Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The American War on Women Continues...

Posted by on Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:42 PM

...in Georgia, where a bill signed by governor Nathan Deal became a law at midnight last night:

The new law forbids private insurance bought through the Federal Healthcare Exchange under the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, from covering abortion.

The law also blocks the state-employee insurance plan from covering abortions.

Don't have sex. Don't use contraception. Don't get pregnant. Don't have an abortion. If you do get pregnant, we're not financially helping you at all. No paid maternity leave. How are women not leaving this country in droves? The men in charge of making and interpreting the laws are making it perfectly clear that they don't want women here.

 

Comments (40) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
JonnoN 1
Or instead of leaving, they could vote in their own interest ...
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on July 1, 2014 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 2
@1 Good luck with that.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on July 1, 2014 at 2:57 PM · Report this
3
Do they make a female condom with razor blade attachments?
Posted by StuckInUtah on July 1, 2014 at 2:57 PM · Report this
4
Guys who oppose contraception, abortion, and financial assistance for single mothers like women just fine. They simply
think that they ought to be subordinate to men.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on July 1, 2014 at 3:04 PM · Report this
COMTE 5
How can a state law trump a federal program?
Posted by COMTE on July 1, 2014 at 3:15 PM · Report this
beelzebufo 6
@3 Utah, why yes, they do...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ne…
Posted by beelzebufo on July 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 7
Laser like focus on jobs
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 1, 2014 at 3:25 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 8
you don't LIKE someone if you want them to be subordinate to you. and what the fuck do you know about women? sweet FA, probably.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on July 1, 2014 at 3:27 PM · Report this
9
I have to admit, I giggled at "laser like focus on jobs" because I have the sense of humor of a 5th grader.
Posted by themightywoozie on July 1, 2014 at 3:31 PM · Report this
10
"Corporations are people. Women, not so much."
Posted by unpaid reader on July 1, 2014 at 4:01 PM · Report this
11
Can't speak for anyone else but warring on women isn't something I want to do.

Darn good thing this law (and the other policy issues Little Paulie Constant mentions) doesn't do that, I guess.

If an adult has sex privately with another consenting adult no policy maker I know wants to be involved with that.

Want me as a taxpayer to subsidize your sex life? Yeah, that I have a problem with. Want me to pay for your infanticide or contraceptives? Pay for you not to work for a few months after a kid is born? Pay for your food and medical care and housing and and and... Because YOU chose to have sex? Nah. Thanks but not just no, hell no.

It's not war on women. Never was except in the diseased imaginings of morons. It's war on using taxpayer money for morally and ethically dodgy programs rewarding poor life choices.
Posted by Seattleblues on July 1, 2014 at 4:05 PM · Report this
12
@11, infants and embryos are two very different things

Talk about the imaginings of morons.
Posted by GermanSausage on July 1, 2014 at 4:16 PM · Report this
JonnoN 13
@11 says a bunch of war-on-womeny stuff, then closes with it's not a war on women, it's a war on ... i don't fucking know. You are aware your precious tax dollars don't pay for private medical insurance, right? You're not that incredibly stupid, right? Not that it would matter, because your imaginary objection to an imaginary situation is imaginary.
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on July 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 14
My religion requires abortion if the parents aren't emotionally or fiscally responsible to bring the child to adulthood without government subsidies. Don't the religious have a voice in the marketplace of ideas?
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 1, 2014 at 4:27 PM · Report this
15
@13

Oh. The subsidization of private insurance with tax dollars under the illegal Obamacare isn't happening? Wish that were true, but it ain't Johnny.

And while I think a married heterosexual couple choosing to raise a child is their right, foisting off the financial liability for their choice on me is NOT.

How the dark and strange place that is your mind makes of this a war on women? God knows.
Posted by Seattleblues on July 1, 2014 at 4:36 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 16
Oh Seattleblahs, as if you pay any taxes. I mean, more power to you, sister, but don't try all that high-and-mighty with us sloggers. We've got your number.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on July 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM · Report this
COMTE 17
I object to a single penny of my tax dollars going to any project or program SB supports - how do I opt out?
Posted by COMTE on July 1, 2014 at 4:45 PM · Report this
18
You guys, Seattleblues isn't waging a war on women, she is waging a war on children! Duh. It's not her fucking problem if kids live in poverty.

Confidential to SB: you just lost the right to invoke Christianity ever again. Christ did not say "to hell with poor kids".
Posted by wxPDX on July 1, 2014 at 5:45 PM · Report this
19
Tax dollars subsidize a lot of bad choices. Banks make risky business decisions, get clobbered when the stock market crashes, and get bailed out by the FED. Older people who have health problems brought on by smoking or not eating right get treated through Medicare. Mainstream conservatives don't usually object to that sort of thing, but when women make bad choices about sex they say "you made your bed, now sleep in it, missy!"
Posted by Ken Mehlman on July 1, 2014 at 5:50 PM · Report this
20
Why should women leave the US? Make the men leave.
Posted by sarah70 on July 1, 2014 at 6:08 PM · Report this
venomlash 21
@11: Hormonal contraception is used also to manage and control the menstrual cycle in women who would otherwise have unpleasant and sometimes even dangerous menstrual complications. Remember Sandra Fluke? The friend she talked about, who needed birth control through her insurance, needed it to manage ovarian cysts.
Viagra, on the other hand, has two uses only, both of them intrinsically sexual in nature. Why aren't you this concerned about Viagra being covered by Obamacare-related plans?
Also, what exactly are YOU paying for other people to do? How do you figure THAT? I paid about $100 in income taxes during my last year in college. Did Uncle Sam give you tax credits on anything? If so, I demand my money back, because under your logic if I paid the government money and they paid you money, I'm paying for your stuff. Gimme gimme.

@15: Please explain how Obamacare is illegal. To the best of my knowledge, the ACA is in fact a law. Is the program not in accordance with the law establishing it? Or are you just telling lies--AGAIN--about things you don't like?
Posted by venomlash on July 1, 2014 at 6:24 PM · Report this
22
Isn't it great that the left was so insistent that states continue to have regulatory authority over insurance and that interstate insurance purchases continue to be disallowed.
Posted by David Wright on July 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM · Report this
23
@22 Yes.

Blue State Protections > Federal Protections > Red State Hellscape.
Posted by Sarcasm: You're Doing IT Wrong on July 1, 2014 at 8:43 PM · Report this
24
@19 - Mainstream conservatives are also saying "you made your bed" etc. to women On whom, Against whom, At whom, bad choices about sex have been made by other people, nearly all Male. Unless you're one of those deep "thinkers" who separates rape into two classes, the kind that's okay and the kind that's genuine. Since you're known to be a deeply conservative "thinker", I suspect you'll be happy when your party eventually takes back all the advances toward autonomy women have achieved since Roe v. Wade and society as a whole has returned to the land of wire coat hangers.
Posted by Calpete on July 1, 2014 at 8:52 PM · Report this
25
@24 Here's my take on the two kinds of rape . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYp6n9CV…
Posted by Ken Mehlman on July 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM · Report this
26
@22 No it was much more craven then that, we on the "Left" decided that after 100+ years of trying it was better to get something passed even though it was much much less then we want. Sorry.

Yeah the most sensible fix to the resulting problem is the institution of a single payer public option. Sucks for you I guess but we're also sneaky like that.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 1, 2014 at 10:04 PM · Report this
27
@21

That $100 you paid in fed taxes was probably the most you have EVER paid in Fed Taxes.
Posted by losers never seem to pay taxes on July 1, 2014 at 11:34 PM · Report this
28
@11 You fucking fuckwit. Half-wit? Half-fuck-wit? Fuck-half-wit? Fucking half-witted fuckwit.

We're talking about medicine and insurance coverage for medicine. You're not entitled to make moral judgments about the medical needs of others.

Here's an example of what this law prevents: Let's say a couple, a married couple, has to have genetic counseling because one or both of them is a potential recessive carrier for a rare condition, say Tay-Sachs disease. So, the amnio comes back positive, and they reasonably decide not to go through the rest of the pregnancy and face four years of watching a progressively sicker child degenerate and die.

Wouldn't you rather pay for that reasonable and humane decision than pay for four fucking years of giant medical bills, loss of productivity, and emotional destruction of a family?

You're also preventing them from trying again for a healthy kid, one who will help pay for your social security when they grow up.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on July 2, 2014 at 4:43 AM · Report this
NopeNope 29
Seattle Blues, are you also against taxpayer funding of k-12 education? I mean, that probably costs more than abortions and you're essentially paying for a babysitter. That sounds like a better financial option?

Maybe some of us non-religious tax payers are sick of paying for k-12 education for the five or six kids the average midwest christian heffer pumps out like their vaginas are fucking clown cars. Or maybe I'd rather see my money going to the killing of unborn children than already born foreigners.

Point is, if we're going to stop paying for government programs that fund things we're morally against than there are a lot more costly and horrendous programs wecould start with.
Posted by NopeNope on July 2, 2014 at 6:46 AM · Report this
30
Women of the USA, if you decide to leave (in droves or not) please come to Australia where we are just beginning to fight the same shitwittedness here. You will find a culture generally more responsive, but with a government (temporarily I hope) as insane as those you are dealing with.
Posted by Repeat on July 2, 2014 at 7:23 AM · Report this
31
Unfortunately a whole lot of white women are about to join white men in handing the senate over to the republicans this Fall. Blacks figured out republicans were racist about 40 years ago and hardly a single one of them has voted for them since. Ladies? Not so much.
Posted by longball on July 2, 2014 at 9:24 AM · Report this
32
@28

As I wrote, right up to the point where my hard work and thrift are punished to subsidize bad choices you're absolutely right. Medical care of others isn't morally my business.

You folks are like (and likely very often literally are) the twenty something adult living with their parents. So far, fine. It's when you start complaining, without paying any of the expenses yourselves, about household rules, economies and so on that the adults get fed up.

I, and most other Americans, are far more comfortable paying the expenses for a live child than the costs to murder one for Mommies convenience. Don't like American moral and ethical ways of being? Okay, get out. Or at least start paying your share of the expenses for the place you live before passing and moaning about the way the place is run.
Posted by Seattleblues on July 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM · Report this
blip 33
@32, If you pay an insurance premium you are constantly subsidizing people's medical care for terrible choices they made. Insurance is by definition the collectivization of risk, and we do not carve out exceptions for health care coverage due to bad choices people make, otherwise health insurance would only cover genetically heritable conditions and freak accidents.

It's interesting that you only seem to care about paying for other peoples' bad choices when those people are women who want to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. This is why people call it a war on women. I'm not surprised you don't get it.
Posted by blip on July 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 34
Could someone show me ONE piece of legislation that actually bans contraceptives? JUST ONE. No such law exist. This is all in the "mind" of Paul Constant and a few other extreme-liberals. Nothing is stopping anyone, man or woman, from getting birth control on their own. Really, the pill isn't that expensive and condoms are pretty damn cheap.
And I'm still waiting for the male birth control pill...we've been waiting for 20+ years, and it still isn't here. Granted, I usually don't fuck women, so no biggy for me, but what about men who do? I guess they're less than human.
And where is the tax payer money I need to buy Anal-Ease cream? Why do the women get their stuff subsidize, but I have to use my own money to buy cock rings and what not? Is that the liberal war on gays or something? *rolls eyes*
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 2, 2014 at 1:13 PM · Report this
lark 35
Here's an interesting take on the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision & "the War on Women":

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/prin…
Posted by lark on July 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM · Report this
blip 36
@34, Who said birth control has been banned? It is a vital health care expense that should be covered by insurance and paid for by everyone because it is a public health issue that impacts all of us, though women tend to bear the brunt of preventing pregnancy and dealing with the consequences when it happens. Men bear half the responsibility for causing unintended pregnancies but the financial and social expenses tend to fall almost entirely on women's shoulders.

It's in your best interest, even as a cock-sucking faggot, to make it easier and more affordable for women manage their reproductive health because as a society we pay a far greater price supporting unplanned-for children. This isn't terribly complicated but you have to want to understand, though I can tell by your commenting history you would prefer to remain ignorant and angry so you can belittle people for disagreeing with you.

Also. Do you actually believe anal lube is the medical equivalent of taking a pill that prevents a woman from carrying a fetus inside her for 9 months then rearing it for another 18 years?
Posted by blip on July 2, 2014 at 2:30 PM · Report this
venomlash 37
@34: BOOM MOTHAFUCKA
And in case you think that's a thing of the past, Rick Santorum and a smattering of other Republican candidates at the state and national levels want to ban contraception.

@27: Dude, I was in college then. College students don't pull down $30k/year when they're still in school.

@32: "Don't like American moral and ethical ways of being? Okay, get out."
It's funny that you tell people to get out because they like the way the laws are, when you're the one saying we need to change everything to be the way you like it. Shouldn't the people who like the current system, with minimum wage laws and a social safety net and tolerance of minorities, be allowed to stay in it? Shouldn't the people who want to tear it all down and start over go somewhere else to do that? Get your ass back to your Italian villa if you hate America so much.
Posted by venomlash on July 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM · Report this
seattlegrrrl 38
"How are women not leaving this country in droves?"

Ummm, because they can't afford to? Because women comprise over 65% of the working poor in this country?

A better question: why did this "alternative" newspaper pick a white male to cover this?
Posted by seattlegrrrl http:// on July 3, 2014 at 1:02 PM · Report this
39
@38: Because it's not just a women's issue.
Posted by clashfan on July 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM · Report this
40
@38 maybe also because whenever a woman writes about women's issues on SLOG she gets TONS of ad hominem (sic) hate, gets called fat and cunty and a bitch etc etc.
Posted by emmaz on July 3, 2014 at 5:32 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy