You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 04:07:32 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks reproductive rights  (Read 2296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KuronekoTopic starter

Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks reproductive rights
« on: March 06, 2011, 01:51:03 AM »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/contraception-wisconsin_n_831252.html

Seems unions aren't the only thing Walker wants to eliminate.  Insurance for contraception is also a target. 
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 04:35:54 PM by Kuroneko »

Offline Rhys

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2011, 01:54:46 AM »
When I first read something about that earlier this week my initial response was 'I'd be disappointed, but that would require me to be surprised.' Governor Walker is such a scumbag.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2011, 01:58:19 AM »
Wow, rolling everything back to the dark ages. Going to repeal civil rights next?

Seriously? How can you POSSIBLY think that cutting off access to contraception will DECREASED teen pregnancies?

Offline Lyell

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2011, 04:51:54 AM »
Going to be devil's advocate here, but what part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does contraception insurance and free access for contraception for minors fall under?

I'm fully aware that this is counterintuitive, as telling a child not to do something is more than likely to produce the opposite effect and that while this avenue doesn't prevent a minor from getting a such from a parent or someone else, it does increase the likelihood that parents will be futher excluded from their teen's life. If underage intercourse is so widespread that this needs to be provided, there are deeper problems that need addressing.

Offline Jude

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2011, 06:01:38 AM »
I will grant you that you're right Lyell, this isn't an attack on women's rights in theory, but what good is the "right" to use contraceptives if you can't afford to actually do it?  This is an attempt at cutting government funding for programs and policies which have a net positive benefit and help the poor enjoy the same level of reproductive control and freedom that everyone else does.

The biggest farce of all is that more women having unprivileged children (which will occur as a result of this) is actually worse for the long-term budget projections than keeping this policy enacted.  This is the exact opposite of shoring up fiscal security and increasing prosperity in the state of Wisconsin.  This may look like Fiscal Conservatism on the surface, but purely its purely social.

Walker is hard at work pleasing the two dominant groups that make up the Republican Party:  Corporate Interests and the Religious Right.  I find it absolutely amazing that the Conservative movement can keep them from eating each other.

Offline Lyell

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2011, 06:37:13 AM »
Not to put too fine a point on it but there's a reason I included liberty.

Liberty is a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will and take responsibility for their actions.

If you can't afford contraception should you really be risking a baby anyway? I'm guessing if birth control isn't in the budget I'm guessing a child would really screw you over.

Offline Jude

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2011, 06:43:32 AM »
If there's one thing that people lack self-control in, it's sex.  We're hard-wired to fuck whether it's rational or not.  You can sit back and say "but they shouldn't be doing this," but that doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen anyway.  Just as abstinence only sex education doesn't work, the poor will never be dissuaded from having sex by potentially negative outcomes.  Most conservatives think that independent adults primarily become poor by being irresponsible to begin with; if we agree that's true, why would you be willing to trust these same irresponsible people not to make bad decisions when there's some penis-in-vagina action on the line?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 06:53:34 AM by Jude »

Offline Lyell

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2011, 07:10:21 AM »
You're confusing being responsible in one's actions and taking responsibility for one's actions. The two are not one in the same. Did those drugs wink suggestively at Charlie? I know temptation can be resisted, and no I am not about to spew or even quote religion. I'm an atheist.


I was fortunate in that, despite growing up in a southern state, I received a pretty clear insight into what sex was and what could happen in the 5th grade. Through my public school no less. Since finding out I was a virgin, my 'friends' have been dead set on getting me laid. Despite getting me plastered, they couldn't get me to go along with anything they'd planned. I had to be told this, since I couldn't remember.

I understand that my case is unique, that everyone else is not me. I also know it can be done.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2011, 11:18:30 AM »
You're confusing being responsible in one's actions and taking responsibility for one's actions. The two are not one in the same. Did those drugs wink suggestively at Charlie? I know temptation can be resisted, and no I am not about to spew or even quote religion. I'm an atheist.


I was fortunate in that, despite growing up in a southern state, I received a pretty clear insight into what sex was and what could happen in the 5th grade.
Through my public school no less. Since finding out I was a virgin, my 'friends' have been dead set on getting me laid. Despite getting me plastered, they couldn't get me to go along with anything they'd planned. I had to be told this, since I couldn't remember.

I understand that my case is unique, that everyone else is not me. I also know it can be done.

If the people trying to take away access to affordable contraception would allow this sort of education as well (instead of 'sex is bad for kids, don't do it'), then there's a chance that other people might be able to make the same life choices and have the same strength of will that you do.  (I also think that finding friends who respect your choices would be an excellent idea.  Seriously.)  Instead, we have kids - and I do mean kids getting into contests and agreements to get pregnant, so that they have a little someone who will love them.  We have kids like those friends of yours who measure 'manhood' by whether/how often you can get laid.

I really understand where you're coming from:  My own decisions about sex came from a reasonably decent sex education that still didn't really mention contraception too much - of course, at the time, there weren't as many options for women.  I don't know what they told the guys.  We got the talks about both pregnancy and STDs (which didn't include AIDS at the time).  Somewhere along the line, this got watered down.  I anticipate having to supplement my own daughter's sex ed, and I know that there are parents who a) won't have the time or b) won't have the inclination to do so, assuming that they even sign the little permission slip that lets their son or daughter take the class.

Offline Rhys

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2011, 11:24:46 AM »
Much like several of his other cuts, this serves no purpose beyond furthering a fairly back woods, right wing agenda. As others have pointed out, it does more damage than it actually fixes. Republicans are big on the 'fend for yourself' argument even when it comes to unwed, teenage mothers who made one ignorant mistake and got themselves knocked up. Unfortunately they're also big on talking out of the other side of their mouths and removing preventative measures that keep this sort of thing from happening more often. They also try to get rid of sex education in many states on top of it all. It really is mind-boggling.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2011, 11:33:43 AM »
Not to put too fine a point on it but there's a reason I included liberty.

Liberty is a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will and take responsibility for their actions.

If you can't afford contraception should you really be risking a baby anyway? I'm guessing if birth control isn't in the budget I'm guessing a child would really screw you over.

I think you don't understand just how LITTLE education is on the subject is given out. (Thanks to the religious right) I used to go with my mom when she worked with the Heath Department in South Carolina. It was depressing how LITTLE teenagers knew about sex. Parents aren't always the BEST source of information on sex education. They are 'too busy' or 'the kid isn't old enough'.

I saw kids as young as EIGHT getting pregnant. (She gave birth to a kid at the great grand age of NINE) with a 'boyfriend' who was all of MAYBE Thirteen.

Sex is the ULTIMATE entertainment. You don't need TV, or a computer. You can do it anywhere and depending on how you defined it, you don't need anyone or just one partner.

Not everyone considers the consequences of their actions.

It seems to me that Walker is taking from 'Paul' to pay(off) 'Peter. This is fiscally stupid to do in the long run. Sure, short term it might look as a cost saving measure but what about nine months to a year from now when the birth rate starts to rise?


Offline KuronekoTopic starter

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2011, 01:43:16 PM »
I was discussing this issue with one of my students when I first read this article, along with the bill being ontroduced in Georgia that I mentioned in another thread, and his reply was, "Women who can't afford a baby shouldn't open their legs."

You can imagine my reaction, and it's the same as my reaction to some of the comments here. 

Family planning is not dependent on women alone.  Accidental pregnancies do not happen to women alone, though our culture places more responsibility on women.  As someone else said, sex is more than creating children, it's a form of recreation and it's biologically driven.  Saying that one should be able to resist it until you can afford birth control, or a potential child could be afforded is, in my opinion, not realistic.  Nor is it fair. 

Contraception is a basic and integral part of women's health care, just like pap smears and mammograms. It should be a basic part of men's health care as well. If I can't afford a child, I should be able to get the medicine I need to prevent one the same way I get medicine to prevent my asthma attacks.  Both affect my quality of life.  Both affect my health.  Plus, lots of women take birth control for other reasons than preventing pregnancy.  Taking away coverage for people who can only afford contraception through their insurance and then telling them 'gee, I guess you better not have sex,' is criminal, misogynistic and will eventually create more of a burden on the economy as the population grows.

And frankly, if men got pregnant, contraception would be free and abortion would be legal everywhere.   

</soapbox>

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2011, 02:06:12 PM »
Taking away coverage for people who can only afford contraception through their insurance and then telling them 'gee, I guess you better not have sex,' is criminal, misogynistic and will eventually create more of a burden on the economy as the population grows.

And frankly, if men got pregnant, contraception would be free and abortion would be legal everywhere.   

</soapbox>

Actually, it's not that friendly to the men either (misandric?) - think of all those married men who suddenly get told 'We can't afford a rubber - no nookie for you.'  ::)

Offline KuronekoTopic starter

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2011, 02:21:08 PM »
Agreed.

Offline Jude

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2011, 02:21:54 PM »
And frankly, if men got pregnant, contraception would be free and abortion would be legal everywhere.   
That's a pretty extreme statement, one that I see absolutely no evidence for.  Summing up opposition to abortion as misogyny is incredibly inaccurate.  There are women who oppose the legality of abortion too you know, and opposition to contraception is hardly based in that as well.

Our opposition to abortion probably has a lot more to do with our evolutionary wiring than anything else:  we're naturally inclined to mate and then ferociously protect the result of that even if our opposition isn't entirely logical.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2011, 02:22:28 PM »
I was discussing this issue with one of my students when I first read this article, along with the bill being ontroduced in Georgia that I mentioned in another thread, and his reply was, "Women who can't afford a baby shouldn't open their legs."

You can imagine my reaction, and it's the same as my reaction to some of the comments here. 

Family planning is not dependent on women alone.  Accidental pregnancies do not happen to women alone, though our culture places more responsibility on women.  As someone else said, sex is more than creating children, it's a form of recreation and it's biologically driven.  Saying that one should be able to resist it until you can afford birth control, or a potential child could be afforded is, in my opinion, not realistic.  Nor is it fair. 

Contraception is a basic and integral part of women's health care, just like pap smears and mammograms. It should be a basic part of men's health care as well. If I can't afford a child, I should be able to get the medicine I need to prevent one the same way I get medicine to prevent my asthma attacks.  Both affect my quality of life.  Both affect my health.  Plus, lots of women take birth control for other reasons than preventing pregnancy.  Taking away coverage for people who can only afford contraception through their insurance and then telling them 'gee, I guess you better not have sex,' is criminal, misogynistic and will eventually create more of a burden on the economy as the population grows.

And frankly, if men got pregnant, contraception would be free and abortion would be legal everywhere.   

</soapbox>

 Exactly!  At least half of the problem is the males.  Saying for women to keep their legs close is alright, but the males need to keep it in their pants too! Or in their fist. The male half is directly and fully as responsibly as the females are in sex and having babies.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2011, 02:27:06 PM »
Exactly!  At least half of the problem is the males.  Saying for women to keep their legs close is alright, but the males need to keep it in their pants too! Or in their fist. The male half is directly and fully as responsibly as the females are in sex and having babies.

That was what my mom taught me (My dad sorta went 'hurmph...' for the 'talk'). My mom was VERY explicit in her explanation, though a bit sparse on STDs.. well till she got her Health Department brief on AIDs in the 80s.. then we had a VERY in depth discussion. (This would have been when the health community first discovered the HIV virus)

Offline Will

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2011, 02:28:05 PM »
I'm a guy, and very sympathetic to the issue at hand.  I think this is a ridiculous move.  It certainly isn't going to save the state any money, so yet again, this is more evidence of Walker being a hypocrite.

That said, the whole "men are awfulllllll" rant doesn't accomplish anything.  Except for alienating men who DO support you.

Offline KuronekoTopic starter

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2011, 02:57:35 PM »
That's a pretty extreme statement, one that I see absolutely no evidence for.  Summing up opposition to abortion as misogyny is incredibly inaccurate.  There are women who oppose the legality of abortion too you know, and opposition to contraception is hardly based in that as well.

Our opposition to abortion probably has a lot more to do with our evolutionary wiring than anything else:  we're naturally inclined to mate and then ferociously protect the result of that even if our opposition isn't entirely logical.

I'm a guy, and very sympathetic to the issue at hand.  I think this is a ridiculous move.  It certainly isn't going to save the state any money, so yet again, this is more evidence of Walker being a hypocrite.

That said, the whole "men are awfulllllll" rant doesn't accomplish anything.  Except for alienating men who DO support you.


I'm not trying to be anti-male, and I apologize if it came off that way.  I'm just trying to express my frustration as the disparity between coverage for men's health versus women's.  Plus, my reference to misogyny was in regards to insurance coverage for birth control, not abortion.  I feel the same way about treatment for and education regarding heat attacks in women, which are our number one killer.  I also don't see Walker attacking coverage for Viagra.  And, I do think that birth control and abortion issues would be quite different if the gender roles were reversed.  Call my comment blaming misogyny if you wish.  It's just my opinion.  I respect anyone's right to disagree with me. 

I am very aware that many people oppose abortion, regardless of gender.  I'm not really pro-abortion either, when it comes to people reying on it as their primary form of birth control.  I am however, very pro-choice. 

The reason I started this thread was to show that Walker's budget proposal is trying to sneak in some other legislation to curb the rights of the citizens of my state beyond the whole collective bargaining issue, not to start arguments.  So, my apologies for stirring the pot about a volatile issue.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 03:06:31 PM by Kuroneko »

Offline Sure

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2011, 03:18:41 PM »
To be frank, men are already in it for child support and so on and have no option to opt out like women do, except in a few states. Men's Rights in this issue is effectively being treated as a devolved power, except where there are pushes to eliminate it by feminists (and by 'feminists' I mean 'NOW'). This makes me instantly suspicious of any equivalence argument: Yes, men are just as responsible as women in a biological sense, but they are not given an equal opportunity to opt out of that responsibility. So why should they be treated as if they are just as responsible for a decision where they have less say and less rights than a woman?

By the way, the defense for the fact women have more rights in this area is very explicitly that the law does not have to non-discriminatory because the government is allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender (which is the same justification for why there's an all male draft, among other things). A lot of people seem to either be unaware or to ignore that the women's rights so often being attacked are 'rights' that men do not have.[/mini-rant of my own 1]

Quote
I'm just trying to express my frustration as the disparity between coverage for men's health versus women's.  I feel the same way about treatment for and education regarding heat attacks in women, which are our number one killer.  I also don't see Walker attacking coverage for Viagra. 

Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure both men and women benefit from Viagra as well. ::)

Regardless, I'm not sure how you got of the opinion women's diseases aren't dealt with as much as men's: women have gynecologists, the male equivalent (andrologist) is nowhere near as widespread. Breast cancer (a disease which affects women more than a hundred times than men) is better funded than prostate cancer despite the fact they kill about the same amount each year and prostate cancer has fewer survivors. And even within breast cancer funding very little of it goes to breast cancer in men. Suicide is by and by large a male problem and yet it is underfunded (and, if I recall, it's getting cut as well). Women also have better access to healthcare: the last study I saw had 74% of men having some kind of insurance, with 86% of women having some kind of insurance.

Oh, and there's the fact women outlive men by a significant margin. I would find it awfully curious if a group which had less attention paid to its health issues outlived one that didn't.

Quote
And, I do think that birth control issues would be quite different if the gender roles were reversed.  Just my opinion.  I respect anyone's right to disagree with me.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You, however, must either defend your opinion on rational or empirical grounds or admit that the opinion is entirely constructed of whole cloth and sustained by blind faith, I'm afraid. [/mini-rant 2]

Back on topic: Contraception is definitely not a woman's rights issue. It is a reproductive rights issue, but men have reproductive rights too, even if they're ignored more often. And this is a blow to the reproductive rights of both genders.

PS: Yes, the word is misandric. Misandry and misandric are the equivalent of misogyny and misogynistic but for men.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2011, 03:37:16 PM »
I am not anti-male (I am one).

I am anti-'not my problem'. I grew up in the south, Bible Belt South Carolina. The school I went to had a lot of girls get pregnant and their 'one and only' suddenly moved on. 'Not my problem,' was heard a lot by my in school arguments between girls and their sudden exes.

I don't recall who, but didn't one of the civil rights leaders of the 60s say that 'men need to accept being fathers' or such? Too many guys I've seen in school (and in the military) bolt at the first sign of the consequences of sex. And they were typically the ones who didn't want to use a condom, which even in BFE South Carolina was a LOT easier to get than getting on the pill back in the 80s.

A side note, I also so about 15 'Winchester-weddings' my senior year, and had a few girls 'scope' me out as someone to 'ride out of the county'.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2011, 04:02:16 PM »
Oh, and there's the fact women outlive men by a significant margin. I would find it awfully curious if a group which had less attention paid to its health issues outlived one that didn't.

It's probably worth mentioning that the number one killer of men under 44 is accidents, and not natural disease or even homicide.  There's also a depressing amount of self-neglect on both sides of the gender divide when it comes to health care (oh, that twinge isn't worth going in for...). 

Quote
PS: Yes, the word is misandric. Misandry and misandric are the equivalent of misogyny and misogynistic but for men.

Thanks - I vaguely remembered it from a conversation with Veks.  It's not a commonly used word (spell-check doesn't recognize it either) and 'misanthropy' is decidedly not the right word.

I don't recall who, but didn't one of the civil rights leaders of the 60s say that 'men need to accept being fathers' or such?

I went looking for that, because I remember a big push for 'fatherhood' from somewhere, but the only thing I could connect with it was the Promise Keepers (formed in the 90s), and the Million Man March (also in the 90's).

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2011, 04:15:16 PM »

I went looking for that, because I remember a big push for 'fatherhood' from somewhere, but the only thing I could connect with it was the Promise Keepers (formed in the 90s), and the Million Man March (also in the 90's).

It's not a direct quote and there were enough civil rights leaders from that era who were all for men being responsible. Malcolm X for one was big into accepting responsibility BUT I don't' think he said it. (That way at least)

Offline Sure

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2011, 04:24:21 PM »
Quote
It's probably worth mentioning that the number one killer of men under 44 is accidents, and not natural disease or even homicide.  There's also a depressing amount of self-neglect on both sides of the gender divide when it comes to health care (oh, that twinge isn't worth going in for...). 

True, men are more likely to die in workplace accidents, war, or from violent crime. If that is compensated for, though, I believe women still have the advantage, though I don't have evidence for that at the moment. And I always wondered, if more than 90% (maybe even 99%, I forget the exact statistic) of workplace accidents were female, wouldn't more be done to address the disparity? Or better yet reduce the accidents altogether? At the very least wouldn't there be a movement to stop it?

Quote
Thanks - I vaguely remembered it from a conversation with Veks.  It's not a commonly used word (spell-check doesn't recognize it either) and 'misanthropy' is decidedly not the right word.

It's certainly not as prominent as misogyny in the general conscious. Some people assert it doesn't exist, in fact, or that it cannot exist by definition, including entire schools of feminism (not all of them, mind).

Quote
I don't recall who, but didn't one of the civil rights leaders of the 60s say that 'men need to accept being fathers' or such?

See, I don't agree with that any more than I'd agree with the statement 'women need to accept being mothers'. Reproductive rights include the right to control whether you have children or a family more generally. Which mean including the choice to not have them.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Walker's Budget Proposal also attacks women's rights
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2011, 04:26:33 PM »
See, I don't agree with that any more than I'd agree with the statement 'women need to accept being mothers'. Reproductive rights include the right to control whether you have children or a family more generally. Which mean including the choice to not have them.

I don't think that was meant as "We need to reproduce" but rather "If you have a child, you need to be there, and not abandon them"