If we actually lived in a gender-equal society, reproductive rights wouldn't even be *in question*

[nomorenomore08]

let alone under attack the way they are in many states. And Christian fundamentalists who consider a woman's life worth less than a dog's would not have their views catered to, or considered remotely mainstream.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. On this subject, I agree with feminist marxists...

Who argue that control of reproductive rights is actually control of the workforce. And isn't that exactly the argument from those who believe procreation is the ultimate meaning of life? It always seems to revolve around the fear that humanity, society really, will fall apart if abortion is allowed and childless relationships become dominant. To maintain a productive force is fundamental to the maintenance of an economic system. For those who benefit the most from such an economic system, the continued existence of the workforce is crucial.

However, I also believe such an ideology coexists with a hatred of women that is hard to qualify beyond the nearly irreducible urge to construct the Other as subordinate. I don't really understand, and I don't think anyone else does either, exactly how this coexistence interacts. I just know that both are real issues.

[niyad]

3. thank you for pointing this out

[nomorenomore08]

5. Agreed all around. This stuff really interests (and concerns) me on a deep level.

I know that misogyny, and homophobia, and racism, are to a great extent influenced by the desire for social control, for "order" so to speak. But there is also the more visceral aspect you spoke of, the desire to subjugate the Other.

[niyad]

2. so very, very true

[ismnotwasm]

4. Yup

It's truly a Benchmark

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Amen and yes, that's 100% true. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. yes, and you sound sincere.

I wish I could trust you.

[nomorenomore08]

9. I understand "trust" is difficult for some people, and I try not to take that personally.

I also hope that I haven't done or said anything to make myself seem untrustworthy.

[Bette Noir]

8. I'm gobsmacked that institutions are even *thinking* about giving employers

the right to decide whether their employees can use birth control. Are they employees, or slaves?

[nomorenomore08]

10. Well according to Christianity, human beings (women especially) are pretty much God's slaves anyway.

So there you go...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. The Right Wing believes you sign over ALL of your rights when you trade your services for money...

That's why they often beat the hell out of prostitutes.

[YarnAddict]

23. They aren't deciding

whether their employees can "use" birth control. It's a matter of who pays for it. There is a significant difference.

[Squinch]

24. I don't agree, Yarn. The employers aren't going to pay for the birth control. They are

paying for the policies that cover their employees.

Policies that cover birth control are generally cheaper for the employer, because birth control is actuarially a lot cheaper than childbirth, and a LOT cheaper than unwanted childbirth.

So really, those employers are saying that they are willing to pay a premium so that their employees can't be covered for birth control.

That's pretty much saying, "nope, I am going to go out of my way so you need to pay through the nose for that birth control." And it is thru the nose. It can be very expensive.

[YarnAddict]

25. I checked the PP site

and BC pills are $15--50/month. I understand that there are some that cost significantly more, but in general, it isn't like some RA drugs, or cancer drugs, where the cost is prohibitive. And for those who can't afford that cost, there are probably some non-profits (maybe including PP?) that will provide those for significantly less.

It's a first amendment thing. While we do have separation of church and state, there is also the free exercise thing. We do make accommodations for individuals' religious observances, such as dietary considerations, footbaths for Muslims, holidays off. If the government is going to start requiring or prohibiting religious organizations and/or individuals to do certain things, where will it end? Who wants to be in the position of having to choose between their job and their religious convictions?

It isn't like the Little Sisters of the Poor is drug testing their employees for birth control pills, and then firing those who test positive. this is something that is against the tenets of their religion, and it seems it is a matter of conscience. The cost of BC is a small thing vs. opening up the First Amendment for reinterpretation depending on the party in charge.

[Squinch]

26. But why do one person's beliefs trump another person's beliefs?

No one is prohibiting these religious organizations from doing anything. They are just trying to prohibit the religious organizations from limiting access to birth control.

The Little Sisters are not being asked to do anything that is against the tenets of their religion. The government has accommodated these religious groups by making the insurance administrators provide birth control if the religious orders have religious objections, so the Little Sisters are not even being required to provide it. That is more than ample accommodation to ensure people don't have to choose between their jobs and their convictions.

When I was on the pill, for many years, it was $50 a month. Maybe that's my region, I don't know, but that's what it cost. For many people, that is a very significant monthly bill. I was never able to find any charity birth control, and I don't believe that charity birth control really exists in most areas.

Finally, if they are allowed to exempt themselves from our national healthcare in this way, what is to stop companies all over the country from suddenly declaring themselves ethically opposed to other conditions, for example, ectopic pregnancy removal or hysterectomies. Why shouldn't a Jewish owned company refuse to treat any conditions that are uncommon in circumcised men? Why should conservative Muslim owned companies treat skin cancer in women, who they believe should have been protected from the sun since birth? The list could go on and on.

The President has provided ample separation of church and state in this area. Now they are just splitting hairs.

[nomorenomore08]

30. Imposing religious doctrine on health plans *does* violate church-state separation. Absolutely right

And what do we call people who worry more about "freedom of religion" (defined overly broadly) than about keeping theocracy at bay?

[Squinch]

31. I think the thing that bothers me about this is that Obama came up with a reasonable, good-faith

accommodation. No one has to do anything their religion disagrees with.

The Little Sisters are insisting that signing the form that says they will not provide contraception in their insurance plan is tantamount to them providing contraception.

It's moronic!

[nomorenomore08]

29. Except birth control is a basic part of health care. And if it isn't, then why should Viagra or

prostate care be? I mention those because they're the closest male equivalents I can think of.

[geek tragedy]

11. In such a society, women's healthcare would be considered

health care. Not a political or cultural controversy.

[freshwest]

12. What a different world it would be, if only...

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women.

The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification.

The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications (38) before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted.

Full Text:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[1][2]

There is a lot more at the link and information about some surprising opposition to the Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. You would be surprised to find out how many women believe it already passed.

[freshwest]

16. Since I was campaigning for it and the voting age amendment, I paid attention. Some thought that

Title IX - Gender Equity in Education, already guaranteed much of what was needed. But it has not fully lived up to the dream:

https://www.aclu.org/title-ix-gender-equity-education

Good news at the ERA link, though...

Removal of deadline from the 1972 version of ERA[edit]

On March 8, 2011, the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day, Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced legislation (H.J.Res. 47) to remove the Congressionally-imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.[46] Bill co-sponsors include Representatives Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).[47] On March 22, 2012, the 40th anniversary of ERA's congressional approval, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) introduced (S.J. Res. 39)--which is worded with slight differences from Representative Baldwin's (H.J. Res. 47). Senator Cardin was joined by ten other Senators who added their names to the Senate Joint Resolution.[citation needed]

On February 24, 2013, the New Mexico House of Representatives adopted House Memorial 7 asking, also, that the Congressionally-imposed deadline for ERA ratification be removed. House Memorial 7 was officially received by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 25, 2013, and was referred to the House's Committee on the Judiciary, as noted in the Congressional Record.[citation needed]

113th Congress[edit]

The 113th Congress has a record number of women. On March 5, 2013, the ERA was reintroduced as S. J. RES. 10[48] by Senator Bob Menendez.[49]

All the more reason to GOTV in 2014 and get it passed all through the states. Note, Texas ratified and did not rescind its vote for the ERA. Wendy may or may not be helped by what Congress has been offered.

We've seen how very regressive the 2010 elections turned out to be. We must vote those who faught VAWA, The ACA with its gender neutral rules and the Lily Ledbetter Act, out of office. In these tumultous days we must secure this before other factors come into play to defeat us.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. The usual suspects....

Nevada would pass it today.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Just heard someone tonight say, "If a woman is out to HERE though..."

To which I said, "Do you want the STATE to declare it illegal and have it carry a prison sentence?" and "Which would you rather have? A child born into a loving home or to someone who doesn't want them but were FORCED to raise them by law?"

Heard the usual, "Well what about the rights of the child?" crap.

My answer, "Oh, you mean the right to health care, an education and decent housing?"

[freshwest]

17. Bet it's all crickets by then, huh? n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. The usual: They claim they speak for God and that is supposed to win the day.

[truedelphi]

27. Here is a new and different question to ask those who speak for God:

Why are there two standards of morality?

Why is it wrong for someone to have an abortion, so wrong that the women will be denied the ability to join a Church (Mormons, for instance, will not allow some woman who in the past has had an abortion, to join their religion.) And in many religions, the individual is told they will die and go to burn in Hellfire for eternity.

Yet many of the Biggest Donors to various Conservative-On-Women's-Right-To Choose Churches are involved in companies that they own, where women conceive and miscarry CONTINUALLY, and the miscarriages are the direct result of the workplace conditions?

One link on the matter:

http://www.processedworld.com/Issues/issue19/i19hotcolr.htm

Women who work in the Semi Conductor Industry often went to fertility experts,a s they believed that they and their partner were not able to conceive. But in many cases, such couples were told they were indeed conceiving - but the workplace chemicals caused an early miscarriage, as the pregnancy was lost before the woman even knew she was pregnant.

This situation is not confined to the SC industry.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Hell, some of these people are too dumb to follow that. They think the Jews worship Jesus too.

[sufrommich]

21. A big reason the anti choice nuts are more

concerned about forcing women to give birth regardless of the outcome for the child is their inexplicable need to punish women for their sexual choices. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but if they can outlaw abortion,their next battle will be denying women the right to contraception. It's not the outcome of women's sexual freedom that their concerned about,it's the sexual freedom itself,hence the crickets when asked about the real rights of a child.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. There really IS this puritanical crap linking sex with morality.