can and cannot be done with their reproductive organs. And this is the same law that can be used to outlaw contraceptives since those can cause spontaneous abortions of the zygote.

I thought the idea was to progress forward, not return to a time when women had no rights.

And the matter of forcing women to have a transvaginal ultrasound and signing that she has seen and heard the heartbeat? Ughs... going to stop now before I start chewing on the desk in frustration.

[Shjade]

The first thought I had upon reading the summarized version:

"Man, I hope they plan to cover the cost of that transvaginal ultrasound for the women in question."

[elone]

I do live in Virginia and let this be a warning to all as to what can happen when Republicans take over the legislature and the governorship. This legislation may well pass the Senate because it is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats with a Republican in the executive having the deciding vote on ties. Every indication is that the governor will sign these bills.

I can not understand why republicans, the party of less government in our lives, needs to have a say in anyones personal business. They are throwing everything they can at women to make it difficult for abortions, or birth control for that matter. Maybe they should ban coat hangers as well because that will be the only option left when they are through.

Another bill receiving attention is to repeal the one a month handgun purchase rule. Just not enough guns for them.

One more, they tabled a bill to outlaw dogs being used to kill fenced in foxes. Did they learn nothing from Michael Vick.

I could go on and on. What was once a progressive state government has been swept up by the tea party republicans. Virginia also put such gems as Eric Cantor in congress.

In November good old boy George Allen (R) is running for U.S. Senator. Remember him for having a noose in his office and his famous macaca remark.

We need help here in the Old Dominion.

[Serephino]

The stupid Tea Party has taken over the whole country.  Won't affect birth control my ass....

[Observing Trifles]

Thank god the legislators are concerned with what goes on in the bedroom and the doctor's office. I mean, if they didn't busy themselves with stuff like this, all their time might be taken up by trying to bring down the unemployment rate or stimulate the economy, and we can't have that.

You pretty much summed up everything my mind came up with in response to this insanity.

[Oniya]

Another bill receiving attention is to repeal the one a month handgun purchase rule. Just not enough guns for them.

I used to live in Virginia, until we found out that you had to be a DINK* family to live in the DC area.  At the time that the one-a-month handgun purchase rule came into effect, the language could easily be interpreted that you had to buy one gun a month. 


*DINK=Double Income, No Kids

[Hemingway]

I don't understand. If ..

The bill provides that “unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the commonwealth.”

Then how can it not...

[ ... ]affect birth control, miscarriages or abortions

But then, I notice that in this quote,

“To claim using birth control will get you in trouble with this statue is simply false,’’ Marshall said. “It does not have the affect of criminalizing birth control. This does not directly effect abortion.’’

He conveniently neglects to mention miscarriages, and says it does not "directly" affect abortion. Now, I don't know what that means, but I know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that it won't affect miscarriages, or that it won't, in some way, affect abortions. The language there is vague enough that people should at least be cautious.

( I also just noticed that, in the article, it says "effect abortion". Well, thank god! )

[Oniya]

Ohio has introduced a bill to prevent physician assistants from putting in or removing IUDs.  Presumably, this is supposed to mean that physicians are allowed to insert or remove them.  However, while PAs function under the 'direct supervision of a physician', that supervision can be in person, by telecommunication systems or by other reliable means - which means that they are frequently seen in places where an actual physician doesn't have their main practice (clinics, rural areas, etc.).  The upshot is that women who want to use IUD birth control are going to have to locate, get to, and pay for a physician, putting still more burden on those who are already in economically strapped situations.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/16/gop-kicks-women-out-of-contraception-debate-says-its-about-religion-not-women-video/

It's official.. the GOP.. has lost it's FUCKING MIND.

I want the part of 'right sizing' and admitting that we needed tax raises, and facing the hard reality of things..rather than the sellouts sucking up to the fundies and the Wall Street Bastrds.

[Iniquitous]

New Hampshire's Rep says no birth control because it causes prostrate cancer

And this is a woman against birth control. Again, not shocked. But I am still trying to figure out how my daughter taking birth control will cause prostrate cancer in a man. My brain is simply not making the gigantic leap there.

[RubySlippers]

At least they didn't figure out they could tax birth control and could find a way to tax abortions. In the case of birth control a 25% tax would make buying over the counter options less popular and if they found the morning-after pill offensive charge enough to make getting it cost prohibitive say a 100% tax. For abortions they couldn't tax the procedure but could demand a permit to dispose of the fetus of say $1000 for suitable internment if they do the same for other human organic waste. (arms, legs, organs). I think if an abortion was say $1300 it would prevent them.

Lucky I'm not a Republican in some states I could do more damage i can think outside the box and get mean.  ;D

Seriously though I support the idea of a personhood for the unborn just not so broad I would have made it a resolution by the legislature that they consider the unborn a person and to consider any measures to reduce abortion demands in the state. Not make it a law more a statement. Then if they are serious I would have laws to make over-the-counter birth control easier to get and use in the state at least two condoms and contraceptive foam or jelly. That would be a good thing even if not perfect they could do.

[Iniquitous]

At least they didn't figure out they could tax birth control and could find a way to tax abortions. In the case of birth control a 25% tax would make buying over the counter options less popular and if they found the morning-after pill offensive charge enough to make getting it cost prohibitive say a 100% tax. For abortions they couldn't tax the procedure but could demand a permit to dispose of the fetus of say $1000 for suitable internment if they do the same for other human organic waste. (arms, legs, organs). I think if an abortion was say $1300 it would prevent them.

No, they do not want to tax them. From the way things are looking, they are gearing up to just get rid of them altogether. Which, in my opinion (and a LOT of other women's opinion) is worse.

The simple fact of the matter is this. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. The uterus is not camping grounds for religious and/or political parties. It's real damn simple.

If you do not approve of abortions, do not have one.
If you do not approve of birth control, do not take them.
If you do not approve of having the fallopian tubes tied, do not do it.
But do not tell other women they cannot do it because you do not like it.

And sorry, the personhood bill? Asinine. A tiny, microscopic cluster of cells is NOT a person. This whole ridiculous debate is not a political debate. It's not even a medical debate. It is a religious debate with the right wingers trying to shove their beliefs down the throats of everyone in this country.

Oh, and lets not forget Santorum who just recently made a stir on CNN with this 'gem' about women who get pregnant from rape - and I quote: "I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you." (( Rape victims who get pregnant ought to make the best of a bad situation ))

This crap is getting outright stupid and if we aren't careful, we are not going to have rights over our own damn bodies anymore.

[RubySlippers]

I didn't say I support the bill I said a statement of principle with laws that would reduce abortion demand in a good way, but I'm thinking and most Republicans don't do that anymore.

Lets say you could get condoms and contraceptive foam and jelly ,basic tech that is not overly costly, for a very low price at any medical provider or pharmacy or other venues to be 100% available to anyone who asks. It would logically reduce the demand for abortion even if not perfect its there and would reduce the risk of pregnancy. That would respect personhood with a positive law that makes the demand for them reduced.

But your right I'm thinking and they aren't.

[Iniquitous]

The problem you encounter when you make it a law that says tiny, microscopic cells are a person and give those cells human rights is the fact that murder charges can then be brought into the equation.

Did you know that it is estimated that 30 to 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant? (spontaneous abortion)

Did you know that some forms of birth control work to make the uterus an inhospitable environment so a zygote cannot implant? (spontaneous abortion)

Most (not all) birth control alters the hormone levels in a woman so that her body thinks she is already pregnant and keeps her from ovulating - thus keeps her from getting pregnant. Which means that all those millions of sperm and eggs that never ripen are "wasted". A sin in the eyes of the catholic church because it is denying a life from being born.

How would a miscarriage be treated? Murder or act of god? What if the miscarriage is because the woman fell at work or in a store - is the employer or the store going to be held liable for murder?

Are you starting to see the problem with the personhood bill? It sets the standard that laws can be placed to outlaw birth control on the grounds that it is denying life/murdering a life. And if you think that they would stop at just saying a zygote is a person - think again. It's a mighty deep rabbit hole they'd be taking us down.

Oh, and if a zygote is a person - can I claim it on my taxes? Does it get a social security number? Can I take life insurance out on it? All valid questions if you are going to start claiming a tiny cluster of cells is a person.

[Callie Del Noire]

Not to mention that some women simply miscarry. No ill intent, plotting or hazardous material/practices needed. They. Just. Happen.

Now take a woman that was pregnant and miscarries. Under personhood laws, she can be investigated for MANSLAUGHTER or even MURDER. My mom had two miscarriages pretty far along and understood that it happened. She was a nurse. It still messed with her head for months. I've seen friends and coworkers go through it.

The idea of having a cop INVESTIGATE them for a crime when none occurred and at such a fragile time is wrong.

Period.

[Trieste]

... not to mention that condoms and foams and jelly are not necessarily the way to go for everyone. It's not uncommon for people to be allergic or sensitive to random things. Allergy to latex is a big one, but also allergies to preservatives in the jellies, allergies to the spermicide itself, etc, means that those options do not work for some people. (Women as well as men.)

That is why there are so many different forms of birth control available. If you do not want to have a child with your husband at all, ever, there is an efficient way to make sure of that: three-year implants. If you're not sure that you want to have a child, you can go with shorter intervals such as the monthly Nuvaring or the three-month Depo shot. All of these options are available because they are convenient, and they minimize the probability of mistakes, which in this case means minimizing the probability of unintended pregnancy.

The idea of some rich guy trying to decide what happens to my uterus without even knowing me is abhorrent. If I ever end up having a hysterectomy, the first thing I'm going to do is put the damn thing in a Ziplock and send it on down to Rick Santorum with a note. "Now you can do whatever you want with my uterus, jackass." Because that's the only way men like him, and like the VA legislation, are going to have control over what I do with it.

What sucks is that these laws may soon apply to me, as one of the grad schools I'm applying to is in Virginia. -_-

[Callie Del Noire]

... not to mention that condoms and foams and jelly are not necessarily the way to go for everyone. It's not uncommon for people to be allergic or sensitive to random things. Allergy to latex is a big one, but also allergies to preservatives in the jellies, allergies to the spermicide itself, etc, means that those options do not work for some people. (Women as well as men.)

I've seen some truly.. EPIC reactions to latex gloves. We used them for recovery work and other things.. I can't imagine what it would be like 'down' there with the reaction the person I saw react to them.

Truthfully, what disturbs me is a TINY portion of the population is ramrodding through laws that effect EVERYONE to an extent that a lot of people aren't seeing yet. When we lived in the Republic of Ireland, one of my dad's coworkers had to have birth control for hormone control. At the time, you had to find a Doctor who would prescribe it and then a Pharmacist who would fill it. In a country that was still very much under the thumb of the Roman Catholic Church. Sooo.. two to three times a year she had to fly to ENGLAND to get examined and her prescription filled because at the time the company couldn't get anyone in the entire country to reliably help her out. (Least for her state of mind)

[Chris Brady]

I don't live in Virginia so I can't really say much about it, but I do agree that it's a heavy handed move.

However, for most of you, as well as myself, this is mostly a mental exercise.  It 's not like most of you will have to worry about this.  This is also a contentious topic for me because I am Pro-Life.  But, like most reasonable people with my stance, there are limits.  If the pregnancy is going to harm the mother to be in ways that could be crippling, like weakened immune systems and the like, then yes, as sad as it is, the baby has to go.  That's my stance.

Thing is, nowadays, abortion is being used as problem remover.  It's easy, it's convenient and it's relatively safe.  In fact it's so risk-free that idiots are using it willy-nilly.  I personally know of three girls who have had several to get rid of oopses.  One even mentioned that she hates the feel of condoms.  Not that she's allergic to them, just finds them unfun.  And I'm pretty sure she doesn't know of any other contraceptive methods.  I think she's on her seventh, last I heard?  Close to that, at any rate.

And it's not just teens who do it.  There are career women who do it because it's inconvenient.  Not painful, no just in the way.  Which brings up an issue I have with a fair amount of the Pro-Choice camp is that it's all about 'Me!'  Screw everyone else, it's all about them.  The fact that it takes two to tango.  Or that the baby didn't have much choice in the matter.  Nope, if it's inconvenient, it's gone!

Now admittedly most young men in their teens and twenties would probably be relieved, if the girl the that accidentally got pregnant got rid of it (which is pretty damn sad too) but I know of one incident where the boyfriend was, admittedly, nervous and upset that they screwed up.  But he wanted the child, even his mother offered to take the baby, if the girl didn't want it (I understood that she didn't.)  However, behind his back and apparently in secrecy, she got an abortion.  Because it's her body, and fuck everyone else.  She even tried to keep him as a boyfriend.  I know that he killed himself about, I think, a month later.  She mourned him all of three days and jumped some other boy.  I moved out of the neighbourhood shortly there after.  I do know that whenever his mother sees her or her own mother on the street, as they lived in the same general area, she screams,"I want my son back!" and then walks away.  Got to see that a couple of times.  Not pleasant.

Now for those of you who might be allergic to various contraception methods, learn to talk to your doctor.  I know for a fact that back in 1991 there were medical ways to do it.  Unless of course, we've all slipped back 30 years in medical technology.  Nowadays I don't know anymore.

In the end though, is it right for any governmental body to get involved?  No, it is not, but what can you do when self-centered irresponsibility effectively kills thousands of embryos every day?

[Oniya]

Okay - I just read that there is apparently an 'exception' in the bill when it comes to in vitro fertilization.  The basic procedure there is that you collect eggs from the mother, sperm from the father, and create a whole passel of fertilized eggs.  These are allowed to develop to a certain stage, and are then put into the uterus - several at a time - in the hopes that one will implant.  They put in several because there is a good chance that any given embryo won't implant.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that multiple embryos won't implant.  Octomom was an extreme example (and an ethical IVF physician wouldn't have put that many in to begin with), but multiple implants do happen.  At that point, the woman typically undergoes 'selective reduction' for one of several reasons - including that multiple births are generally problematic health-wise for both mother and fetuses.  According to the exception, this is okay - despite the fact that these embryos would have been classed as 'persons' and subject to the ultrasound/heartbeat law had they been in the womb singly.

[Trieste]

The thing is that contraception prevents abortions. It prevents unwanted pregnancies and it prevents the consequences thereof. If someone doesn't like the feel of condoms, instead of having them in the abortion clinic, they can be given other methods of contraception. So attacking contraception in the pursuit of an anti-choice agenda is counterproductive. You can't have lower abortion rates and outlaw contraception. You have to choose one or the other.

[Callie Del Noire]

Exactly.. if you're anti-abortion.. contraception and education ARE needed. To think that people will blithely go and NOT have sex because they don't know the options is foolish. I know that my senior year in the small highschool that I went to in the sandhills o' SC, there were no less than 20 'Winchester Weddings' because of babies on the way. One of my friends from school did the right thing..he talked to the girl, they agreed..he paid.. and she DIDN'T get it. He wound up a daddy because his FATHER made him do the 'right thing'. He went to school while the family helped out. The girl destroyed her life to the point he and his father sat down and thought out their options. He wound up giving UP his parental rights to ensure that his FATHER could adopt the kid. It was the only way they could break the chain of danger to the baby.

It nearly KILLED him. Last I heard, he's spent the last 10 years clean and sober, but still can't look his little girl in the face for shame of not being there for her. He went to college cause his dad made him. He's ashamed..though from what I've heard his girl (who is now college age) loves him and doesn't blame him.. she was raised almost exclusively by his side of the family and they are a great (if occasionally wacky) bunch of folks.

Her mother, on the other hand, has bounced in and out of the system and has a list of habits and offenses that would stagger the mind. And if they hadn't pulled every legal dirty trick they could, she'd still have custody of her.

A lot of grief could have been avoided by proper planning and teaching of proper reproductive options.

D

[vtboy]

Chrus, I've read the Constitution a few times and, while I may not be the world's most astute reader, I do not recall anything in it about denying its protections to the self-centered and irresponsible. Either you agree with Griswold and Roe that the gummint has to keep its damn nose out if the bedroom and the womb or you don't. It may be unfortunate that there are those among us for whom abortion is the preferred method of birth control, but that just ain't the business of Virginia's legislature. Abortion is just one of the hazards of being a fetus. Let mom take it up with god, if there is one.

[Callie Del Noire]

Chrus, I've read the Constitution a few times and, while I may not be the world's most astute reader, I do not recall anything in it about denying its protections to the self-centered and irresponsible. Either you agree with Griswold and Roe that the gummint has to keep its damn nose out if the bedroom and the womb or you don't. It may be unfortunate that there are those among us for whom abortion is the preferred method of birth control, but that just ain't the business of Virginia's legislature. Abortion is just one of the hazards of being a fetus. Let mom take it up with god, if there is one.

Do I think abortion is wrong? For me.. yes. For someone else? I'm not sure. It's their choice and ethical decision. Everyone I KNOW who has had it thought on it. It weighted on them. Then. Afterwards. Years afterwards.

I have yet to personally meet someone who blithely thought of it as an alternative to birth control or something that can be casually done. I've had a squadron mate who WAS raped and still regretted doing it. Despite the fact that she'd been exposed to MEK and a LOT of other nasty hazmat items during the assault. Last I heard from her..she's sterile. So yeah, I know it weighs on her mind a lot.

Personally? I think access to birth control, PROPER education and the crazy fundie faction needs to accept if they want to stop abortion they need to move forward and compromise. Accept that you aren't always the best teacher for your kids, particularly when you are culturually stuck on sex as bad.  Accept that shit happens. Accept that kids WILL have sex, they will experiment. They WON'T be the loyal little sheep you expect them to be.

And lastly... ACCEPT that your way of life isn't everyone elses.

[Iniquitous]

Said it once, I’ll say it again.

If you do not like/believe in abortions, don’t have one.
If you do not like/believe in birth control, don’t take them/use them.
If you do not like/ believe in sterilization to keep from having children, don’t have it done.
But do NOT tell others what they can and cannot do. Do NOT take the rights of others away just because your morals say you shouldn’t do something.

And honestly, if men gave birth, abortion and birth control would be amendments to the constitution.

For the record - I've been raped and became pregnant from it. I chose not to abort because, for me, it is not right. But you better damn well believe I will fight for the right to choose. No one has the right to tell any woman whether she can use birth control or whether she can have an abortion.

[Serephino]

Said it once, I’ll say it again.

If you do not like/believe in abortions, don’t have one.
If you do not like/believe in birth control, don’t take them/use them.
If you do not like/ believe in sterilization to keep from having children, don’t have it done.
But do NOT tell others what they can and cannot do. Do NOT take the rights of others away just because your morals say you shouldn’t do something.

And honestly, if men gave birth, abortion and birth control would be amendments to the constitution.

For the record - I've been raped and became pregnant from it. I chose not to abort because, for me, it is not right. But you better damn well believe I will fight for the right to choose. No one has the right to tell any woman whether she can use birth control or whether she can have an abortion.

This.  Honestly, I don't see how making birth control available is an attack on religion.  I don't see religious people being forced to use it.  I have a feeling the women who want birth control have no religious problem with it.

I too know a girl who didn't like condoms because it didn't feel as good.  Every time she thought she might be pregnant she went out to the bar and drank until she had alcohol poisoning to kill it.  She did that about a dozen times before she went to Planned Parenthood for birth control.  Even then she still managed to get pregnant a few times and went to a bar to kill it...

But really, the government just needs to back the hell off.  It's pissing me off that Republicans are bringing a religion I want no part of into politics that's affecting me and people I care about.  I'm anti-abortion, but pro-birth control.

[Chris Brady]

For the record, I am for education and contraception.  The issue is still one of 'Me!'  Sadly a lot of people still don't believe it will happen to them.  It's always to 'someone else'.  Hate to break it to you, but to your best friends and even family, you are that 'someone else'.

That's the general you.

[Oniya]

Well said.

I just got back from reading an article that said Rep. Jeanine Notter (R-VT) referenced this article by Dr. Brownstein that insinuated that the Pill (while taken exclusively by women) can cause prostate cancer in men.  Brownstein's article references this study.

Of course, there are certain pills for men that can increase the danger of birth defects if women who 'are or may become pregnant' simply handle the pills (Propecia is the one I immediately remember - it's for androgenic alopecia).  That wasn't enough to take those off the market - it took a finding that Propecia may cause ED to prompt any sort of action.

[Serephino]

Yep.  Sadly, this is still a man's world because the government is still mostly run by men.  They won't even let women speak at these hearings because they aren't qualified to give a valid opinion.  I mean, it only affects them...  I really hate seeing this country start going backwards on women's rights. 

[Serephino]

http://www.dccc.org/pages/wherearethewomen

Got another email about this.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well said.

I just got back from reading an article that said Rep. Jeanine Notter (R-VT) referenced this article by Dr. Brownstein that insinuated that the Pill (while taken exclusively by women) can cause prostate cancer in men.  Brownstein's article references this study.

Of course, there are certain pills for men that can increase the danger of birth defects if women who 'are or may become pregnant' simply handle the pills (Propecia is the one I immediately remember - it's for androgenic alopecia).  That wasn't enough to take those off the market - it took a finding that Propecia may cause ED to prompt any sort of action.

You know the material I worked around in the Navy has some truly EPIC reproductive health hazards to women. I know that that w the reason we had to put our pregnant servicewomen in positions outside the shop we they (or medical) notified us. If I had a dollar for everytime one of my female workers had to sit through a briefing on that, I could have bought the shop lunches a LOT. It was kind of scary just hearing about the general stuff, but the fertility bit could annoying.

[Oniya]

You know the material I worked around in the Navy has some truly EPIC reproductive health hazards to women. I know that that w the reason we had to put our pregnant servicewomen in positions outside the shop we they (or medical) notified us. If I had a dollar for everytime one of my female workers had to sit through a briefing on that, I could have bought the shop lunches a LOT. It was kind of scary just hearing about the general stuff, but the fertility bit could annoying.

True enough, but I'm willing to bet that the stuff you worked around wasn't something that Jane-in-the-Street would be likely to run into on an average day.  Propecia was heavily advertised for men's hair loss - which is a pretty big business.

[Callie Del Noire]

True enough, but I'm willing to bet that the stuff you worked around wasn't something that Jane-in-the-Street would be likely to run into on an average day.  Propecia was heavily advertised for men's hair loss - which is a pretty big business.

Let's see. TRIK, MEK, radiant energy hazards (high output radar and radios), JP5, Hydralic fluid. (that sucks let me tell you) and other shit I can't recall

[Oniya]

Yeah, about the only thing that looks common-place would be hydraulic fluid.  I worked around some nasty stuff when I did IT work for a research lab (we all had to know where the emergency antivirals were).  The point is that people in general are more likely to run into hormone pills than any of that crap.

[Oniya]

I laughed so hard I cried.  Michelle Bachmann - while no longer remotely associated with the Presidential race - is still chowing down on those migraine-inducing high heels:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/bachmann-gop-is-extremely-pro-woman?ref=fpb

[HockeyGod]

If I were a woman and needing an abortion, I would be sure to film the pre-procedure and send it to my legislators and the governor asking them if I can go ahead.

This is redunkulous!

[Trieste]

Since the kind of ultrasound they require involves penetrating the vagina with a probe, it is literally unwanted penetration with a foreign object.

Which is the definition of rape.

But it's okay because it's rape in pursuit of slut-shaming coercion making an already difficult decision even more difficult. Thanks, rich white guys! *thumbsup*

[Oniya]

Yeah, some commentator was saying that the ultrasound was 'just like sex'.

Yeah.  Humiliating, non-consensual sex, but sex nonetheless.

[HeyThereLittleBear]

Congrats, Virginia.

Working your way to becoming like Pennsylvania.

13-year-old self-aborts using pencil

[RecklessRapscallion]

America, nation deprived of intelligence, ruled by fundamentalist crazies, and enslaved by capitalism.

[Trieste]

Capitalism has little to do with the restriction of the rights of American women. In fact, restricting the market with government regulations is very anti-capitalist. I'll also thank you not to lump intelligent, sane Americans in with the likes of Rick Santorum and other legislators who are unable to separate their own religious zealotry from their public office. Furthermore, the fact that changes like this aren't exactly sweeping the country points to the fact that American citizens are doing what we can to keep the crazies from taking over.

So thank you for your blanket statements about America and Americans; they say more about your ignorance than my country.

[RecklessRapscallion]

Capitalism has little to do with the restriction of the rights of American women. In fact, restricting the market with government regulations is very anti-capitalist. I'll also thank you not to lump intelligent, sane Americans in with the likes of Rick Santorum and other legislators who are unable to separate their own religious zealotry from their public office. Furthermore, the fact that changes like this aren't exactly sweeping the country points to the fact that American citizens are doing what we can to keep the crazies from taking over.

So thank you for your blanket statements about America and Americans; they say more about your ignorance than my country.

You are right, my post was off topic and incredibly vague not to mention rather belligerent. I do apologies I should have put more of an effort in explaining why I brought it up opposed to making a first impression as an ignorant schmuck.

I am American too.

I support a free market capitalist society but we are far from a free market, but I will not get into that and stay on topic.

The restrictions on a women's rights to choose is one of the many issues our nation seems to be plagued with, I do not support any law nor policy to govern or enforce peoples individual personal choices or life styles. The fact that our politicians are focusing more on restricting American individual liberties then resolving issues like medical, education reform, and hell maybe eliminating our debt is rather disgusting. But it comes to no surprise it seems each time we have an election both parties tend to focus on things like how to stop abortion or the prevention of homosexual rights.

First of all homosexual rights should not even need to be debated, it does not directly effect anyone but the interested parties. Our nation has gone so far with the evolution of civil rights but it seems each time we take a step up we take two steps down.

Abortion is another topic, some find it touchy but I never really figured what the big deal is. If a woman is impregnated in any way it is their decision if they would like to keep the baby. They do not allow abortions (as far as I know) when it is way too late in the developmental cycle and either way how I see it is we are a modern society, we are not in the bloody dark ages, the only arguments for anti-abortion I hear are religiously fueled, though I would like to hear a stand point from some one who is Anti-abortion but agnostic. -shrug-

My opinion is I feel that the only reason they bring up issues like abortion, gay rights, or what have you is they are trying to dodge or not take care of the real issues. Like fixing are damn economy, and revitalizing our education system.

[Trieste]

On that we can definitely agree. Legislative energies are much better focused on other things. Even if the GOP were to tackle the quality of living for those who choose not to abort rather than try to prevent the procedure itself, I might be able to get behind them a little more. But providing for impoverished families is also antithetical to the GOP dogma, so I'm not sure what they expect single mothers, rape victims, and teenagers to do.

[RecklessRapscallion]

On that we can definitely agree. Legislative energies are much better focused on other things. Even if the GOP were to tackle the quality of living for those who choose not to abort rather than try to prevent the procedure itself, I might be able to get behind them a little more. But providing for impoverished families is also antithetical to the GOP dogma, so I'm not sure what they expect single mothers, rape victims, and teenagers to do.

Yeah, sorry if I come up as jaded politics in the last 10 years has left me depressed and bitter.

We are electing officials to represent our voice, but our voices fall on def ears. Hopefully the next congress will be less clown shoes then our current one. A 97% disapproval rate I find is incredibly disgusting, nothing will happen unless we let it. Congress exists to resolve issues but when it is clogged up with no reform we get into the situation we are in right now. Anywho I need to bounce for now it was nice talking to you all.

~ Rapscallion

[vtboy]

I'll also thank you not to lump intelligent, sane Americans in with the likes of Rick Santorum and other legislators who are unable to separate their own religious zealotry from their public office. Furthermore, the fact that changes like this aren't exactly sweeping the country points to the fact that American citizens are doing what we can to keep the crazies from taking over.

I don't know whether the crazies and those unable to separate their own religious views from the obligations of public office are yet in the majority. Any thinking person must, however, be somewhat unsettled by the following signposts, among many others, on our road to mindless, xenophobic theocracy: (1) Christine O'Donnell, who believes masturbation a societal scourge, received over 40% of the vote in her 2010 bid to become senator from Delaware; (2) at various times over the last few months, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Hermain Cain, and Rick Santorum each led the Republican presidential pack, each polling in the vicinity of 30%; (3) only a year ago, polls showed 51% of Republicans believed Obama was foreign born (though the birther thing seems to be in remission, like other cancers, there is no guarantee it won't come back); (4) according to the National Science Foundation, between 12% and 16% of high school biology teachers are creationists and, according to Fox News, about the same percentage present "intelligent design" as a valid scientific alternative to evolution (and this after federal courts have held the teaching of "intelligent design" violates the Establishment Clause); (5) Rick Santorum labeled the views of those who would protect the environment from unrestrained pillage a "theology".

As I close in on my seventh decade, I find myself in ever deeper despair that victories claimed in my youth by reason and humanist decency have again become open contests.  Perhaps the assumption of our founding fathers that we are a people capable of self-rule was a bit overly optimistic.       

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't know whether the crazies and those unable to separate their own religious views from the obligations of public office are yet in the majority. Any thinking person must, however, be somewhat unsettled by the following signposts, among many others, on our road to mindless, xenophobic theocracy: (1) Christine O'Donnell, who believes masturbation a societal scourge, received over 40% of the vote in her 2010 bid to become senator from Delaware; (2) at various times over the last few months, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Hermain Cain, and Rick Santorum each led the Republican presidential pack, each polling in the vicinity of 30%; (3) only a year ago, polls showed 51% of Republicans believed Obama was foreign born (though the birther thing seems to be in remission, like other cancers, there is no guarantee it won't come back); (4) according to the National Science Foundation, between 12% and 16% of high school biology teachers are creationists and, according to Fox News, about the same percentage present "intelligent design" as a valid scientific alternative to evolution (and this after federal courts have held the teaching of "intelligent design" violates the Establishment Clause); (5) Rick Santorum labeled the views of those who would protect the environment from unrestrained pillage a "theology".

As I close in on my seventh decade, I find myself in ever deeper despair that victories claimed in my youth by reason and humanist decency have again become open contests.  Perhaps the assumption of our founding fathers that we are a people capable of self-rule was a bit overly optimistic.       

I would hold back on believe a poll that said the sky was blue unless they give their polling methods. When I was watching my brother run for office they had one candidate say he had the approval of something like 70% of all republicans surveyed. Till we found out that the survey was for like.. six core counties around his home and of the 15,000+ surveyed like 11,000 lived in those counties.

Survey weight depends on HOW it was done, where it was done and how you spin the figures. I've seen a LOT of 'polls' that didn't show their 'error' because it was WAY more than a +/- 5% margin. One I looked into had like an +/- of 12%. That means they got a LOT of numbers to play with.

Used to be the folks on TV would cite the margin of error. Now you are lucky to SEE it on those purty graphs they show.

[Oniya]

I would hold back on believe a poll that said the sky was blue unless they give their polling methods. When I was watching my brother run for office they had one candidate say he had the approval of something like 70% of all republicans surveyed. Till we found out that the survey was for like.. six core counties around his home and of the 15,000+ surveyed like 11,000 lived in those counties.

Survey weight depends on HOW it was done, where it was done and how you spin the figures. I've seen a LOT of 'polls' that didn't show their 'error' because it was WAY more than a +/- 5% margin. One I looked into had like an +/- of 12%. That means they got a LOT of numbers to play with.

Used to be the folks on TV would cite the margin of error. Now you are lucky to SEE it on those purty graphs they show.

Yup.  Mark Twain had it right, and as a person with a math degree I can attest to it:  lies, damn lies, and statistics.  All of those web surveys you see?  Practically useless, because in order to vote in them, you have to be inclined to go to the site hosting it - whether that's Faux News or Old Farts For Super-Sized Families.  As a result, you already have a bias towards the answer they want.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yup.  Mark Twain had it right, and as a person with a math degree I can attest to it:  lies, damn lies, and statistics.  All of those web surveys you see?  Practically useless, because in order to vote in them, you have to be inclined to go to the site hosting it - whether that's Faux News or Old Farts For Super-Sized Families.  As a result, you already have a bias towards the answer they want.

Don't forget spin in the questions. That can do a LOT of manipulate things towards getting the answer you want.  Been rereading a bit of Sam Clemens autobiography again.. the man had the feel for things. Stuff he said like.. 120+ years ago still are current. He didn't pull blows. Odds are he'd be in trouble if he was alive today. 

[vtboy]

Yup.  Mark Twain had it right, and as a person with a math degree I can attest to it:  lies, damn lies, and statistics.  All of those web surveys you see?  Practically useless, because in order to vote in them, you have to be inclined to go to the site hosting it - whether that's Faux News or Old Farts For Super-Sized Families.  As a result, you already have a bias towards the answer they want.

Which of the polls I cited do you believe were web surveys?

Since polls seem to be rather roundly distrusted, why don't we just consider election results? Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum all won state-wide contests, as did Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer, and Rand Paul (the guy who isn't certain the 1964 Civil Rights Act was such a good idea). And then there were the national contests in 2000 and 2004 which put W, that staunch defender of individual liberty and reason, in the White House. Of course, election results, like polls, tend to be skewed, as only those who are interested enough to vote get counted. Still, whatever flaws there may be in these statistical barometers of popular attitude and thought, I am more than slightly alarmed. 

[Oniya]

Actually, I was speaking in a generic sense, to demonstrate how clever selection of the test sample can skew results.  As most people are familiar with web surveys and may have even participated in them, it was an easy enough example.  I could have picked a poll on Elliquiy just as easily:  the results of a gay marriage poll here, compared with a gay marriage poll done at Liberty University (in the middle of Falwell country), would show vastly different results.

[vtboy]

Then, which of the polls I cited do you believe was based on tainted sampling methodology?

[Serephino]

It is scary that people like that got votes.  However, you do have to look at it logically.  In elections, those were registered voters who got off their butts and went to their polling place.  According to my Civics teacher, the average voter was 45-65, so, not younger people.  Younger people tend to be more apathetic toward politics, though Obama got younger people to vote, which is nothing short of a miracle.  I hope the trend continues.

As for the primaries, those are all Republican voters.  Look at their choices.  If they vote, they have to vote for one of those yahoos. 

It just blows my mind that last election these idiots promised to balance the budget and get rid of 'Obamacare'.  The only part of the health care law they're trying to get rid of is access to birth control.  Abortions will be next. 

[Oniya]

Then, which of the polls I cited do you believe was based on tainted sampling methodology?

I repeat - I was speaking in a generic sense.  I happen to be in agreement with you that the Republican candidates are a collection of misinformed, misogynistic theocrats or are at least so horridly dated that my mother would think they were stuck in the Stone Age (she still hasn't grasped what that new-fangled 'Occupy' thing is all about).  However, it's hard to ignore the fact that both sides are making the numbers play the tune they want.  I've seen other poll results that say that 20% of Republican voters would choose Obama over the candidates running currently, and polls saying that Congress's approval rating is 9% or lower. 

To try to speak to any of the polls you cited specifically would be completely ludicrous, as I have no link to the raw data, what organization sponsored the poll, or how they collected the data.  Callie said as much in his post.

[Callie Del Noire]

Then, which of the polls I cited do you believe was based on tainted sampling methodology?

Pretty much anyone that Fox/CNN hosts on their web site and BOTH news services frequently cite them on air.

[vtboy]

I repeat - I was speaking in a generic sense.  I happen to be in agreement with you that the Republican candidates are a collection of misinformed, misogynistic theocrats or are at least so horridly dated that my mother would think they were stuck in the Stone Age (she still hasn't grasped what that new-fangled 'Occupy' thing is all about).  However, it's hard to ignore the fact that both sides are making the numbers play the tune they want.  I've seen other poll results that say that 20% of Republican voters would choose Obama over the candidates running currently, and polls saying that Congress's approval rating is 9% or lower. 

To try to speak to any of the polls you cited specifically would be completely ludicrous, as I have no link to the raw data, what organization sponsored the poll, or how they collected the data.  Callie said as much in his post.

I fear I have not expressed myself with sufficient clarity.

If it were only the candidates who are misinformed, misogynistic theocratics, I would sleep much more soundly at night. Say what you will about the quality of polling, it seems to me undeniable that America has become a much more hospitable home to ignorance, intolerance and superstition. It may be comforting to indulge the belief that the problem is more apparent than real, and that the appearance is primarily attributable to the lack of options at the electoral buffet. I think, though, the better explanation is that the offered stew of religious militancy, xenophobia, and open hostility to thought has been plated to satisfy widely shared appetites.

Perhaps popular democracy in the land of televangelists, bible camp, reality tv, and week-long funeral rites for overdosed pop stars has succeeded all too well. Or, as Walt Kelly's Pogo more eloquently put it, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[Oniya]

I fear I have not expressed myself with sufficient clarity.

If it were only the candidates who are misinformed, misogynistic theocratics, I would sleep much more soundly at night. Say what you will about the quality of polling, it seems to me undeniable that America has become a much more hospitable home to ignorance, intolerance and superstition. It may be comforting to indulge the belief that the problem is more apparent than real, and that the appearance is primarily attributable to the lack of options at the electoral buffet. I think, though, the better explanation is that the offered stew of religious militancy, xenophobia, and open hostility to thought has been plated to satisfy widely shared appetites.

Perhaps popular democracy in the land of televangelists, bible camp, reality tv, and week-long funeral rites for overdosed pop stars has succeeded all too well. Or, as Walt Kelly's Pogo more eloquently put it, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

You're probably right about that - putting a specific number on it isn't as easy, but it's very apparent to me that there's a lot of catering to the extremes, and a lot of ignoring of the moderates.  I don't trust having a whole worldview summed up by crisp, clean graphs (human beings just aren't able to be put in neat, little boxes made of ticky-tacky), but I read and people-watch a lot. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Georgia Dems did a 'tongue in cheek' response to some of their stupidity.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/

[Trieste]

In January, as the Virginia state Senate debated a bill that required women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell attached an amendment that required men to have rectal exams and cardiac stress tests before they could receive prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra.

*dies laughing*

[Callie Del Noire]

*dies laughing*

I know.. my ribs are hurting.

[Trieste]

Seen on FB: