Is there really a Republican war on women?

Democrats claim that the GOP has been attacking women's health and rights all year. Republicans retort that Democrats themselves are creating a false war on women...simply by calling it that.  So which is it? Well, this "war" did not begin with Democrats pointing fingers or mainstream media shrieking; it began with the sheer number of proposed and enacted laws that would limit women's reproductive freedoms.  It began with attempts to limit women's access to contraception, in the name of "religous freedom".  It began with the shrill calls to end all government funding of Planned Parenthood.  The rest of us are just calling these lawmakers out on their irrational urge to send womens rights and freedoms straight back into the 1950s.

In 2011, 135 provisions related to reproductive health and rights had been enacted in 36 states, compared with 89 such provisions in 2010 and 77 in 2009.  92 of those provisions - in 24 states - restricted access to abortion services.  In 2010, only 24 provisions restricted abortion.  Of this year's provisions, many require counseling prior to abortion (including telling the woman that a fetus is a person who can feel pain), limit insurance coverage of abortions, or require ultrasounds prior to abortions.  All of these may have a chilling effect on abortions, but they ignore the reasonable approach, that is, to prevent pregnancy in the first place through education and access to contraception. These laws instead intimidate women into carrying their baby to term by putting up obstacles to abortion.  Even worse are the proposed personhood amendments, which would essentially criminalize all abortions, forcing women to give birth against their will.  Like it or not, abortion is legal.  No one should be prevented from obtaining one if that is their choice. Those who say that requiring a waiting period, being forced to look at an ultrasound, and requiring counseling about how a fetus feels pain are merely steps to make sure a woman is fully informed are lying.  These are steps to dissuade women from having a legal medical procedure. I did mention that abortion is legal, didn't I?  If you don't believe in it, don't have one.  It's really that simple.  Your freedom to oppose abortion stops at my uterus.

Attacks on contraception, namely birth control pills, are even more egregious, considering the number of women who rely on the pill throughout their reproductive years - and the simple fact that the pill can lessen the need for the aforementioned abortions. In Arizona, where the weather is beautiful but the laws get ever more cray cray, legislators advanced a bill last month that would allow employers to fire women who use contraception to prevent pregnancy, if the employer has a moral objection to it.  Further, a female employee can be forced to prove that she uses birth control pills to treat a medical condition in order that they be covered by insurance. Say what?  Don't even try to give me the religious freedom argument for this one.  This bill would allow employers to force their own morals and beliefs onto their female employees. Not to mention that sharing one's medical history with one's employer is a huge invasion of privacy.  Fortunately, since not all Arizona lawmakers are insane, the bill was voted down earlier this month, but it was resurrected last week on a smaller scale, giving the freedom to deny contraceptive coverage to church-run affiliates, like universities and hospitals.  I'm not a fan of this compromise, either, since Catholic hospitals and universities have many non-Catholic employees (in fact, they are often so large that they must hire non-Catholic employees to have enough staff), and they provide secular services to people of all religions.  Given those facts, these organizations should also not be able to force their employees to conform to their beliefs.

 

Why are states even discussing bills like this right now?  I thought that following the 2010 elections, Republicans were going to be all about job creation, not procreation.  Yet between arguing over contraceptive coverage at the federal level, and limiting abortions at the state level, it seems that an inordinate amount of time has been spent on women's bodies in the past year.

I know that there are Republican women - and men - who are aghast at the extreme stance taken by some Congressmen, Presidential candidates, and state legislatures against women's rights to choice and privacy. Some of them are my friends...and some of them are elected officials. Even Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said as much.  "It makes no sense to make this attack on women," she said at a local Chamber of Commerce luncheon. "If you don't feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters."  She was joined by fellow Republicans Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchison in criticizing the recent deluge of anti-choice legislation.  John McCain, when asked by Meet the Press' David Gregory last month if the war on women was real, was slightly less articulate, but seemed to understand the reason for the outrage.  "I think we have to fix that. I think that there is a perception out there because of how this whole contraception issue played out — ah, we need to get off of that issue, in my view."  So even some Republicans are acknowledging that this has gotten way out of hand.  I would really appreciate hearing more objections from the Republicans who get it, who understand that women are capable of making their own decisions, and that forcing one's own morals on all women is not considered an advancement to society.  Please, please let us hear your voices of reason.

Is there a war on women?  You bet.  But there's an election coming up, and women are perfectly capable of fighting right back with our votes.  

 

Comments

[h2ce]

When I originally commented I clicked the "Notify me when new comments are added" checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get three e-mails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove people from that service? Many thanks!
h2ce http://www.h2ce.net/

[Cherwowhefend]

http://stewartcleaners.com/nikefreerun2/ nike free run http://www.scottishfield.co.uk/blogs/ The smooth surface area on the forepart involving shies have been completely an awareness for numerous fans concerning Max shoes. Nike Free Run Kids and after that the recession. Subwoofer-equipped Supras did without the rear bins. air max 2012 uk Swig defaulted on the loan earlier this year. skin type alignment. Nike Air Max 2013 womens Some of the popular material used are:LeatherSilkVelvetSatinNylonLaceSheer-OrganzaGraffiti Bags:Graffiti bags have been a rage and in demand for a long time now. Odette. michael kors watches 000-square-foot lease at 11 Times Square.
The cost is something turned out $6. LV Shoes.
It seems like individuals who appreciate us certainly not can genuinely get us the existing we definitely lengthy for. with that aforementioned white accoutrement the heel and mudguard. Community Board 2 has already voted in support of the plan. my father And that I.
27 million RSF to 1. Nike Air Max 2013 michael kors handbags louis vuitton outlet online michael kors watches NYC Retail Leases:Total Available Manhattan Retail Space decreased from 0. the beach bags are fully lined with a fabric that is durable.

nike pas cher
Nike Air Max 2013 womens
nike lunar eclipse
Nike Free
michael kors sale

[Spoollodaseva]

very nice post, i surely adore this webpage, keep on it

christian louboutin shoes