The right's war on poor women

EXPERiENCEEXPERiENCEEXPERiENCEEXPERiENCE
.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
EXPERiENCEEXPERiENCEEXPERiENCEEXPERiENCE
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░P░R░E░Z░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░░2012+
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
.
FREE-AD by APOCALYPTARIAN-PARTY, U.S.A., 1972
.
Note: WE[i] art nay Mormons. Yet Always Respect Them!
.

..

Obviously, a perfect birth control barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one!

In the meantime, monomasturbation or mutual masturbation are highly recommended for heterosexuals who need a contraceptive.

Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the sex drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive? Planned Parenthood should make the development of such a drug a high priority.

Bruce18, "I cannot fathom how you can call yourself a preacher. What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' permits abortion. The restriction doesnt seem to have an qualifiers for poor or women or any other group for that matter."

And what part of thou shalt not kill allows for exceptions for self defense? How about protecting your family? How about in times of war?

It seems to me that this blanket statement doesn't leave room for any exceptions and yet our secular society allows lots of exceptions.

And as long as we're talking about biblical prescriptions, it seems to me that the most conservative voters seem to come from the "bible belt". These same voters are overwhelmingly in favor of the death penalty. What part of "thou shalt not kill" allows room for government sanctioned killing?

Dear Susan,
I cannot fathom how you can call yourself a preacher. What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' permits abortion. The restriction doesnt seem to have an qualifiers for poor or women or any other group for that matter.
Think about abortion in a different way: Abortion is just the current version of slavery. In this case, a human person, the fetus, is denied the right to a free life, because another human person, the mother, has decided they are less than human.

"I personally don't want my taxes to support what is, in my personal view, an organization that kills unborn children and takes advantage of women who are scared and feel they have no where else to go." Posted by: clark09

The Hyde Amendment ensures against the funding of abortions with Federal tax dollars. Thus, supporting the de-funding of Planned Parenthood equates to supporting the de-funding of health services and family planning services (except abortion) primarily used by poor and disadvantaged women. I think most people would consider that position an ethical FAIL.

Also, I would think an organization that provides women in trouble with a variety of options for dealing with an unintended/unwanted pregnancy isn't taking advantage of women for profit (especially if the de-funding of that organization - which is essentially miniscule compared to other organizations the government supports - threatens to severely cripple that organization). Dehumanizing a woman to be nothing more than a gestation chamber, or condemning a woman and her child to a life of hardship and poverty, or preventing poor women from having access to contraception to prevent unintended/unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place seems, to me, to be taking advantage of scared women all for the sake of religious hysteria/self-righteousness. And this opinion is coming from someone who regularly attends church and considers herself a religious person.

Most folks seem to forget the Margaret Sanger created Planned Parenthood as a way to get rid of black babies and reduce the numbers of blacks. So the question is, how well has that worked? The answer is, very well.
-------------------------------------
There's an important point here, but not the one being made. The black abortion rate is five times the white rate.

This shows black women have a disconnect between their contraceptive usage and their sexual ethics. Which is commonly caused by religion, like in the Palin family.

Most folks seem to forget the Margaret Sanger created Planned Parenthood as a way to get rid of black babies and reduce the numbers of blacks. So the question is, how well has that worked? The answer is, very well.

The societal cost of an unwanted child is expensive, but the societal cost of an unsuccessfully aborted child is astronomical.

Women have been killing their unwanted children for tens of thousands of years. They won't stop because of some law passed by a male-dominated government.

You should have seen the outpouring of raw hatred against men when Virginia granted supervisory power over abortion clinics to the state's medical board. The board is overwhelmingly pro-choice, but the previous Democratic governor appointed no women to it.

Roundlymocked said, I believe that abortion and contraception have not given women more choice over their lives, but have given men a greater reason to objectify us because the consequences of sexual intercourse have been "eliminated".

I don't see the same linkage as you do. I see the opposite. With choice to not have children women have entered the business world in record numbers now accounting for over 50% of all American jobs. Before, when the woman was "expected" to stay home and raise children, the vast majority were dependent upon a husband for their income and survival. Do you not see the increase in independent women as being positive and offering choice?

roundlymocked also said, "I'm just seriously wondering as I've seen all my friends & I grow up in this culture of contraception, whether it's done more harm than good. The effects of unrestricted, uncommitted sex - the effects of abortion (physical & emotional) on women - these are long term effects that affect quality of life for women..."

Let's say that there is an emotional toll on a woman when she has an abortion, there really is no way to measure that against the emotional toll of raising an unwanted baby. I suspect the toll all around - psychological, economical -- to be far greater because the child can also suffer.

You: What's so wrong about wanting life to be different...to be BETTER?

We are in agreement here. I want life to be better. I've concluded that the decision is best made by the woman and her physician and/or the baby's father. Not some legislature somewhere. I've also concluded that giving women a choice has increased all of life's choices for them and the result has been far more women in positions of power and responsibility.

I know from my customer base (I own a software company), of my 21 long term clients 19 of the people in charge of the department using my software are women.

15 years ago, those numbers would have been reversed.

"When I speak to young women on college campuses around the country, I try to make them aware that the access to contraception that they take for granted is about to be taken away."

What utter nonsense. If such a thing were to happen, the electoral reaction would see it undone very quickly. There simply are not enough voters willing to see contraceptive information and access denied. The "camel's nose under the tent" argument is one of the weakest in politics and Ms. Thisthletwaite advances it here with total dedication.

@ TWMATTHEWS...

I assure you that I am a woman. And I believe that abortion and contraception have not given women more choice over their lives, but have given men a greater reason to objectify us because the consequences of sexual intercourse have been "eliminated".

I'm just seriously wondering as I've seen all my friends & I grow up in this culture of contraception, whether it's done more harm than good. The effects of unrestricted, uncommitted sex - the effects of abortion (physical & emotional) on women - these are long term effects that affect quality of life for women...

What's so wrong about wanting life to be different...to be BETTER?

But if any grounds are gained on abortion - maybe women and men alike will have to at least think about all the destruction that these last 35+ years of abortion & contraception have waged on our society -- our lives -- our nation. (Let's not forget the 52 million casualties of our desire to have "choice".)

I think women should have access to birth control and health care for unborn children. I do not think that there should be agencies out there that offer abortions as an option, unless it is a medical necessity, and then a hospital can offer these services. "Pro-Choice" is ignorant terminology, it implies that the opposite camp is "Anti-Choice". Most of these women made a choice, it was made when they chose to spread their legs. If they don't want the children, put them up for adoption. I know parents who wait years to adopt a healthy child in this country. If the mother is a drug-addict or otherwise unfit to carry a children to full term, she needs to have her tubes tied. The problem isn't that the poor don't have access to healthcare, or that they aren't being taken care of, it's that women are terminating pregnancies because they don't like the outcome of unprotected and irresponsible sex. This does not mean that a baby should be killed, it means that the mother should be forced to take responsibility for her "choice".

Roundlymocked said "Maybe the next generation of women would be better off without contraception. Maybe they could embrace again the fullness of womanhood and force men to respect them as more than just the next "roll in the hay".

You mean respect women for being baby-making machines? Removing contraception and choice is somehow better for women and would lead to more respect?

I'm betting you're a man and wonder how you would feel if a woman told you that you weren't allowed to wear a condom.

"The majority of taxpayers are christians" -- how ignorant and uninformed! And the sentiments expressed are decidedly un-Christian. As a taxpayer, I am happy to provide a miniscule portion of my tax dollars to help poor women and girls have access to health care. The majority of your readers apparently only support programs that directly benefit them personally. Jesus would certainly approve funding programs that help people, as opposed to a Pentagon budget that is used for killing ("thou shalt not kill") and supporting huge multi-national corporations in the military-industrial complex -- which budget gobbles HUGE amounts of our money.

Ridiculous article, really. The Christian argument AGAINST abortion is much more convincing than the so called "Christian" argument for it. I am Christian and don't think that Jesus would say, "Well, sure, you can't have a baby right now, so don't put it up for adoption, just kill the poor thing." Sounds crazy because it IS crazy! If PP didn't perform hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, than funding them with taxpayer dollars might not be an issue. But they do. I personally don't want my taxes to support what is, in my personal view, an organization that kills unborn children and takes advantage of women who are scared and feel they have no where else to go...and makes a ton of money off it all in the process. And I think recent events show just how UNregulated PP is in so many ways. If you want to give them your money, do so privately.

"The majority of taxpayers are christians" -- how ignorant and uninformed! And the sentiments expressed are decidedly un-Christian. As a taxpayer, I am happy to provide a miniscule portion of my tax dollars to help poor women and girls have access to health care. The majority of your readers apparently only support programs that directly benefit them personally. Jesus would certainly approve funding programs that help people, as opposed to a Pentagon budget that is used for killing ("thou shalt not kill") and supporting huge multi-national corporations in the military-industrial complex -- which budget gobbles HUGE amounts of our money.

You are correct to say:

"That's reality. Contraceptive pills and implanted devices work even when girls and women are subject to rape."

Unfortunately, this point is the undoing of Planned Parenthood...they give out contraceptives and then continue to hurt women & girls exploited and harmed by sexual violence...by covering up their pain with abortions, in some cases breaking reporting laws & perpetuating the enslavement of these women & girls to their male aggressors.

As for the right being out to take away services from poor women...

Margaret Sanger's writings include reasons to rid society of "human weeds" through abortion and contraception. Now 60% of African American children in New York City are killed in the womb. I'd call that a pretty successful campaign...for the so-called "left".

When a poor woman is pregnant & decides not to abort - who offers support? Crisis Pregnancy Centers (many of which would receive the label "right wing" if it mattered).

When any women regrets her decision to abort & seeks help...who runs programs like Project Rachel? The "right"...(although I suppose finally Exhale is filling in a void on the "left" since no one on the "left" wishes to accept a woman who chose abortion & then regretted it).

The attack is not about right or left, poor or rich -

The attack is against LIFE.

Planned Parenthood gives out millions of contraceptives, it's true. But they also hide those cases that you mention by not reporting or hiding the truth -- to the detriment of women & girls everywhere.

So-called feminist promises about birth control have gotten us no where...we are old & childless & have careers that leave us empty.

Maybe the next generation of women would be better off without contraception. Maybe they could embrace again the fullness of womanhood and force men to respect them as more than just the next "roll in the hay".

So why do the epidemics of abortion and STDs continue:

From the Guttamacher Institute:

FIRST-YEAR CON-TRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

Percentage of women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy

Method Typical

Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2

Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0
Ovulation Method 3.0
Sympto-thermal 2.0
Post-ovulation 1.0

No method 85.0"

(Abstinence) 0

(Masturbation) 0

The failure of the Pill as noted above results in one million unplanned pregnancies every year because women basically fail to take it once a day as prescribed. Is there a literacy problem that Planned Parenthood failed to recognize?

The failure of the male condom results in another one million unplanned pregnancies every year basically because many men, as per Guttmacher, fail to use them even though they have them in their pockets or billfolds.

Then there are these additional facts:

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

and

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/20/yes-oral-sex-is-sex-and-it-can-boost-cancer-risk/?npt=NP1

"Yes, oral sex is sex, and it can boost cancer risk-

Here's a crucial message for teens: Oral sex carries many of the same risks as vaginal sex, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of oral cancers in America in people under age 50.

"Adolescents don’t think oral sex is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 'sex.'"

Obviously, Planned Parenthood, parents and educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

"The right's war on poor women"

Misleading propaganda.

it is a war on the misuse of taxpayer money.

the majority of taxpayers are christian and do not want their taxes spent on abortions.

Planned parenthood can aquire private funding.

mark
always seek the truth.

Mark, the failure rate may be higher than you think due to the excessive prescribing of antibiotics. I was not warned when I was given antibiotics for a sinus infection that they could interfere with the absorption of my birth control pills, and that I should use a back-up method. Care to guess what happened?

Fine as far as it goes.

But the abortion rate is FAR too high to be explained by the expected rate of contraceptive failure. Fertile women need to take more seriously their role in achieving the "rare" part of President Clinton's objective.