Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This should be how ALL female lawmakers address attempts to tell the women of this country what they can do with their own bodies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Saw this on Rachel last night and was riveted. Thinking people MUST find a voice to expose the draconian control that's headed our way should the low-info voters buy into the folksy Neocon puppet-speak being spouted by Sistah Sarah et al.
ReplyDeleteBasically, their "small" government is way too big to fit into my uterus.
OT, but see: http://tiny.cc/98p9n
ReplyDeleteI cannot stand Rick Santorum but anyone who criticizes SP, even a neanderthal with a horde of children who he apparently has nothing to do with raising (bad grammar, sorry!), can speak as he wishes.
And I doubt he's going to come out tomorrow and walk it back.
Yesterday Gail Collins wrote a fantastic op-ed piece about the assault on Planned Parenthood by Congress. The piece and many of the comments were so amazing and inspiring. Women need to revolt, and make sure we retain control of our own bodies.
ReplyDelete(As we all know, Congress does not provide taxpayer funding for abortion at PP. However, Congress wants to end funding for all PP services, which includes affordable basic health screenings, counseling, and assistance with birth control. For some women PP is the only health care provider they see/can afford.)
Michelle Obama is indeed a class act. We're so happy she is our First Lady!
ReplyDeleteI agree!
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm thinking that we should get government and primarily women involved in deciding who can and cannot have Viagra and Cialis. I'm sure those little sperm feel pain when they are shot down the tubes at such a high rate of speed. After all, they would otherwise get to remain dormant in men with impotency problems. Also, it is a form of slave labor, isn't it, to force those little guys to swim against their will and ultimately to their death?
ReplyDeleteI can't watch video at work but I am very surprised and pleased that women of both parties are waking up to the current assault on our rights and our lives!
ReplyDeleteWow, Gryphen, this is why I check your blog out every day. I choose not to have cable and often forget in my busy day to catch the previous night's showing of RMS off the internet. What a story! Thank you for posting this. Rachel Rocks, and so do those small "c" conservatives in Wyoming!
ReplyDeleteCan't watch the video right now. Could you identify the lawmaker so I can call their office to thank them
ReplyDelete(since I have called other lawmakers who are co-sponcers to complain.
Rachael, as usual, has hit on something more profound than the arguments of the two women, and their statements and stories were powerful. Teabaggers can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose when you want to impose big government and when you want to remove big government. They don't want government involved in American's health care, but they want government's involvement in the health care of a woman's vagina! The duplicity of their argument proves that they never really meant anything they said about small government.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling imposing big government on our small vaginas may backfire. Women may start to revolt. As my dad always said, if men had babies, abortions would never be a question, especially if that pregnancy might interfere with a football game, deer hunting, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe point about women deciding about who gets viagra and cialis is well made. Are they using it for marital relations, a one night stand, sex with a minor, an affair, etc. They should have to be questioned, too.
ReplyDeleteAnyone of a certain age, like myself, can recall the pre-Roe V. Wade days. It was as simple as this: if a woman wanted to terminate a pregnancy and she had money, she could get an abortion. If a woman wanted to terminate a pregnancy and she had a lot of money, she could get a safe abortion (usually in Puerto Rico.) If she had no money, she might do something dangerous and life-threatening. All Roe V. Wade did was make access to safe abortions available to all women in the US. It did not change anyone's opinion of abortion.
ReplyDeleteWomen have sought abortions all through history. Whether it is morally right is up to the individual woman who has to face the decision. One would think that the extreme right would champion a woman's right to choose.
Ever notice that the most virulent protesters (and assassins) in the anti-abortion movement are men?
The attempt to redefine rape in HR 3 got a lot of press and the offensive language was removed. There are still 3 bills that attack women's rights and I'm concerned they're not getting public attention. Rachel flashed the titles on the screen during her show but I don't think she covered the content.
ReplyDeleteH.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
H.R. 217: Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
Rachel's blog has links to info covered on her show, inluding the federal and Wyoming anti-abortion bills.
ReplyDeletehttp://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/09/6015387-links-for-the-29-trms
Draconian?
ReplyDeleteBut it's pretty much what we passed here in Alaska. Awhile ago.
Hopefully we will see a new generation of Gloria Steinems and her antecedents come to the fore, because it is looks like we are going to have the fight the same battle in the 21stC that we found in the 20thC.
ReplyDeleteWomen still need the Equal Rights Amendment for Women to be in the Constitution. It is conceptually important and it is legally important.
Its legal importance is that only discrimination need be shown for the law to act against the discrimination. As it stands now the woman has to prove discrimination and show that that discrimination has caused physical or monetary damage in order for the law to act to protect her rights and make her whole.
Example: Until the Equal Rights Amendment, housing could be denied to Blacks, but even if the victim could show that, say in Atlanta, all white neighborhoods were statistical proof of discrimination, if there were other housing available for Blacks there was no real damage so even if the court found discrimination it could give no remedy.
With the Amendment only the showing of discrimination was sufficient for the court to order a remedy, ie. integration of all white neighborhoods.