Why are women so outraged over a single issue? Because the 5 ungulates on the S.C.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:05 PM - Edit history (5)

have joined their little cloven hooves and decreed that the 14th amendment to the Constitution does not apply to women.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In the view of the ungulates, women in the U.S. are neither fully citizens nor fully persons.

This is why women are outraged. This goes way beyond the subject of birth control, as important as that is.


It's time to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment once and for all.

RALLY FOR EQUALITY IN D.C. ON SEPTEMBER 13:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025199633#post32

https://www.facebook.com/ERANOWCommunity/posts/758356017510837?stream_ref=10

TIRED OF THE WAR ON WOMEN? Tired of seeing congressional committees meeting on women’s issues with NO WOMEN present or testifying? Tired of earning less than men for doing the same job, being told what you can and cannot do with your own body by people you don’t even know, and being discriminated against just because you happen to be a woman?

IT’S TIME TO COME TOGETHER AND SAY “ENOUGH!” Mark your calendars—We Are Woman in partnership with ERA Action and Progressive Democrats of America is organizing a #Rally4Equality2014 in Washington, DC this September. More info is coming soon on ways you can help make this a successful event and support the cause, but for now, here's Step 1:

TAKE Our Pledge to VOTE: http://bit.ly/ipledge2vote and join our mailing list so we can keep you up-to-date on plans. We can’t make a difference until we are ALL speaking out at the ballot box! So vote, help others vote, and support only candidates who support your equality, not just in word but in DEED. Your vote counts, so use it and help others do the same!

http://eraactioncampaign.tumblr.com

We petition the Obama Administration to:
Vigorously support women's rights by fully engaging in efforts to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

There are currently 35 states that have ratified the ERA and legal analysis suggests we may need just three more states for women to have equal rights under our Constitution. We ask you to support our efforts nationwide, particularly in the states that have not yet ratified the ERA: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, N. Carolina, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. We also ask you to place your full support behind Congressional legislation to eliminate deadlines on the original 1972 ERA. It is time our Constitution protects the rights of women, and women need and deserve active participation in ERA advocacy from the White House.
Created: Jan 10, 2013

[blkmusclmachine]

1. ,

,

[Lars39]

2. K& fucking R

And 5 points for using the word ungulates!

[DhhD]

101. Pans; Gods that piss on the she.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)

[onecaliberal]

3. Perfectly stated!

Thank you for articulating so well what so many of us are thinking but haven't been able to convey.

[Cartoonist]

4. Are Women Outraged?

Or just those on DU? I'm sure not witnessing any outrage here and I live in a liberal blue zone. I'm a man who will gladly march with women on this issue, but I haven't heard a peep.

[Cartoonist]

7. Check your link

I clicked on it and was shown a group of women celebrating the decision. I won't march with them.

[alp227]

9. Better links.

2nd photo: http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/25/are-corporations-people/

top photo: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/the-political-repercussions-of-the-hobby-lobby-decision/

[pnwmom]

11. My FB friends, a diverse group, are spreading word about a march on DC on September 13th.

I heard about it from them first -- not DU. In fact, I've never seen a post about it here.

[littlemissmartypants]

19. There was one but don't ask me where. nt

[pamela]

21. Do you have any info about that march?

I haven't heard about it either. Could you start a thread about it? I'll help you get the word out any way I can. I actually might be back in Maryland in September. I'll fucking march.

I've started a Pinterest group where I'm trying to collect graphics and other social media type info pieces. If your friends are posting any kind of graphic or poster about this march, I'd love to have it.

[pnwmom]

22. I just added a link to the OP. Oddly, it doesn't mention the exact September date,

but I've seen it elsewhere.

Pamela, I'll keep you in mind when I see something better.

[pamela]

25. Thanks.

I forgot to put the link to the Pinterest thing in my post. Help yourself to any of the graphics or cartoons if you want them for Facebook or wherever.

http://www.pinterest.com/craft4equality/

(Geesh, I forgot the link again.)

[pnwmom]

35. Pamela, this link just got passed to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025199633#post32

[pamela]

39. Thanks again!

I started a board about the rally on that Pinterest page and added the graphic. http://www.pinterest.com/craft4equality/march-on-washington-september-13-2014/

[prairierose]

103. Pamela, thanks for the graphics on Pinterest....

I started following a couple of your boards last night.

[pamela]

106. You're welcome!

It's funny, I'm not exactly a Pinterest expert. My own personal page has two followers-my sister and my niece. I was looking for a page that had some good graphics we could share on DU and elsewhere and decided to just create one myself. I'm trying to follow everyone who is following me but a lot came in last night and I may have missed some.

Anyway, thanks for your nice comment and thanks for helping to spread the word!

[sheshe2]

32. There's a rally, pnwmom.

More Here: http://www.wearewoman.us/

[pnwmom]

34. Thanks! I'll add this to the OP.

[sheshe2]

36. I will have to save my pennies.

I would so love to be there!

[littlemissmartypants]

75. Fund raisers like raffles are done in my town all the

Time. I bought 5 tickets for little league something or other yesterday. The arts council does it also. And we have a young woman college grad traveling and playing softball in Europe for the next few weeks. Fundraising. Raffles. How many weekends do we have? ? ○_○ ? ? °_°
Me looking at calendar. Where are my readers?

[cui bono]

85. Thanks for that info! n/t

[A Little Weird]

27. Yes women are outraged

Even in my red state.

What shocks me is that more men aren't outraged. This has far greater implications than just contraception coverage. This is a step towards tearing down the wall between separation of church and state and elevating the rights of corporations over 'natural persons'. Why are men not outraged?

[AdHocSolver]

42. Why aren't more men outraged over the SCOTUS decisions?

They aren't outraged because they cannot connect the dots to see how these decisions affect them or their families.

The right wing dominates the discussion via control of the mass media, and right wing propaganda short-circuits thinking among those who are not immediately affected by the decisions.

It takes a certain amount of courage and fortitude to face up to one's vulnerabilities and to apply one's intelligence to developing a course of action to protect one's interests.

The "easy" way out of a dilemma is to deny that a situation will affect them.

So, for example, we see climate-change deniers who belittle those who are concerned about global warming, as if the deniers cannot be affected if they merely belittle the evidence.

[pnwmom]

59. And because some of them think like the DUer in post #29.

[Squinch]

90. Isn't he charming?

And so refreshingly consistent in his wrong-ness.

[WinkyDink]

48. EXACTLY. The HL case just HAPPENED to be about women, but the "religious views of corporations"

could have prompted, and will prompt, any number of cases.

[ReRe]

28. Get out more...

... and while you're rubbing elbows, maybe after a few drinks (if you drink) when everyone's relaxed, bring the subject up and see if you can get them to discuss the SC decisions of late pertaining to the 14th Amendment/women's issues. You might be surprised. Just a suggestion.

[yeoman6987]

51. September 13 is a horrible time for this

Most families are getting back into the swing of school and activities. Most families just spent a big amount of money on family vacations. Singles just finished going away during the Summer. I don't know. Perhaps beginning August would be a better time. Unless they want to have the first one a bit smaller and then build up to a large demonstration.

[pnwmom]

60. I bet they want to remind people about this before the November election. So the timing's excellent.

[the_working_poor]

111. How heavily was this reported on the daily news in your area?

If I wasn't on this site, and listen to liberal radio (yay Minnesota 950am) I probably would have no clue this happened.
News paper coverage has been.. meh. it's there. but I seriously doubt any of the corporate media even tried to point out what this REALLY means for woman and in fact EVERYONE at large!

The supreme assholes didn't just fuck over women, they fucked over EVERYONE!!!

It is a very very tiny step from this decision to being able to do all sorts of horrible things to children, employees, gay men (becasue , you know, lesbians are ok) and transgender people!

This of how much WORSE education can become under this bullshit religious freedom, whatever, law.

EVERYONE should be outraged by this decision...EVERYONE!

which is why the corporate media won't make hay of this. Because if people REALLY understood the far reaching repercussions of this decision, there would be riots. Not demonstrations, actual fucking riots in the street! Riots that would make L.A 89 look tame.

[Cartoonist]

119. Little exposure here in CA

I saw a post here that a group (don't remember who) plans to politicize this ruling and give it more exposure. I wish them luck.

[the_working_poor]

120. where in CA?

and sadly i think thats the answer to the OPs rant

[Cartoonist]

121. SF bay area

I don't watch news on TV, and don't read the SF Chronicle because it is really a right wing rag pretending to be representative of the area. I occasionally read the Marin IJ even though it is further right than the Chron. Usually only for local events and obituaries. So there may have been more mention of the HL decision than I see. But since that's pretty close to ZERO, I don't see this as a galvanizing issue, yet. I am encouraged by what I read here about upcoming actions.

[the_working_poor]

122. WHat happened to KGO?!?

I'm a former bay area resident (grew up in concord) what happened to KGO radio?
has the entire fucking country cone conservacorp? =[

[Leontius]

6. So what exactly is the Fourteenth Amendement violation in this case?

[alp227]

10. Hobby Lobby's healthcare plan will cover viagara but not certain birth control

But I don't think the Obama admin used the 14th amendment in their arguments against hobby lobby.

[pnwmom]

12. Equal protection of the laws means that if men's health needs are fully covered

by the ACA, then women's health needs should be. And there is no scientific question that contraception is a health need for women.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. Excellent point, pnwmom

Unless there are no religious convictions when it comes to the patriarch's choice of birth control ...

[davidn3600]

29. It would only qualify for equal protection if it treats a medical condition

Viagra, for example, treats a medical condition.

I understand some women on BC pills use BC pills to treat a medical condition or symptoms. It should be covered in those cases. That's where SCOTUS is likely the most in the wrong. But to cover the pills for a woman's sexual activity purposes...that's where it gets far more controversial. Because, men have no benefits for that purpose either.

[pnwmom]

31. It PREVENTS a medical condition -- pregnancy -- that physically stresses and even endangers

a woman's body and that women need to avoid most of their lives.

It is just as necessary, as a preventative health care measure, as a vaccination to prevent whooping cough, which is also a communicable condition.

Men's bodies aren't put at risk through sexual activity, other than through diseases. Women's are. We're subject to foreign tissue taking root and growing in one of our organs for nine months, disrupting our entire system. Does that make it any clearer?

I can't believe that an intelligent man -- and supposedly a progressive -- could possibly make your argument. I'm stunned.

[Louisiana1976]

33. True.

[BrotherIvan]

43. I REALLY agree with you this time!!

Pregnancy has very serious health implications and should not be taken lightly. A pregnancy is far more expensive than birth control! Giving birth can be fatal or have lifelong after-effects. Some women with health conditions cannot safely carry a baby to term. Some women are on life-saving medication which is contraindicated to pregnancy and can cause severe birth defects. Some women take a progesterone form to balance estrogen dominance which can lead to cancers, migraines and other health effects. How many different reasons do you need to know that access to contraception is necessary? It should be called something else such as hormone therapy because for the most part, that's what it is.

And pregnancy affects men too. I'm so gobmacked to see people here think this is merely a "woman's problem." Do fathers share no responsibility in the number of children that are born? Does it not impact at least your financial life significantly? If you are married, do you think it's just fine that your wife pays into her health insurance and then pays up to $100 out of pocket a month for necessary medication?

Viagra improves a quality of life condition. But ED is not life-threatening. So the fact that Viagra is covered is not necessary. And because it is brand name still as compared to many forms of birth control, it is still more expensive.

All of that is secondary to the fact that religious people should not have a say in what another individual chooses. EVER.

[WinkyDink]

49. So Viagra ISN'T for a man's "sexual activity purposes"?

[Arugula Latte]

62. How dare you even question The Sanctity of the Penis?!

[Squinch]

89. Can you believe the crap that gets tossed around by our "allies" over this?

[cui bono]

86. Someone hasn't been reading their Cosmo...

From their article titled "13 Reactions to the Hobby Lobby Case That Are Completely Misinformed"

8. Birth control isn’t medicine.

Birth control is prescribed by a doctor according to a patient's needs. The nonpartisan National Institute of Medicine qualifies it as preventative care. And while pregnancy is not a disease, it is a life- or health-threatening condition for many women. Before the advent of birth control, women died of pregnancy-related causes much more often than they do today. Research suggests that modern maternal mortality rates would be as much as eight times higher without contraception, and hundreds of thousands of women around the world see their lives saved and health preserved every year because of contraception access. That is vital medical care.

It's also worth mentioning that pregnancy is no cakewalk. It takes a physical, psychological, and financial toll — much of which is worth the sacrifice when you want a baby. But preventing a condition that by definition radically changes your body and often compromises your health is indeed medicine (even if pregnancy can also be beautiful and wanted and joyful).

"The facts are clear: 99 percent of women will rely on contraception in their lives to avoid unintended pregnancy and plan their families and future," Gonen said. "This represents an immense benefit not only to millions of women and their families, but to our society as a whole. Planned pregnancies are far healthier than those that are unplanned."

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/hobby-lobby-lies?click=smart&kw=ist&src=smart&mag=COS&link=http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/hobby-lobby-lies-SMT-COS

[pfitz59]

112. #8 Should be shared far and wide

It is the bottom-line reason that SCROTUS screwed the pooch! Let Scalia walk in fear all his life without access to affordable gender-based healthcare!

[Leontius]

63. The law requires free contraception for women's health care don't know of any equivalent requirement

for men so doesn't that raise the same question?

[pnwmom]

66. Free PREVENTIVE care is required for both sexes.

It doesn't matter that men aren't subject to pregnancy. Both men and women are subject to various conditions in their bodies for which preventive care can ensure better health in the future.

For example, free abdominal aortic aneurysm screening is offered for MEN (but not women) who have been smokers. Apparently, men are the only ones deemed to benefit from this particular screening.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/#part=1

[Leontius]

108. Don't get me wrong on this but contraceptives are drugs

I take four drugs that control high blood pressure that prevent conditions that endanger my health, why are my drugs not required to be provided by my insurers for free? Why is my need or those of all who have hypertension (male and female) for these drugs less than those of women in this particular case? I know that women are not treated equally in medical care especially studies and that certainly needs to be addressed and corrected. Do you find a 14th amendment issue with your screening example?

[pnwmom]

114. Because your blood pressure drugs are not classified as preventive. They're for TREATING

the high blood pressure that damages blood vessels. When women are pregnant, they also have to pay their regular copay and deductible for any treatment they need. And if they develop pre-eclampsia and suddenly need to be treated for dangerous high blood pressure, that is still subject to copay and deductible.

When writing the law, the legislators decided to cover preventive care in full, in order to save money over the long run. Contraceptive methods, vaccinations, and various health screenings (colonoscopies, for example) are classified as preventive care.

Treatment of high blood pressure, diabetes, pregnancy, or other conditions are not.

The issue isn't whether something is a drug or not. (An IUD doesn't have to involve any drug.) The issue is whether it's preventive or treatment. When they wrote the law they wanted to build in a strong incentive for people to get preventive care, and so they offer it for free.

[hollysmom]

13. It is not a single issue - it is the single issue - women are not people but corporations have more

rights than women. That is one pretty damn big issue - PS I am on other non-political boards and women are pretty pissed. Will they organize or do something? I don't know, but if I can stir them up more - we'll see.

[pnwmom]

115. That is the worst part. A corporation is more of a person, legally, than a woman is. n/t

[BrotherIvan]

14. Hate to point it out, but you defend the RC Church often

Their fingerprints are all over this decision. I'm not saying that you push your religion onto other people, but if you tithe to the church, you support these kinds of actions. The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of fighting the contraception mandate and fighting women's reproductive health on all fronts. Your money fills their war chests.

You may alert on me; so be it. But I hope you will see now why many don't support the church or its policies. I believe that many people feel the church does good things for the poor and other charities. And it is sad that that good will is used to push a discriminatory agenda. It would be so much better if all that energy, time and money were put toward charitable organizations who don't work to harm people. Or somehow protest the leadership who pushes this awful political agenda--certainly by withholding money, but also by openly condemning their political and discriminatory agendas.

But I do not condemn you personally for your decisions and you are free to believe what you wish. I wish the same would be afforded back to those who don't ascribe to a particular faith.

[pnwmom]

17. I don't think we should have 6 Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court,

so on that we agree.

Justice Sotomayor, however, is the 6th. If there were 6 Catholic WOMEN on the SC the ruling would have been very different.

[BrotherIvan]

20. We do agree

And thank you for your civil post. I was expecting a firestorm.

The SC should be representative, but it is not possible to have enough diversity to represent the entire country. That is why this decision is especially an abomination. It is pushing a minority agenda based on the personal beliefs of a few. Justices are supposed to be non-biased and base their decisions on the rule of law.

I am very tolerant of religion, more than most. Perhaps because I don't have to deal with rabid fundamentalists very often. But I am very angry that people think they have a right to push their beliefs onto others. We are secular nation and the attempts to change that are beyond the pale.

[pnwmom]

24. I agree. The 5 Roman Catholic males all let their personal beliefs

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

sway their decision, which is reprehensible.

[Retrograde]

57. Um, Thomas isn't white

Not that one can always tell from how he votes.

[pnwmom]

58. oops

[ReRe]

30. I agree with you too...

... Am very serious about the separation of church and state. I say get God out of everything. Off of our currency, no prayers before each session of House and Senate, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'm also serious about the separation of the Corporation and state, except for the replacement of regulations that have been booted since the '70s-'80s.

[BrotherIvan]

45. Yes, because that is fair

Government doesn't need to be in the God business. Which God? If we still respected the rights of the individual without interference from corporations or religion, we wouldn't have this problem. The funny thing is, most wingers, besides the fundazombies would agree.

[Kath1]

87. "...get God out of everything." Amen to that!

That is why, after my divorce, I raised my daughter with NO religion. I wanted to save her from all the hang-ups and shit I still have from being raised Catholic.

[Puzzledtraveller]

71. Excellent point.

[littlemissmartypants]

15. Ungulates indeed. nt

[sheshe2]

18. Kick and Hell yes Recommend!

[mckara]

23. It's Good to See People Catching On, After How Many Decades?

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Abortion, Contraception, Equality for Women: all the battles, from the right, have been fought to make women second-class citizens!!!!! And still, millions of American women sleep with, fight for, and vote for, right-wing cranks!!! Maybe people are finally paying attention!

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. This cuts both ways

Rotsker v. Goldberg

The court ruled in 1981 that the male only draft registration (and the penalties for failing to register) were legal because the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee men equal protection and because only men are suited for combat.

Justices White, Marshall and Brennan dissented.

Fully agree about the ERA, because I think the country needs an office of men's health.

14th amendment court precedent in the area of sex is an interesting mishmash of logic. They apply strict scrutiny sometimes and intermediate strutiny (discrimination is okay if you can give a good reason) other times.

[pnwmom]

37. We're long past that. If we ever have another draft, they'll draft women, too.

Even if we don't have an ERA.

The other argument they used to make was that if we had an ERA, then we'd have gay marriage. And now a third of the states have gay marriage and we're still no closer to an ERA.

Or maybe we are. Maybe the Hobby Lobby decision is the kick in the teeth we needed.

[Jim Lane]

80. You're probably right, but it raises a question: What WOULD be affected by the ERA?

I think that every federal court that's ruled on same-sex marriage since Windsor has borne out Scalia's prediction that the Equal Protection Clause would be held to require marriage equality.

Conscription might be tougher. With same-sex marriage, the obvious argument is that if you oppose same-sex marriage, don't enter into one, and you won't be affected. If, however, Congress passed a males-only conscription law, then eliminating the sex restriction would hurt women by exposing them to the draft, but men could plausibly argue that leaving the restriction in place hurt them by increasing their chances of being drafted. My guess is that, if Congress were to enact conscription, it would make it apply to both sexes. If it again enacted males-only conscription, though, I think you're probably right that it would be held to violate equal protection.

Thus the important question is: In light of the broader scope being given to the
Equal Protection Clause now, is there any statute, regulation, or other governmental action that could still survive scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause but that would nevertheless violate the ERA? I can't think of any.

What happened in Hobby Lobby would not have been affected by the ERA. A federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, gave private actors certain privileges. Hobby Lobby chose to exercise those privileges in a discriminatory manner. The discrimination was by Hobby Lobby, not the government. It's like the tax-deductibility of charitable donations -- one taxpayer may donate exclusively to charities that help women, another exclusively to charities that help men, another exclusively to charities that help blacks, etc., and the IRS's allowing of these deductions doesn't constitute denial of equal protection by the government.

My biggest problem with Hobby Lobby is that the RFRA was a bad idea in the first place (mistake by Congress and by Bill Clinton). Even if you're OK with the RFRA, though, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone's free exercise of religion is substantially burdened (the RFRA test) by what someone else does. The ERA wouldn't cure either of these problems.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. Arguably, the ERA would invalidate large sections of the ACA.

At risk of oversimplification, the issue is that the ACA guarantees women - but not men - many free medical services that have nothing to do with their distinct biology (STD testing, contraception and IPV counseling, for instance) and Hobby Lobby has successfully sued on the basis that they only want to provide some of those discriminatory services.

Actual conscription doesn't need to occur for draft registration to hurt men. If you don't register and keep the government apprised of your whereabouts, you are ineligible for college financial aid.

The validity of the ACA and it's discriminatory purpose under the ERA (or for that matter the 14th amendment) is not analagous to allowing charities dedicated to helping women or blacks. It's not about allowing donors their right to discriminate, it's about government doing it explicitly.

What would be affected by the ERA? Off the top of my head, The office of women and girls, the male only draft, the office of women's health, the discriminatory provision of medical services in the ACA, WIC, VAWA and its policy/enforcement arm OVW.

[Jim Lane]

109. The ERA and the ACA

Thanks for your post! I hadn't realized that the ACA included those provisions favoring women. According to one online source, there's also at least one provision favoring men, entitling some men but no women to free screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

When the ERA was a live issue, the general assumption was that its effect would be to continue the standard analysis under the Equal Protection Clause, but with sex added as a suspect classification that would be subjected to strict scrutiny. I assume that the gender-specific ACA provisions are based on epidemiological data concerning risk factors. The ERA would raise an interesting question about whether such data can satisfy strict scrutiny.

You write:

The validity of the ACA and it's discriminatory purpose under the ERA (or for that matter the 14th amendment) is not analagous to allowing charities dedicated to helping women or blacks. It's not about allowing donors their right to discriminate, it's about government doing it explicitly.

As a general rule, I agree with you, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would apply to such ACA provisions because those represent government action. I was talking about the Hobby Lobby situation, where the discrimination is being done by a private entity, and the government is merely taking account of that private decision. Under the Internal Revenue Code, private donors can make the decision to be discriminatory, and the government merely honors their decision about to spend their money. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (as now interpreted in the Hobby Lobby case), private employers can make the decision to be discriminatory, and the government merely honors their decision about how to invoke their "religious freedom" rights.

Ratification of the ERA would have to be considered for possible effects on the list of topics you provide. My point is that the ERA would probably not affect the outcome in Hobby Lobby.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Agree with the last paragraph. n/t

[goldent]

117. At this time, only males need to register for draft

So I think if we ever have another draft, it will continue to be male only.

[Rex]

47. Well now that women can serve in combat roles, I think that ruling seems obsolete.

Should be looked at again. I can understand the anger...I hear it everyday from friends, this is a burning issue that will not go away.

[WinkyDink]

50. NOTHING TO DO with private corporations.

[ReRe]

38. K&R

... to the nth degree! Thank you for the info on the rally on Sept 13th. However, I think it should be a national protest, say one large protest and rally for the ERA and to GOTV in each state, like in each state capital. This can be done, as it was done recently to support the recall of Gov Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

[Squinch]

40. I am definitely going to DC on September 13. Thank you for telling us. Who else will be there?

[littlemissmartypants]

52. I have already started my money jar.

Hell f n yes. We're due.

[sheshe2]

56. I checked out travel costs yesterday.

Drive/Plane/Train. That is doable if I save. Food and lodging would make it harder.

I do have a new niece by marriage. They are all Dems and her dad is a AFL-CIO lawyer in Washington he works with Trumka, maybe they could help me out.

[littlemissmartypants]

67. What about starting a kick starter for our DU women?

Ok Admittedly I am brain storming.

[littlemissmartypants]

68. We have two months.

But a lot can happen in a day as we just found out. I am fuming mad. I have never been a fighter but something in me wants to take kick boxing lessons now.

[sheshe2]

70. Sorry, I was off posting another vagina/ uterus thread.(I am not kidding)

I am pissed as hell too. Yes maybe we can get help here.

I am not much of a traveler anymore, haven't been able to afford it for years. Damn I would love to be able to do this.

[littlemissmartypants]

72. I have coxxydinia. I was officially diagnosed with Sjogren's last October.

Sounds like a name for a flower and is anything but. I used to travel. My profession took me from DC to St.Pawleys. Lots of travel. Loved it. Helped lots of people. Had loads of fun. Came back home to take care of my maternal grandmother.I love helping. Doing this march would feel like a big help to me. What about you?

Ps; link me the vagina thread. In the headphones ... numbers two big to ignore...vagina thread, sold exclusively at HL no doubt. UgH what would that be used for...scary.
We have to do something. TO MANY WOMEN HAVE DIED ALREADY. WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS. FIRED UP, FED UP!

[sheshe2]

78. I read....

briefly about both coxxydinia and Sjogren's. Hugs.

Yes it would make me feel like I was doing something. I am tired and fed up with being used and abused. I won't be around forever, yet I have 2 awesome nieces and a great niece. I am doing this for them and every young woman out there. Like Madison. They are our future.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025201457

PS..My question? Are you NL? You never answered, yet only do so if you wish to.

[littlemissmartypants]

79. Where is NL?

[sheshe2]

84. In the horizon. eom

[Squinch]

92. I'll be able to train down and back. See you there!

[littlemissmartypants]

93. That is an excellent Idea.

I have never taken a train any where unless the NYC subway qualifies. I am already getting excited!

[Squinch]

88. Great! I will probably take a train down and then back the same day.

It's a long day, but then it will only be train fare.

[sheshe2]

99. I would be coming from Mass...

You?

[Squinch]

104. New York

[Jackpine Radical]

41. Why ungulates? They're pretty much harmless eaters of vegetation, AFAIK--

quite unlike the robed Mustelidae that infest the SC.

[pnwmom]

46. LOL.

Actually, because I think the word itself sounds ugly. Just like these men.

[AdHocSolver]

53. You "forced" me to search wikipedia to find out what Mestelidae referred to.

(snip)

The Mustelidae (from Latin mustela, weasel) are a family of carnivorous mammals, including the otters, badgers, weasels, martens, ferrets, minks and wolverines. Mustelids are diverse and the largest family in the order Carnivora.


The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustelidae

[littlemissmartypants]

69. Lol! This is why I love the DEMOCRATIC Underground!

[Jim Lane]

83. Agreed! Quite unlike Free Republic.

I lurk over there sometimes, and they aren't nearly on our level about providing educational little interludes about various subjects.

The only exception is astronomy -- they do seem to have some regulars who are into astronomy and post about interesting new discoveries. Just about everything else is from the likes of Fox News or World Net Daily (the latter makes Fox look like it actually is fair and balanced, by comparison).

[Uncle Joe]

44. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, pnwmom.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

54. I could not put it better.

I've never been angrier re a decision than this one. The rationalization (NOT reasoning, note) for this crap was beyond the pale.

[Cha]

55. Mahalo, pnwmom!

[littlemissmartypants]

73. Really great thread. Come march. Will you try?

Please think about it. Maybe a kick starter?

[littlemissmartypants]

74. ..

Reference post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5200522

[AdHocSolver]

61. The SCOTUS decisions are part of a scheme to transfer all political power to the 1 percent.

A more effective strategy is to convince more women to help elect more progressives to Congress and to state governments.

By the time the ERA could be ratified, new laws enacted by Congress and right wing state legislators, and interpreted by right wing courts, could gut any useful effect due to passage of an ERA.

The SCOTUS decision is NOT about the "religious views of corporations." It is about empowering a handful of corporate executives to impose their personal interests on their employees in areas of their employees' lives where the corporation should have no authority.

This Supreme Court decision is parallel to secretly negotiating trade agreements, such as the TPP, which should be transparent to the people affected by these agreements, such as 99 percent of the people.

Merely expending time and effort on an ERA, which has languished for years, would divert the efforts of women from using their time and energy for electing progressives, which would have immediate and long-lasting results in aiding their cause.

[pnwmom]

65. I think the September 13th will draw attention to the need to elect progressives

in November.

[octoberlib]

64. I'd rec for the use of the word ungulates , alone.

[littlemissmartypants]

76. ...

I know that's right.

[spanone]

77. k&r...

[randys1]

81. If men got pregnant, abortion clinics would be more available than ATM's and birth

control would be everywhere and free

and the first men in line to get abortions would be rightwing christian crybabies

[liberalhistorian]

82. I'm really happy to see this. I was a young teen

during the first go-round with the ERA and was totally disgusted, along with my mother, to see just how many people, groups, organizations, politicians and, yes, women, were so hatefully and nastily against it. I remember Phyllis fucking Schafly's "over the rainbow" celebration with that nazi fuck Jerry Falwell after it fell short of the necessary ratifications. And I will NEVER forget the comment by my high school history teacher, a few years later. Upon being asked about it during a discussion of constitutional history, he said that he was glad that it didn't pass and hoped that it never would because, and I quote directly here, "we don't need to clutter up the constitution with such drivel." Yeah, he actually said that (that was in 1981). And did I mention that it was a private girls' school to boot? Bleh. Needless to say, he fortunately didn't last long there.

[pnwmom]

116. Wow. And in 1981. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

118. I know! Times were changing

there, though. Had he applied there just a couple of years later, he would NOT have been hired, believe me. We still talk at reunions and on FB about how he helped teach us what NOT to accept in terms of our treatment as women. And that included from women, since there were, and are, women who help maintain the status quo and keep down any activism also. They certainly existed at the school, but they were mostly out by the mid-80's, fortunately.

[Enthusiast]

91. Kicked and recommended!

[perdita9]

94. The free market can solve this

Don't shop at stores which discriminate against women. Take your dollars elsewhere.

The Green family can yell about God all they want, at the end of the day, they speak money--just like every other business owner.

[pnwmom]

96. How? 90% of businesses are closely held and could decide to follow suit if they chose.

And many of those businesses produce things ordinary consumers don't buy.

For example, they might only produce parts of the things consumers buy.

[hue]

95. RW "good 'ol boys" FEAR women, will do anything to deprive them of power & repress them. K&R!!

[snot]

97. The petition at the tumblr you linked to is closed.

[hopemountain]

98. ....

let us be so fed up with the hating on women & girls by the "cloven hoofed" that it is no longer tolerated. period.

thank you, pnwmom

[rhett o rick]

100. Great OP and thread. I hope this movement gains traction. nm

[SunSeeker]

107. K & R

[PatrickforO]

110. So, you're suggesting that these ungulates stop wasting time

chewing their cuds and actually read the Constitution?

Good suggestion, because if they want to make this a Third World country, rulings like his Hobby Lobby one, the one affecting domestic workers and Citizens United are a great start. That's why the ungulates must be STOPPED!