tuscl

Whats next? Condoms? Vasectomys?

shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
Friday, August 1, 2008 11:47 PM
A new proposal could put birth control on the same level as abortion. In a confidential draft, the Bush Administration defines abortion as any prescription of drugs and any procedure that terminates a human life, including birth control pills, IUD's, and morning after pills. The laws would protect health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or prescribing contraceptives. If their employers punish them, the federal government would deny the health center federal money. The plan also would allow insurers who receive federal money to drop their coverage of contraceptives if they want to.

39 comments

  • how
    •
    16 years ago
    Actually, there are two different elements to the protection proposed in the legislation. One is for workers who refuse to participate in abortive measures, the second is for workers who refuse to dispense birth control. The legislation does not in fact equate abortion with birth control measures that prevent conception.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Gee, the Bush Administration ain't looking so bad after all. :)
  • lopaw
    •
    16 years ago
    It's unimaginable that this could be true. Leave it to the fucked up republicans to try and turn back time to the 14th century. Whatta bunch of tools. Can't wait to wave "buh bye" to the whole ridiculous lot of them come November.
  • Dudester
    •
    16 years ago
    It takes quite a while to enact a federal program. Bush will be gone in six months, so I seriously doubt this project will ever get off the little memo pad. With six months left the only things he's concerned about are: A) Iraq/Afghanistan B) The list of pardons pushed on him by the GOP C) What items he'll take with him from D.C.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    No, starting a new war with Iran? Remember Iran is a threat to Israel, which means the US better get its ass in gear pronto. So, let's have some faith in President Bush. Besides, President Bush's oil backers haven't made enough money, yet.
  • FONDL
    •
    16 years ago
    Lopaw, I share some of your frustrations with the present administration. But I think historians will look pretty kindly on President Bush. When the history of the first half of the 21st century is written I think it will focus on two dominant themes - the continued breakdown of civil society and the spread of international terrorism. And I think President Bush will likely look pretty good on both those issues compared to his successors. Which to me is partty scary.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    President Bush is the terrorist's best friend. Just like the government's Drug War is the drug lords best best friend in terms of making truck loads of cash. Without the Drug War, drugs would selling for pocket change i.e little tiny profits; can't have that! As far as terrorism, blowing people up around the world and invading nations is the best way to not only bankrupt the U.S. (the dollar is doing surprisingly well, imo---gas should be selling for more like $20 per gallon), but it creates even more innocent victims who heaven wish to fight back. As far as the U.S. minding its own business---PLEASE you don't arm and finance another people's enemy (Israel) without expecting to get kicked in the balls at some point e.g. 911.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    heaven forbid wish to fight back.
  • how
    •
    16 years ago
    Posted by: lopaw : "It's unimaginable that this could be true." It's not, as pointed out in the second post in this thread. The original post gives the impression that the administration is working on legislation that would equate birth control devices that prevent conception with abortion. That's false. Could be a strawman argument, or just mis-information.
  • how
    •
    16 years ago
    jablake said, "PLEASE you don't arm and finance another people's enemy (Israel) without expecting to get kicked in the balls at some point e.g. 911." We are right to consider Israel our friend, and indeed Israel's enemies are the enemies of all decent people worldwide, including muslims and islamists who don't approve of terror tactics and don't seek the destruction of an entire ethnic group (as do Israel's and our mutual enemies).
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Yes, who cares about the cost of that "friendship" to America?
  • how
    •
    16 years ago
    jablake, I'm proud that we as a nation stand against genocidal maniacs, whatever it may cost us.
  • shadowcat
    •
    16 years ago
    FONDL: Once again I have to agree with you totally.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "jablake, I'm proud that we as a nation stand against genocidal maniacs, whatever it may cost us." Yes, spoken like true blue supporter of Israel.
  • Dudester
    •
    16 years ago
    Yes, spoken like true blue supporter of Israel. Those who don't study history, are doomed to relive it. jablake, I think you slept through history class, and was socially promoted. Over the past few millenia, there have been multiple empires. Everytime some empire preyed on the jews, their empire crumbled. It even starts before the Romans, but the list is long. The US has backed just about every play Isreal has made, and that's a wise move. As someone who is half jewish I find your anti semitism, well, I'm disgusted. I'm not sure what my people did to you, but if you hate us that bad I can't help but wonder if you keep a swastika above your bed (yes, you earned that). We could have a discussion about theology, but I find it a waste of time to argue with a fool.
  • shadowcat
    •
    16 years ago
    Damnit jablake. I don't like to get into heated politics but you got my dander up. I am not a Jew. In fact I am an atheist. I admire Israel. They do not take shit off of anybody. If it wasn't for the U.S.'s influence they would take out Syria and Iran tomorrow. They would just like to be left alone but they are surrounded by ignorant, malicious Islamics that want to force their beliefs on to the rest of the world. They have no respect for women or human rights. Do you really understand what stoning is? They bury you and then throw rocks at you until you die. A women can get this punishment for just being seen outside the house with a male that is not a member of her family. Beheading. How barbaric. Saudi Arabia just pasted a law making it illegal to sell cats and dogs. Reason? It promotes meetings between the sexes. Mohamed Ali (Cassius Clay)could go into the ring and fight anybody but he changed his name and religion to avoid serving his country. Boy was I disappointed in the Atlanta Olympics committee to honor him. My mother died from the same affliction. How well I remember 9/11. It had a personal effect on me. I am a Viet Nam Vet. LBJ totally fucked that up. I would rather see the U.S. fight these evil people in their realm rather than here. In the mean time what does it hurt to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies? It works in Israel. If there is ever a World War lll, it will be between the nations of Islam and the rest of the free world. How to stop the killing?
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hate? I'll have you know some of my best friends are Jews!!! Take that you big half Jewish bully!!! :) Actually, I don't keep up with the religion garbage too much. I think it is a little funny that you would assume your people did anything to me----like you feel guilty??? Or, is it because the history of the Jews is filled with people seeking their destruction? I *assume* you realize other peoples have been hated and have suffered genocide. So what? The U.S. should run around the globe fighting endless wars?
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "If it wasn't for the U.S.'s influence they would take out Syria and Iran tomorrow." Hi Shadowcat, Wonderful, let Israel take out whoever they so wish and let the blood be on their hands. They might be able to win and so what?
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "I would rather see the U.S. fight these evil people in their realm rather than here. In the mean time what does it hurt to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies? It works in Israel." Yes, and for strategic reasons I think they're loving the sinkholes the U.S. has stepped into. Sure the U.S. is much more powerful than the former Soviet Union, but you do recall it was U.S. strategy to bleed the Soviets dry in an expensive unwinnable war in Afghanistan? It worked, imo, beautifully. :) So, Soviets get kicked out and broke and now the U.S. wishes to see if it has the bankroll to get the job done? Sounds like mainly the U.S. has turned the Afghanistan into a narco state, which is positive, imo. :) It worked in Israel? I guess if you believe in promoting one religion over another than it has been a wonderful success or if you wish to send billions and billions every year to fund their BS you could call that a success. :) Worse, the U.S. gives Egypt billions to be "nice" to Israel. As long as the printing press is working smoothly, it ain't a horrible deal. :) Real democracies? You know the ones where "terrorists" get elected on the platform of destroying Israel? Or, are you talking about phoney baloney democracies?
  • shadowcat
    •
    16 years ago
    jabelake: I did not accuse you of anything other than ignorance. Israel has the right to protect it's self as does the U.S. If we do not fight terrorism all over the globe, who will? God? Think about this in November.
  • shadowcat
    •
    16 years ago
    Off topic subject: I will be in my favorite strip club Aug 10 thru 12. Hope to see some of you.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "jabelake: I did not accuse you of anything other than ignorance. Israel has the right to protect it's self as does the U.S. If we do not fight terrorism all over the globe, who will? God? Think about this in November." Let Israel defend *itself*----wonderful. :) If people actually believe in this religion garbage, then God has already determined the winner, no? :) I mean God isn't actually going to allow his "chosen" people to lose? I think if the U.S. doesn't help the terrorists by bombing innocent people enmass, then the terrorist damage will be tiny such as say 911. Yes, the beloved 911. What was the final body count? Just under 3,000? The real terrorism is on U.S. highways and hospitals. 100,000 annually dead due to medical mistakes? 40,000 annually dead due to traffic fatalities? The numbers are a damn sight higher that 3,000. Not only that: the 3,000 killed were killed by a *tiny* number of killers. So the U.S. decides to terrorize millions of people to fight the menace unleashed by a HANDFUL of people. Ignorant? I suggest you think about how ***ignorant*** it is to fight ghosts and inflict harm on millions to battle a HANDFUL of people. If you actually cared about "terrorism," then a very real solution is to allow Jews to immigrate to the U.S. along with hefty cash payments to help them get established----true peace for land. :) Don't fret, I have NO intention of voting. I'd LOVE President Bush to serve for another 20 years; yes, I think he is incompetent enough to end the U.S. as a world menace. Hell, Israel might have to start sending billions and billions in funds to America if only we can keep people like him in charge. Of course, if he is stopping Israel from fighting back----well, that is pretty damn nasty! :(
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    BTW, if the U.S. is going to continue the silliness of fighting "terrorism," then it seems like war with Iran and Pakistan is pretty much unavoidable. I think the Chinese and Russians are loving it, not to mention Bin Laden and friends. :) Anyway, the U.S. Congress knows how to eliminate terrorists cheaply and easily!!! :) Yes, hard to believe Congress is capable of doing good, but HEADLINES: "Mandela off U.S. terrorism watch list." *** [view link] *** So, just call Bin Laden and friends something else . . . didn't President Reagan call these Holy Warriors ----- FREEDOM FIGHTERS? :) And, didn't President Reagan have the solution to hundreds of Marines being butchered in their sleep by "terrorists"? YES, run fast as hell while calling it victory!!! ;) This War on Terror is *almost* as retarded as the War on Drugs. America lover of endless wars for fun and profit.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    This War on Terror is *almost* as retarded as the War on Drugs. America lover of endless wars for fun and profit. Actually, it is *more* retarded than the War on Drugs.
  • shadowcat
    •
    16 years ago
    jablake: I have always thought of you as a long winded, senile, educated, harmless person. Kyle1111. I am sure of. But your last 3 posts really disturb me. Were you hiding under some black strippers under ware during the Cuban Missile Crisis? You are always knocking our government but you admit to not voting. Why? "Love it or leave it". My final post on the subject.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi shadowcat, I voted until either the Florida Supreme Court struck down the 3 citizen petitions involving the single subject rule or the Miami Stadium deal. I can't remember which came last. A friend worked to get these citizen initiatives on the ballot. I basically said he was a dummy because the Florida Supreme Court would strike them down using the single subject rule they created. It would be a big joke on those who believed in democracy. He says NO, there are law professors and a former Florida Supreme Court Judge onboard. I'm just laughing because it is just too stupid. This isn't about law, but corruption. Of course, the citizen initiatives passed by healthy margins. And, The Florida Supreme Court struck them down FAST using the single subject rule. :) So much for the "legal advice" of law professors and a former Florida Supreme Court Judge. In the Miami Stadium deal you had 2 candidates with supposedly opposing viewpoints. One wanted to use taxpayer funds to build a stadium and the other said developers should pay for it or it shouldn't get built. After the candidate who opposed taxpayer funding won the election, he immediately changed positions and gave away even more taxpayer money. UNDERSTAND? Attorney David Paul who fought the stadium fraud *before* the election had gotten clobber in court. I had told him NOT to worry because we would win on election day. He laughed at me and said you don't actually believe it matters who wins? I said yes---boy, was that naive. He added that if he thought there would be honest election that he wouldn't have gone to court. In his opinion the court was paid off just like the candidates. I told him that he was just bitter about losing a tough case and the candidate who was opposed to taking taxpayer funds to build the stadium would put an end to the crime. Again corruption ruled. Just recently my neighbor got chosen for jury duty. The government knew that his English was WEAK at best---he uses me as a translator and even then it is difficult! He voted guilty even though he says that he didn't understand what was being said. Why guilty? He just wanted to get back to paid employment. He said NOT guilty would have been just as good a vote and those like him who couldn't understand English just wanted to let the *few* or *one* who could understand English decide the case. So much for the BS about a jury trial and YES, imo, it should actually be a jury of your peers! Too radical. :) More radical the jury should actually be able to understand the language the trial is being conducted under! Trial like other supposed rights in this country are just another fraud. (Too much radicalism: the court shouldn't be allowed to exclude exculpatory evidence, the list goes on and on. So MUSH freedom; that's right MUSH.) I wish those who murdered British soldiers had heeded the wisdom of "Love it or leave it." :) Yes, NO U.S. government. :)
  • casualguy
    •
    16 years ago
    I may be against abortion but if someone is trying to buy a legal product and someone refuses to sell it to them in the pharmacy, I think they should be fired. What's next? Some stores refuse to take money issued by the US because they have moral objections against using US currency? If it's legal, they should be fired in my opinion for refusing the sale. If enough people have a moral objection against selling a product to use to abort a fetus, then make that use of the product illegal.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "I may be against abortion but if someone is trying to buy a legal product and someone refuses to sell it to them in the pharmacy, I think they should be fired." And, whose decision should it be that employee be fired? The government? Just because there is a legal product doesn't mean that a private business should be forced to sell it, imo. Sort of like I believe a stripper should be free to refuse a customer for *any* reason----Now, the dancers at Angels made a very strong case why that shouldn't be allowed and in a free market (which doesn't exist as far as stripclubs here in Miami-Dade) I'd probably agree with them. :)
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    There was and probably still is a Jewish attorney in a wheelchair who works as a public defender. I don't remember his name, but he has an excellent reputation according to the people I've spoken with. Anyway, he was in court doing an excellent job from what I could see. The subject came up how he went the extra miles to get the "guilty" off according to the prosecutor. The lady judge says well, *you don't have to offer him plea deals*. The prosecutor says something like it wasn't a plea deal he took the case to trial! The lady judge is dumbfounded and says is that even possible? (To go to trial and win as a PD?) (Perhaps she was joking, but it sure didn't sound like it.) Anyway, the handicapped attorney says something like it wasn't a big deal because the client was innocent and the State had NO evidence. The lady judge says regardless, that is amazing you were able to win as she is shaking her head NO. The handicapped attorney says but he was INNOCENT. The lady judge says something to the effect that that doesn't matter, the State should still win or something equally outrageous. She probably is one of those judges who insists on seating jurors who can vaguely speak/understand English and figures they just need to vote guilty so there's no harm. Yes, just a boat load of "freedoms" in the U.S. Thank God, those U.S. soldiers are busy killing people. :( Or, as shadowcat would say you just wouldn't understand unless you're dodging enemy bullets. Or, FONDL ---we need the draft so people, those forced to serve, will love America. :( Anyway, as Bork pointed out one person's freedom is another person's lack of freedom---thus, by his reasoning the default is always freedom assuming you're an optimist like him. :)
  • how
    •
    16 years ago
    jablake, you've posted many things regarding international geopolitics and defense policy, and frankly there are just too many nonsensical statements in your posts for me to address. But you are wrong about virtually everything you have contended relating to the global war on terror. One example: you said we have turned Afghanistan into a "narco state." Having been deployed to Afghanistan as part of OEF, I know something about what we are doing there. Poppy (particularly opium poppy) has long been a prevalent crop in Afghanistan. Since we routed the Taliban and Karzai became the president, the coalition has had a program to eradicate opium poppy. Great Britain is the lead nation for this part of the overall coalition effort. It's going to take time, because simply destroying all the poppy fields will have undesirable consequences related to the people's opinion of the coalition participants. One thing that will help is for the local imams to tell the people the same thing they do in neighboring Pakistan: "it is not merely wrong to consume opium, it is also wrong to produce it." That has not been the message from the religious leaders in Afghanistan, as it has been in other nearby nations--that is why Afghanistan has long been the opium capital of the world. But we (the coalition) are improving that situation, rather than "turning Afghanistan into a narco-state." I could provide a similar rebuttal to just about every contention you've made, but I don't think that is really necessary.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "Afghan Opium Trade Hits New Peak U.N. Report Describes a Scale of Narcotics Production Not Seen in Two Centuries By Colum Lynch and Griff Witte Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, August 28, 2007; Page A07 UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 27 -- Opium production in Afghanistan has increased by 34 percent over the past year, and the country is now the source of 93 percent of the heroin, morphine and other opiates on the world market, according to a report by the United Nations' anti-drug agency." [view link] "Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels." [view link] As I was saying THANK YOU President Bush for turning Afghanistan into a "narco state." :) Honestly, I would LOVE to see President Bush in office for another 20 years because is such an incompetent---too bad so many innocent people would have to suffer under his rule, however. how, THANK YOU for your "rebuttal." LOL! You are definitely highly qualified to work for the Bush Administration. :)
  • how
    •
    16 years ago
    jablake, your contention in the post with that UN report appears to be this: "The Taliban should have been left alone, because one result of removing them was an increase in drug production." I reject your contention, and all sane people would. You may be too ill-informed or too unintelligent to understand why. Almost everything you contend appears to be based on assumptions that are inconsistent with reality.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi how, You reject my "contention." What a surprise? :) Actually, I merely THANKED President Bush for turning Afghanistan into a "narco state."
  • clubman2
    •
    16 years ago
    The reality is that poppy production is way up, in fact at it's highest levels ever. This is a function of not only being the most profitable crop the populace at large can produce but because it is at the same time a very large portion of the funding for the 'rebels' with the largest buyer being the cartels. Of course if we take that to it's logical conclusion it could be argued that e, the US, is funding the 'rebels' as we are the largst consuming nation of the narcotics produced. The issue of quickly doing away with these crops is not one of the image of the coalition, it s a matter of inability and the real effect that it would cause even if we could. First, by doing away with the crops we create the abject poverty for these people that is in fact the fertile breeding ground for the spread of the Islamic fundamentalist movement which is being experienced in many of the states of the middle east. Second, while we can destroy existing fields we can only touch a very small percentage, our efforts in this area are more for internal propoganda to make people think we are doing something. The fields can be quickly replanted. The only workable means are 1) to have the Imams make it a religous issue as before but that is unlikly in this environment or 2) to geneticly alter the crop and thus the seed. Estimate, if massive resource are employed is 4 -6 years for any noticable impact. And even that approach is under serious debate and has other possible consequences. Do I have an answer, no, this is all just one piece of the larger drug problem.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    I'm imagining 22 born again Christians based in Washington D.C. They love reading The Bible and praying and also believe strongly in The Second Amendment. They launch major "terrorist" attacks against Red China because of course they're jealous of China's human secularism. Yes, not too bright: think President Bush aka They're Jealous of Our Freedoms. :) The attacks claimed the lives of just under 3,000 Chinese Citizens. Of course, the Chinese started waving their little flags and were yapping about barbaric American terrorists, blah, blah, blah . . . The Chinese fortunately or unfortunately had their own little clone of President Bush in charge. First, he launches a major attack e.g. "shock and awe" against Sweden. Why Swenden? It was there! DUH. :) Then once Sweden has been decimated, the President of China attacks the U.S. to "liberate" the helpless Americans and kill ALL the terrorists. Gee, what brilliance from the President of China. :) Of course, President Bush lovers here in America LOVE the President of China for waging an all out global War on Terror. Result: Everybody lived happily everafter fighting endless phoney baloney wars. :) Yes, God is great; indeed.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "Do I have an answer, no, this is all just one piece of the larger drug problem." Or, blessing? You know, buddy, I happen to like a Vodka every once in a blue moon. Heck, I even scarf down a Bud Light, now and again. And, decades ago I smoked a joint and it was WONDERFUL!!! :) (I'm truly thrilled I didn't get sent to a government prison for that violation of law.) Or, perhaps it is a *symptom*? I believe the propaganda--correct or incorrect--is that America is the BIG DRUGGIE of the world. On the one hand, I'm anti-drugs because frankly I think the typical U.S. Citizen is way too slow and stupid to ever be trusted with hard alcohol let alone a cold beer. On the other hand, I recognize all the good drugs do e.g. feels heavenly, like fucking a comely stripper for $5 per song (finish quick and it only cost $5!); of course you *might* get an STD.
  • clubman2
    •
    16 years ago
    That's different, I prefer my vodka in a glass. But I won't argue with the balance of your comments. Just a matter of perspective.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi clubman2, LOL! :) Well, if we are going to get technical I coulda wrote Vodka + Cold OJ in a 1 to 1 ratio shaken, not stirred, by a stripper, every once in a blue moon.
  • clubman2
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi jablake Now that's what I'm talking about.. LOL
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion