Supporting Gail Maynard
I am writing in support of Democrat Gail Maynard for District 3 representative. Maynard and her husband, Stanley, operate an organic Scottish Highlands cattle farm in Woodland, reactivating a farm that was out of use for many, many years, while maintaining their careers in public education during much of that time. They are now also working hard to bring good jobs related to beef processing to our area.
District 3 includes Van Buren, Woodland, Hamlin, New Sweden, Connor, Cyr Plantation, Caswell, Grand Isle and Limestone. Maynard has been out and about over the past several weeks visiting the people in these nine communities, listening to our concerns about roads, education funding, health care and jobs. I hope that when she knocks on your door, you will take the time to get to know her and tell her what you are concerned about as we choose an effective representative for our area.
Maynard has an inexhaustible amount of energy and enthusiasm for representing our district. She already has put us on the map in her efforts to become an active elected advocate for District 3.
This is my message: District 3 can do no better thing than to send Maynard’s smart and energetic voice to speak for us in Augusta. Let us be heard!
Mary McGlinn
Woodland
Equal rights for all
This is in response to Susan Mendell’s letter of Aug. 28. I was recently married, in a public ceremony, on the steps of my beloved church. An ordained minister married my husband and me. It was a beautiful service, with Bible readings and this comment from the pastor: “For all those who cannot legally marry, we hold in our hearts the promise of the freedom to marry for all people in the state of Maine. Together we carry the message of marriage equality. May it be true for all loving and committed couples come November.”
Before we could have this service at our church, we had to go to our town office and pay $40 to get a marriage license from the state of Maine. Then we had to have the pastor and witnesses sign the license and return it to the town office after the ceremony. It was not until that license was returned to the town office that our marriage was considered legal and valid. This fact alone proves that this is a civil issue, not a religious one. We chose to have our faith be a part of our marriage ceremony, but it still was not valid until that license was filed.
Equal rights for all should include the right to be legally married; to say otherwise is discriminatory and goes against the foundations of our state and country.
Ellen Farnsworth
Berry Township
Readmission due to health care practices
The Aug. 27 BDN carried an article about penalties for high readmission rates to hospitals for medical conditions such as congestive heart failure and heart attacks. This reflects only part of the readmission problem existing with current health care practices. Follow-up with surgical patients is also in need of study and improvement.
This spring I had surgery to remove a benign brain tumor and was discharged home two days later — not knowing that a subdural hematoma had developed — with minimal patient education as to what I might expect or about possible complications. Contacts with the surgeon’s office when excruciating headaches developed resulted in being told “you’ve had brain surgery, after all.” Less than two weeks following surgery I was readmitted to another hospital for eight days, including acute rehab, when brain swelling affected a nerve in my right leg, leaving me unable to stand or walk.
Recently several friends also have experienced complications following straightforward surgical procedures. Surgery for a prolapsed bladder resulted in several blood clots and readmission to a second hospital for several days. Overmedication with pain medications following a hip replacement caused an extra two-week stay at an acute level. During a colonoscopy, the bowel was perforated, leading to infection, rehospitalization and multiple follow-ups.
It’s obvious to me that there is insufficient follow-up and inadequate patient education and partnership with the patient to insure a good outcome. Quicker and sicker is fine if there is some provision for monitoring progress at home and intervention when needed.
Pamela Taylor
Bangor
Grown-up candidate
I want to make sure all of you swing voters, independents and moderate Republicans realize the implications of a Romney-Ryan administration on the rights of women. The Republican National Committee, of course, has declared a platform banning all abortions under all circumstances — no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. Even Somalia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran allow exceptions for the life of the mother.
What about a woman’s right to birth control? Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to defund Planned Parenthood, which helps women prevent unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions) through the use of birth control.
Both candidates want to allow employers to be able to discriminate against their female employees by denying them health insurance coverage for birth control.
Foster Friess, the 72-year-old wealthy Republican donor, has said that women should avoid pregnancy as they did back in his day by holding an aspirin between their knees. (I had to explain this old chestnut to some young adults). And of course, we all know about Missouri Rep. Todd Akin’s lack of understanding about female biology, since he believes women’s bodies can prevent impregnation during rape. He is not the only extreme conservative with this belief.
President Barack Obama believes that we women are rational and responsible enough to have the right to make our own decisions about limiting the number and timing of our children, or if we even want children. I’m voting for the candidate who treats me like a grown-up.
Linda Buckmaster
Belfast
Sontag’s perspective
When, decades ago, the late writer Susan Sontag was asked why she opposed the idea of a cabinet-level position in culture — akin to that in France — she replied that she feared who will be appointed: Clint Eastwood, then famous for his violent Wild West movies.
At the time Eastwood had not yet made the several recent movies that seemed to reveal a right-wing tough guy turned more liberal and more compassionate. With Eastwood’s “performance” at the GOP convention, filled with contempt for our first black president, many of us now appreciate how perceptive Sontag really was.
Howard Segal
Bangor
Thanks Ellen!! Very well stated.
The only things you’ll see here against marriage equality are “ick factor” which won’t stop it, and folks using mythology to claim that gay marriage is “immoral”.
Don’t worry… it’ll happen in time. They have no argument to stop it in court, so they’re destined to lose.
Ellen~ What a wonderful letter and story. Marriage is between two people who are willing to love and take care of each other for the rest of their lives.
Everyone is free to marry, so why doesn’t Ellen seem to think so? A civil marriage is an endorsement from the state, not a freedom. The term ‘freedom” is being misapplied to persuade voters that SS couples are being denied civil rights when in fact they are not.
Think of it this way: demanding “freedom to marry” is no different than demanding “freedom to receive welfare”. Since welfare is not a freedom, the state may impose a limit to those who may qualify to receive it. Therefore, those who do not qualify to receive state endorsement of their relationships are no more being denied civil rights than those who do not qualify to receive welfare.
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.”
The “right” is the right to equal protection, which comes from marriage because of the protections to couples and families created in the contract and granted to citizens by government.
What protections are you talking about that cannot be had with a legally binding contract and as domestic partners?
Really?!
Over 1200 of them, as ther is no federal recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships, and even state recognition is not equal.
You've never researched this have you?
Benefits does not equal protection. Here’s an example of equal protection: One is not denied rental accommodation on account of his color. Here’s an example of a benefit: Someone receives a welfare check amounting to 900 dollars monthly to supplement their income. Both receive equal protection against rental discrimination on account of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual orientation. One however does not get the same benefits in welfare. In fact he or she might not be receiving any welfare benefits.
Haven't researched it, have you?
Until 2005, sexual orientation was not equally protected in housing, employment etc. ….. it was denied twice by Maine voters. People with disabilites were not equally protected until 1990 ….. Race was not equally protected until 1964.
SS Disability is given to those who have a quallifying disability; medical, physical, etc. Those who are non-disabled or do not qualify are ineligible to recieve this ‘benefit’ … housing, food etc are in reality Human Rights …. without these it is likely a human would be unable to survive.
I agree with you. There is a need to assist those who can’t adequately provide for themselves. Look, I don’t consider myself a hero by any means. But I happen to think a meaningful life can only be achieved by taking personal responsibility for one’s own mental state. This doesn’t mean I don’t grieve when, say, someone very dear to me dies. On the other hand it doesn’t mean my happiness is determined by what happens or doesn’t happen in the world around me over which I have little or no control.
I also agree that one’s mental health is their responsibility ….. I took control of mine when I sought to live a sober life and when I stopped believing that being attracted to a female rather than a male was not some deep- seated mental/emotional defect. Trying to force myself to be attracted to males because that is what is taught as the only ‘acceptable’ way for a female to be was indeed affecting my mental health. I achieved both with the assistance of my faith … sobriety and self-acceptance…. my faith also helps me deal with the death of my spouse and the immense hole her death has left in my heart, my soul and my life.
Loving v. Virginia: “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man” Same sex couples are denied that “basic civil right”.
Not so. Loving v. Virginia applies only to marriage between one man and one woman.
You see, with a handy little thing called “precedent”, the courts can apply the ruling to same sex marriage. If marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man”, then everyone gets it, not just heterosexuals.
The court in Loving v. Virginia also stated the contracting parties to a marriage must be “similarly situated”. By nature SS couple are not similarly situated as heterosexual couples. For that reasons I doubt the court will decide the 14th Amendment applies to SS couple relationships as well.
Also, a concise reading of the 14th Amendment does not clearly establish a ban against SS civil marriage is a violation. In pertinent part it states: “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.”
The established state definition of marriage as a legally recognized union of one man and one woman does not abridge privileges and immunities of SS couples, does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property, and does it deny them of equal protection of the law.
Did you get an A in law class?
Same sex couples are similarly situated to infertile heterosexual couples. Those heterosexual couples are permitted to marry, and yet same sex couples are not. You can say that banning same sex marriage does not deny same sex couples equal protection under the law all you want, I’m sure plenty of same sex couples, and heterosexual couples, would disagree with your little assessment. But I can’t possibly think you could even begin to understand what same sex couples go through everyday, as you are most likely, judging by your comments, a heterosexual who doesn’t even know the first think about what it means to be an LGBT citizen who is not treated equally under the law.
I’ve spent the better part of my life in service to my neighbor. Besides I have two disabilities, one of which causes me to suffer physical pain throughout most of the day. I’ve worked all my life through it all without complaint or expectations of special treatment from others. So you are quite right. It’s difficult for me to understand others who come off as being self-indulgent like many LGBT’s. Besides, I don’t care if my neighbor is much wealthier, healthier, or sexier than I am. On the contrary, I am happy for the neighbor. And while I by no means relish my health status, I don’t envy others because I’m convinced envy is useless and even arguably harmful to self. One thing I am acutely aware of is that my personal happiness mostly depends on me, not to mention God whom I thank every day. I don’t need nor do I desire to have the world around me change for my own benefit. In contrast I sense this is exactly what a relatively small minority of people primarily focused on themselves are trying to do in order to gain social acceptance. That is not the way to happiness for any human being. Their pursuit is one in vain. It is against nature. It is based on an illusion of greater freedom and happiness for themselves based on how the rest of the world acts and reacts. I can assure you, gays and the rest of the LGBT’s will not be any more content and happier if voters approve the so-called gay marriage referendum. I even predict with this illusory victory they will continue to pursue other causes for themselves because that is exactly what restless and unhappy people tend do to.
Alllrighty then.
Why don’t you worry about you and your life and allow other people to determine what will or will not make them happy…..what has worked for you in your life is not what may work for anyone else in their life- everyone has the right to be treated equally under the law….like it or not.
whawell …. you have shared that you have disabilities many time here and that you do not complain or have expectations of ‘special treatment’. Do you or have you ever qualified for Social Security Disability and if yes have you accepted it? Do you for or have you ever qualified for reduced cost or free medical care and/or prescription coverage, if yes have you ever acceped it? Are you able to work a fulltime job that covers all your needs … food, utilities, housing, private health insurance and prescrition coverage or do you rely on your neighbors for help in coevering those expenses?
No, I have not received any of those benefits even though I may have qualified for some. I don’t say I will always reject them because there’s no telling what the future holds for me. It would be foolhardy for me to do so if I really needed any of them.
PS: Yes, I have private insurance which I contribute to. And yes, I’ve held many jobs, sometimes more than one at a time. Thankfully, I’ve always managed to pay my bills on time except on a few occasions when I was compelled to make arrangements to pay them off.
Thank you for replying …. I hope you remain healthy and capable for many more years and I hope that when you are unable you remember that your neighbors will give you whatever help you may need to survive. (Including us ‘self-indulgent’ ‘envious’ gays and lesbians ….. even though you deem us as selfish, self-serving, emotionally/mentally deficient, God rejecting, clearly lacking individuals.)
Let me remind you, the world is neither all black nor white as the recent political convention speeches I heard tried to make it sound. Concerning the pursue of “gay marriage”, yes, I think it does involve a good amount of self-indulgence by many gays and gay sympathizers whom I believe have been misled into thinking they were “born that way” and that their lives are adversely affected by our current laws or treatment by the government.
Were you born with a heterosexual orientation (innate attraction to the opposite sex) or did you ‘choose’ to be attracted to only members of the opposite sex and behave accordingly? Or do you believe as many state here that God created you to be only attracted to the opposite sex?
Edited to add: God created us all and he created us all with individual differences (uniqueness), whether that be abilities and disabilities, color of our skin, eyes or hair, different heights, varied intelligence etc. Why is it so difficult to believe he aslo created us to have variances in sexual orientation?
Granted, most people don’t make a conscious choice about their sexual preferences. It’s somewhat like food, if you will. But one can indeed train oneself to acquire new tastes, particularly at a young age when tastes are more malleable.
Here is one big misconception that is being propagated: “I can’t help who I am because I was born that way”. The conclusion, “because I was born that way”, is not supportable with facts. Gay activists have all but abandoned their search for specific genes or a set of genes determining sexual orientation after spending millions of dollars over the past three or four decades in quest for a genetic link. One of the most clear demonstration of the misconception appears in studies of identical twins where it was found that when one twin is gay, the other is more often than not heterosexual despite the fact they have the same genes. In fact, only in one case out of nine was the other twin gay. Furthermore, since twins share the same environment in the uterus before birth, hormonal differences before birth cannot possibly account for the differences in their orientations as adults. So clearly what caused the differences had to be some factor that took place after birth.
There is also the misconception sexual preferences are etched in stone or unchangeable. Truth be told is that people’s sexual preferences do indeed change. From various studies we learned there are more gays than ex-gays; of 16-year-olds who think they are gay or lesbian, 98% will turn out to be exclusively heterosexual by age 17; and most of these changes in orientation have occurred spontaneously without any therapy. This doesn’t mean however your own personal orientation is likely to change through therapy, even with much effort. Each and every person is different. Age and the amount of exposure or sexual activity with the same sex is a factor as well.
You can find more data on these issues in: Whitehead, Neil and Briar, MY GENES MADE ME DO IT at http://www.mygenes.co.nz, besides other sources of information. The data from this book is well researched and annotated. Supposedly another book is coming out next month. It addresses marriage and is aptly called: What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense. Because of the timing of its release it will likely have little impact on the November statewide referendum on “gay marriage”.
whawell ……. I spent over half my life trying to “train” myself to be attracted to males emotionally, romantically and physically … or as you put it “change my taste” ….. it contributed greatly to my mental health issues and my alcoholism (self-medication). When I accepted that my sexual orientation was not heterosexual (I could not force myslef to be attracted emotionally, romanitcally or physically to males) I was able to achieve sobriety and my mental health issues (shame, guilt, believeing I was disfuntional) could be dealt with in healthy ways.
You continually rely on “studies” and “articles” you read as evidence that is chosen and can be “trained” out of someone but you completly disregard the personal experiences posters here share. I am not defective, I did not choose to love a female, I cannot force myself to be attracted to a male …….. and I hate liver, have always hated liver, have a severe gag reflex when I smell it or think about eating it and I will not force myself to partake of it.
PS By your logic and “facts” you could be trained to become wholly attracted to a person of the same sex (change your orientation) …. it is not interesting that there has never been a study to apply this theory to heterosexuals for purely scientific purposes? Why is that ……
I did not mean to imply everyone can change their preference. In some cases, such as yours, I agree it can be very difficult and dismaying if not impossible. In the meantime this does not mean you cannot possibly refrain from sexual relations if such relations causes a moral dilemma for you personally. I know a lot of people of both sexes who do exactly that. I know heterosexuals who refrain as well.
One more thing, exercising self-control does not have to be an unhealthy practice providing you do not hate yourself every time you lapse. It’s about loving and forgiving self without being overly indulgent. Learning to take control of one’s desires and appetites is not just gratifying, it’s character building. In contrast, the most miserable people on earth are often the ones who have relatively little self-control and poor self-esteem to boot. If interested, I’m sure you can find a lot of self-help books or manuals available to help you in case you are interested in improving your personal life. If life has taught me anything worthwhile, knowing when and where to get help and then getting it can be very rewarding and uplifting.
Thank you for this discussion and best regards.
whawell ….. it is because “change” therapy has proven to be predominantly unsuccessful, possibly 1-2% do achieve it, (according to much cited Robert Spitzer, who recently renounced his own study) and even Alan Chambers (Exodus) states that 99.9% do not experience change. Gays and lesbians throughout history were able to “behave” heterosexually to accomodate societal expectations. They married (as I did), they had children (as I did) what I experienced was like a hole that could not be filled, something missing.
I agree with you that if one is struggling with their religious beliefs addressing their orientation as opposite of what they feel they should seek whatever therapy they can that will help – whether celibacy or acceptance or a combination. If they feel morally defective, then they do need help. If they feel mentally defective they should seek help. They should also know and understand that only 1-2% are able to fully function as heterosxual. That is what makes these “change” therapies dangerous to many ….. 98-99% of those who believe change will happen do not and it is devastating to them. (PS my spouse and I were celibate, because we mutually chose to be not becasue of any “moral conflict”)
By the way, not sure where you come up with the idea that my personal life needs improvement and self-help books …my self-esteem is fine and my self-control appears to be fine also. I have a support network of family and friends and a loving faith community.
You did not address my initial question …. how did you come to have a heterosexual orientation?
If is is not a conscious choice then what?
Not so. SS couples are denied a long list of rights which are associated with married couples.
You missed my point thoroughly. People above the poverty line defined by the government are denied a long list of what you call “rights”. They don’t get a check in the mail and free health care among other things. Are you suggesting everyone should get similar benefits, like a check in the mail every two weeks, for instance? After all, isn’t that discrimination? Aren’t people with income above the poverty line not being discriminated against?
I admittedly ignored the second part and concentrated on your first paragraph. Thought that was obvious. Sorry if you missed it.
So if welfare is part of your equation, should married heterosexual couples who apply for and receive welfare be automatically divorced?
Welfare has nothing to do with SSM.
Neither does race.
What an astonishingly nonsensical attempt at an analogy. Even for you ,whawell, even for you. You are really amazing…but not in a good way.
Ellen Farnsworth–Great letter. Bottom line…….SSM is a civil issue.
Vote ‘Yes’ for equality, ‘no’ for hate.
Ellen Farnsworth, Pamela Taylor,Linda Buckmaster: good letters.
Mr. Segal is surely aware that only a kind of chauvinism prevented France from having as their Culture Minister that towering intellect Jerry Lewis?
And that he — Mr Segal, I mean — plays the race card badly?
Should we suppose that “our first black president” gets a bye? Should not be criticized?
Contempt, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in this letter, as was intended. I saw none for BHO from Clint.
And a swipe at Joe can surely unite us all!
Any one who sincerely believes that Clint Eastwood was not “playing the race card” is, with all due respect, on another planet. Of course he and everyone else in Tampa has/had the right to criticize Pres. Obama, fairly or unfairly. But Clint went beyond the pale and showed a contempt for the President that was very different from the criticisms of Mitt and Paul Ryan and the other speakers. Jerry Lewis has indeed long been beloved in France, but France supports the arts–by French writers, painters, dancers, musicians, etc.–to a degree way beyond what has ever been the case in the US. Regardless of their political ideologies, French Presidents after Charles DeGaulle have all created wonderful art museums and other cultural institutions that would be unthinkable in the US, so anti-intellectual has the US long been. Lots of foreigners visit France in part because of these wonderful buildings and refurbished older ones, and that in turn helps the French economy. The extremely modest sums allocated to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities in the US pale by comparison.
If he is playing that card it really makes zero sense-either he is secretly for Obama and “playing” the Republicans, while making them look ridiculous and certainly not convincing independents; also taking some of the spotlight off Romney. Or Clint is in some serious mental difficulty.
Before you answer this, find my comment on this thread; it explains my position.
Linda, I agree that you should be treated as a responsible adult, which is why you should not expect someone else to pay for your contraceptives.
why should anyone pay for any meds. come on I mean, let’s just have the insurance companies keep all the money paid in.
I just think that insurance should be an individual choice. Just look at government agencies and how government spends our tax dollars. By what measure does anyone think that government could provide a service that is cheaper, more efficient, and better quality than the private sector?
You have heard of Medicare? Yes? Did you know it costs less, is more efficiently run, covers more and pays faster than private insurance? It’s a government program. You did know that?
Ask the doctors how they like it. If not for private insurance doctors would be unable to take medicare patients and stay in business.
You know I’m not really worried about how the doctors like the ACA and Medicare and Medicaid. Medicine as a profession will always pay well in the US. There will always be young people going to med school with their eyes on a healthy income after they graduate. The rest of society has had to make adjustments. Why should the medical profession be exempt. It seems to me the people we should be worrying about are those who have jobs but can’t afford health insurance or the cost of an office visit and end up very sick and in the emergency room. A little more sympathy for those people and a little less for the doctors might be a bit more realistic to say nothing of more compassionate.
Seems like you’ve never heard of the law of unintended consequences. Remember when Fat Barney Fwank made sure everyone, no matter how inept they were at managing their finances or how lazy they were, deserved to own a home. The unintended consequences from that moronic policy plunged us into the current recession. You expect to be able to enslave the doctors and force them to work for you? Good luck with that.
So, doctors will be enslaved and forced to work against their will, medical services will cease to exist, the economy will crash, the population will become lazy and mismanage their finances all because women’s health insurance covers contraceptives. Well, I have to agree with you; those certainly unintended consequences. So whose head is where?
You seem to enjoy belittling and doing so with misinformation. It was George W. Bush who began the big push for homeownership.
It started with Clinton signing Democrat legislation in 1998.
There are many bills that support homeownership. It was Bush who actively campaigned for it across the country. He made it his program.
Maybe the government should ease the doctors plight by creating a malpractice program that would take the insurance industry out of the malpractice insurance business. Ask your physician what malpractice insurance costs. If they also do surgery, what that costs. Ask your hospital what the premiums are. The entire surgical staff, etc. The figures would stagger you.
Is there a vast problem with doctors or is there a vast problem of lawyers sueing? Are the insurance companies just paying off because it’s cheaper for them? Then they just pass the costs off to their clients in the form of higher premiums.
Unfortunately the Dems, with their heads stuffed up the behinds of their major campaign contributors the trail lawyers refuse to even discuss malpractice reforms. People should spit on the ground when politicians of either stripe walk down the street. Instead we shower them with wealth and treat them like royalty.
Republicans have 3 times the amount of campaign money that Democrats have. Whose heads are stuffed in which places?
Careful you’ll hurt yourself twisting into knots like that trying to defend the slimy Dems. The topic is lack of reform regarding malpractice lawsuits. I see you did nothing to refute the fact that the Dems won’t touch this because the ambulance chasing trail lawyers won’t allow them.
BTW – Obama got more money from Wall Street than anyone in the last election. Too soon to tell this time around. Facts are your friends.
Adverse drug reactions, drugs which are prescribed BY doctors, are the third leading cause of death in the US.
The “reform” you speak of would make it the second or first.
And Romney is the #1 Wall Street money funded candidate this time around.
Also, if you are going to talk campaign financing in the 2008 election cycle, you should tell the WHOLE story. Over a third of Obama’s donation total came from individuals giving under 200 $.
http://www.cfinst.org/press/releases_tags/10-01-08/Revised_and_Updated_2008_Presidential_Statistics.aspx
Deception by omission is still deception.
My sister Dr. X, her husband Dr. Y, my brother Dr. Z, my daughter Dr. B all carry malpractice insurance. It is not a major or even a big expense. Drs XYZand B all say that what this country needs to bring down health insurance costs is universal single payer health insurance. The fact that lawyers have very little to do with most doctors gets very little notice. The occasional spectacular law suit gets notices. Drs XYZandB all say our medical costs problem will not be solved with malpractice reform
OMG not another stupid “I won’t pay for women who just want to screw around” post.
The ACA insurance payments are based on a statistical study that determined which procedures, tests, and items returned the most savings to the society for the money invested. Women;s contraceptives were at the top of the list. It is cheaper for society to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives than it is to pay for pregnancies wanted or unwanted. ACA insurance will be covering plenty of mens medical issues, including ED.
Grow up and join the 21st century
Using your logic it would be cheaper to pay for abortions across the board; are you in favor of insurance or tax payer funded abortions?
ED is an ailment. A more apt comparison might be insurance companies paying for condoms.
No that wasn’t my “logic”. I was quite clearly discussing women’s contraceptives not abortion and I said, again quite clearly, that the inclusion of women’s contraceptive in the ACA is based on statistical evidence of what gives society the biggest return for the amount invested in insurance. And don’t start slinging that stale dung about “pregnancy is not a disease” Pregnancy, just like ED, is a condition that requires medical attention.
I’m sorry for you if you somehow feel uneasy about women managing their own reproductive decisions but that’s your own problem. Women are quit capable of handling sex without your misogynistic input.
If this is your 21st century, it’s not really the best of times to be alive.
I’m sorry you can’t handle the social change. If you think it would be easier in another century feel free to join some sect that still lives in the 18th century.
It’s funny how all people who are pro-abortion have already been born. And I don’t like the idea of peoples’ deciding whether or not other people are worthy of living, which is what the left is working toward ever so briskly.
My, aren’t we self-righteous about other people and their personal decisions.
Not for you apparently.
Yes well compared to the Dark Ages…I’ll take the 21st century anytime.
So you would return to the 19th and early 20th century when women had babies until they died? Is your ideal that couple that have a reality TV show with 20 some children? They are a beautiful family, aren’t they. It’s a miracle that she is capable of having so many children and surviving. Are you a woman? Have you had a child? Or, as I suspect are you a man who sticks out your chest and acts like the hero if your wife gets pregnant.
Bryan Fischer (American Family Associatin) cited Obama’s statement that Republicans (ie Conservative) wanted to take the nation back to the days when we only had black and white TVs and said No, we want to take it back to the days of Genesis …… well, think about that in terms of the understanding of science, biology and medical knowledge. Sperm alone producaed a child when deposited into a woman (she was just the incubator), the menses was nothing more than a time of ‘uncleanliness’, marriage was defined as being fruitful and multiplying (the ceremony was the sex act)……. virginity of a female was proven only by a blood stain left on the bedsheets and she was punished if it was not there (of course there was no way and still is no way of proving the virginity of a male but that was never an issue). There was no such thing as rape if the couple were married … when a female consented to ‘marriage’ she had consented to have sex with her husband when he wanted it even if she didn’t. If a female conceived through an act of rape then it wasn’t actually rape because she couldn’t conceive if she was unwilling.
Yup ….. it sounds about right according to the social platform of the Republican party.
That’s the way I interpreted their platform on denying women the power to make sexual and reproductive decisions.
Your post read like that of a cost benefit analysis. I was assuming that abortion could easily be switched with contraception and we would see even greater cost benefit. I thi nk you are being very dishonest. Of course it would be cheaper to abort babies than deliver them.
What I’m uneasy about is your attitude towards the unborn. “managing their own reproductive decisions” is a very clinical way of saying that you don’t give a crap about an unborn child. In your world its the womans right and not the baby’s.
Listen very carefully ex-unglued lemon. I am not talking about abortion. I’m taking about women’s contraceptives. I am not talking about “unborn babies”. I’m talking about women’s contraceptives. I am not talking about switching words. I am talking about women’s contraceptives.
This conversation is about women’s contraceptives. Did you hear that? Did you understand that?
Contraceptives, women’s contraceptives, don’t try to change the subject, addle-pate.
You’re completely dodging the issue, and legitimate questions that people are asking you. Abortion is primarily used as a means of birth control, as are contraceptives. Is the taking of an innocent unborn life murder or not? Legally, not, but morally, yes or no? If you think legally right is morally right, then this nation never should have fought a divisive, bloody war over slavery.
No, I am not dodging the issue. The issue is contraceptives. You are the one trying to make this a conversation about abortion. It isn’t. You are off topic.
No, it is impossible to use abortion for contraception since conception has already taken place.
And, no I am not interested in discussing your morals and your slavery analogy is as illogical as calling abortion a contraceptive method .
If you want to take part in the conversation about contraceptives stick to the topic. When the topic of abortion comes up I’ll be happy enlighten you. Presently the topic is CONTRACEPTION. Stick to it.
It reads like a cost benefit analysis because that’s exactly what it is. How is this a bad thing?
Effective contraception greatly reduces abortions. Think about it.
If everyone valued human life as the gift of God which it is, there would be NO abortions.
Are you in favor of women having a D&C for ‘female problems’?
You’re right that contraception is a lot cheaper than a child, but why should the taxpayers be forced to foot the bill for either? As individuals, we have the right to make choices, but we don’t have the right to force others to pay for those choices or the results of them. Perhaps I will be stricken with ED someday, in which case I will gladly pay for treatment and/or medication, I will not expect the taxpayers to do so.
There’s an iron clad reason why insurance covers pregnancy and birth and women’s contraceptives: because not covering them cost insurance companies,and hospitals and society more money, lots and lots more money. Do some research. Look up some real facts. Quit reading crap like Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze” and other loony conservative media. Paying for women’s contraceptives, pregnancy and birth saves you money on your own health insurance. It saves you money in social costs. It saves you money on your taxes.
You say ” I will gladly pay for(erectile dysfunction) treatment and/or medication, I will not expect the taxpayers to do so. It’s already paying for it on your health insurance, and I’m having a really, really hard time believing your nobility.
Captain Pain,you have the right to choose not wear a seat belt, get fat, smoke, drink, drive carelessly, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, participate in dangerous sports, shoot off fire works, own dangerous animals, boat ride without a PFD, swim in dangerous places and leave poisonous materials in unsafe places. My insurance helps pay for your care should any of those decisions you chose go wrong.
Comparing these to life,shows the true value you put on human life.You are all for civil rights but when it comes to actual life(living,dieing and breathing) ,you are lacking compassion for the unborn.
compassion for the unborn? How about compassion for the born? Why should a women, or a female child have to give birth to a baby, that was conceived with an act of rape, or incest? Why should a women have a child, she knows she can’t afford? You need to stop and think about your so called compassion.
Is it okay to murder?Simple question?
Define murder
The killing of Innocent unborn human
innocent unborn human =murder?????????? Let’s try that again: define murder.
Re did my statement,is this clearer for you.
I spit my tea out on that one. Openmindedmainer is just spouting RW talking points without any thought….. priceless.
That is not a legal definition of murder. That’s some right wing religious clap trap. Try again: Define murder.
Why does everything have to be legally defined?Is your value of a human life so little as you need to have a judge define it as legal or not?Just because that tiny human can’t speak for itself,should it’s life be terminated?
LOL Why does everything have to be legally defined? Well 1, because we are talking about laws, so yeah, laws have to have legal definitions otherwise they aren’t laws.
And 2 because conservatives are using the law to try to redefine murder, personhood, rape and abortion. LOL You are the ones using the law, so , define the legal definition of murder.
In your opinion which seems to go over your head.Is abortion murder,not the law but your own opinion?In your heart do you believe it is okay to kill the unborn?
In my opinion which seems to go over my head ????????????
The murder lovers will not ever be able to answer your question in an honest way. Because if they did, they would have to stop believing in abortion, and that would be giving up a lot of their leftist heritage. And if that part of their heritage is questionable, other parts may be, also. They just don’t WANT to believe in what is right, they would have to change their entire lives.
Hey , Hes-the-one. Don’t give me any grief about not answering questions. I wasn’t the one that got off topic and dragged abortion and murder into the conversation and then didn’t want to define terms. The topic was contraception.
still can’t answer the question,simple question,long term affects.
In 34 states it is in the laws that a rapist has parental rights to the child. If your mother, wife, daughter or other female relative was raped and gave birth to a child how would you feel knowing that in 34 states, the rapist will always be part of the victims (the mother and the child’s) life?
This is where the states have failed,giving the criminal rights.Oh and by the way,if I had only one breath left the rapist wouldn’t be breathing.
Yes I believe, women should have access to safe abortions. I don’t consider it murder.
if abortion is illegal, it will not stop. It will just go back to knitting, needle, coat hangers and back room hacks. Women have been havjng abortions since the beginning of time.
Contraception is not abortion … it is a method used to prevent the fertilization of the egg. Methods of contraception include medical devices, oral medications, condoms, abstinence, the rhythm method, coitus interuptus ….. for many many years artificial contraception was left solely to males (condoms). If that method failed, many men denied responsibility, blamed women or coerced/pressured women to abort. You may not like the fact that women realized they did not have to rely solely on a male’s use of artificial method but it happened and now there are more methods for women to use without having to trust a man to be responsible. Abstinence is by far the cheapest and most effective method ….. that is the method taught through conservative, right-wing sex education policies …. and birth rates are not lower in the areas that teach abstinence only, nor are STD rates lower. IMO, contraception is a far more effective way of preventing abortion than the lack of access and affordability of methods to prevent pregnancy.
Open-minded-mainer: We are talking about contraceptives. The discussion is not about the “unborn”. This discussion is about women’s contraceptives. You do realize that not all woman’s issues are about the ‘unborn” and this thread is about contraceptives. Stay focused and open minded.
And contraception isn’t about an “unborn” creature of any kind.
I did go off topic,I apologize.My views still stand on abortion.Maybe next time you and I can have a discussion on what is right and wrong.Until next time…
Very good point. Maybe if a person’s co-pay was based on his/her behavior and how that contributed to the medical condition, people would make different choices.
Why do you think taxpayers are paying for it? Women pay for it with their private health insurance premiums, thisnisn’t something that was pulled out of thin air. We call it value-added. Just like Viagra is already paid for.
And some conservatives offer no choices.
Most women are covered by an insurance policy. Those covered by MaineCare do cost the taxpayer. Now lets see. How many taxpayers in Maine? How many women of child-bearing age are on MaineCare? How much is that monthly prescription for contraceptives? Your share is what, $.10 or would it be more like $.01? Just guessing.
ED may be a symptom of a life-threatening condition and should be investigated. ED is not a life-threatening condition on its own. Men will not die because they have ED (inability to have intercourse) any more than women will die if they are unable to have intercourse. If medications that treat ED also treat the underlying cause (ie circulation) would you have a problem with them being covered by prescription progams? Who decides if a medication is nescessary to treat a serious condition …… your doctor or your employer or the insurance company?
Um, we pay insurance premiums. We pay for the services we get. Some now are available at no ‘extra’ charge. But that monthly premium adds up to much more that one month’s supply of contraceptives. Having those baby check-ups cost a lot more.
Linda Buckmaster, I hope and pray that my grandchildren are not denied the right to control their reproductive rights. The extreme right wing has taken control of the Republican Party. Please let these people be returned to the back rooms from which they eminated.
Nobody is telling women when they can and can’t have sex. That’s something the Dems will probably come up with later, however, when they get their totalitarian tentacles clasped onto all Americans. They want 4 more years, and you know they’re working on it.
If you think Republicans aren’t telling women what they can and can’t do about their reproductive decisions you didn’t listen very carefully to Rep. Akin, Rep. Ryan, Candidate Romney, Sen Santorum, the Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and Liberty University. It isn’t the Democrats with long slimy tentacles reaching into the bedroom feeling out what women are doing in there. It’s Republicans.
Women and men. All of us.
You are right of course. I should have included men. Republicans do seem quite nosy about men’s sexual and reproductive decisions, also. Sorry I left you out in my diatribe. LOL
they don’t care what men do in the bedroom, as long as their not gay. Then they care a great deal.
Ah, but they do have to have conservative tentacles investigating men also, making sure they are making babies, with women, dressed in flannel nightgowns, in the missionary position, Friday after 10 PM and quietly.
LOL, tentacles investigating testicles:)
Glad you enjoyed it. I just took it out; it seemed just too snarky. LOL
The Giant Squid Party.
LOL Now that’s funny.
Yes, they sure do concentrate on certain acts confined to men.
As a conservative Republican I believe in a woman’s right to choose. If she chooses to have unprotected sex, then she has made her choice. Abortion should not be a method of birth control.
If someone’s personal beliefs are that they are against birth control, why should their tax dollars be used to pay for someone else’s birth control.
The liberals advocation for partial birth abortion shows their lack of respect for human life. President Obama, when he was a state legislator in Illinois, voted several times to deny medical treatment to a fetus that was still alive after an abortion.
I will be on the side of life every time!
I believe it is the Republican/Tea Party that wants women to be chatel. They don’t care if some little girl gets gang raped and is pregnant. They want that girl to give birth to that baby. They can quckly forget that baby and mother after birth. After all she should be taking responsibility for her life and that of her child.
Four more years? Until the Republican Party purges itself from the parasite extreme right Tea Party parasites, I hope it’s a lot longer than four years.
It’s interesting to me that more Americans are Republicans than are Democrats. More Americans identify themselves as “conservatives” than as “liberals”.
Actually on one of the news shows (can’t remember which) the other day they stated that there were about 28% Republican, 40% democratic, the rest were either indipendent or other registered voters.
I just did a google check for you and found this: As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.
In either case I believe the indipendent and swing votes are rulling in the elections. Unfortunately it’s after the election and people take office that they forget who elected them.
Rasmussen in August 2012: Republican 37. 6 vs. Democrat 33.3
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows President Obama attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
More people identify themselves as ‘conservative’ because the Right has spent the last 30 years demonizing ‘liberals’.
When asked how they stand on actual issues, the vast majority actually hold ‘liberal’ views on those issues.
Sen. Thomas from Ripley has told me that he feels women whould not have the vote! Women should stay home and be wives only.
You are kidding about that…?
No, I’m not. I will add, however, that it was a while back that he told me this. His opinion may have changed since then.
No, unfortunately, not kidding.
That is sad.
If the Democratic Party doesn’t put some effort into the 29th district Senate race (Kevin Rayes seat), we will end up with a Republican who believes that teens should only earn $5.25 per hour training wage for up to 180 working days. That should help them earn their college tuition wouldn’t it?
Re your 1st sentence, oh yeah? Sure looks like it.
That’s all right. If your children abide by the liberal code, you won’t have any grandchildren to worry about.
How do you figure that? A stretch even for you.
Is the US suffering from a lack of population growth …thousands of children are being born in the US everyday even with the current availability of contraception. If prescription coverage includes oral contraceptives for all women do you really believe they will all go out and get a perscription, use them properly and they will all just stop having kids?
Don’t deal in absolutes. You can’t deny that more access to contraceptives will help, can you?
Will help what? I’m saying that increased coverage of contraceptives will not cause 0% population growth …. nor will it cause all women to use them.
Why don’t you worry about YOUR grandchildren and let everyone else worry about their’s Earl?
That’s a really good suggestion.
RAmen!
You’re not still saying that liberals want “as many abortions as possible,” are you?
What ‘code ‘ is that? The one you made up?
Well of course not EJ …… the fact that I married a female and that other gay and lesbian couples are legally married means that heterosexuals can no longer be heterosexual or legally married or engage in heterosexual intercourse so they can not longer have children. Because women and men have the ability to access prescription contraceptives through perscription and to choose abortion if they choose to (in the case of rape or health of the mother, or even for compassion to a severely compromised fetus). No EJ my children have lost the ability to reproduce so I will not be a grandmother ……oops I already am ….. but that’s besides the point …. they will not give me any more.
So if you care so much for human life, why are you against social programs that help single parents or those families with many children? You don’t want babies aborted, but then you don’t want to help families that are struggling.
Since you are pro-life, I assume that you must be against war and guns?
Your grandchildren are free to purchase all of the birth control that they wish. You’re even free to purchase it for them. Knock yourself out.
If the radical right has their way, birth control will be outlawed, there will be no morning after pill. No abortion for those who can’t afford it to pay for a Dr. to say you have female problems that require a D& C.
It’s the left who outlaws what they don’t like. The right believes you’re entitled to whatever you earn.
List things the Left wants to outlaw and see how big that list is compared to what the Right wants to outlaw.
Oh yes that’s the rights way of thinking. I can keep all my money, but you have to be what I tell you to be. You have to do what I tell you to do. No women, gays, or long haired freaky people need apply.
Get a clue. You are free to buy all the birth control you can afford. Give it out on the street corner for all I care. Demand that your employer give you health insurance that includes it. I really don’t care what you do. You on the other hand want to require me to buy health insurance that includes birth control even if I don’t want to, just so you can get it for “free” (which means someone else is paying for it).
And I will be buying health insurance that pays for your prostate exams.
So if health insurance is part of your benefits package that you earn as part of your pay, the right is supporting birth control as your right to in your insurance package? If they are they sure are saying that in a confusing way.
Democrats outlaw what they don’t like??????? Like what???? Give us some examples.
Gasoline without ethanol, raw milk, private concealed carry of firearms whenever they can, Gas cans that you can actually pour from.
That’s it ………. gas with ethanol, gas cans that don’t pour properly, raw milk, concealed weapons. And for that you support a 19 century attitude toward women? Gas cans really disrupt your life, eh?
Actually, oldmainer, that’s not true. If you are poor or don’t have health insurance and/or don’t live near a Planned Parenthood clinic you probably can’t afford women’s contraceptives
Precisely. And I would think people who are trying to control health care costs would want poorer women to have better access to reproductive services.
WHAT!!!!! let women make choices, enjoy sex without fear of pregnancy. You’ve just caused the entire Republican party to succumb to a collective case of the vapors.
Crazy, right?
Oh msally …. you know women are not supposed to enjoy sex , it is a necesssary function they are expected to allow to be “real” women … if they admit they do they are labeled sl*ts and wh*ores…. ;-)
Howard Segal
You are a racist. Critizing the empty seat doesn’t make one a racist but you raising it in your letter suggests that you see black first; you are a racist.
Linda Buckmaster – Protecting the life of the unborn is more important than inconveniencing the woman that risked getting pregnant. God created the life within, and we humans have no right to kill it just to please our selfish natures.
Ellen Farnsworth – If your pastor said what you qu0ted while holding a Bible, then he or she doesn’t believe in the Bible.
If you don’t believe in freedom for ALL citizens, including the gay ones, then you don’t believe in the Constitution. Just sayin’.
Since it is my belief that they chose their lifestyle, then SSM is a special privilege, not a right.
Still on the “lifestyle” kick?
By that logic, religious belief is a privilege that should not be protected either.
It’s nice to know that you don’t believe in freedom and instead you believe in telling people how they can or cannot live their lives.
Like all you lefties are telling EJ?
The extent of me telling EJ how to live his life is just telling him to leave my life alone and to not attempt to make decisions for me. His rights, and your rights, end where my rights start.
It’s actually very conservative to tell someone, hey, you practice your religion, but keep your meddling to yourself and let me practice mine. Or I’ll have to take your tyrannical, meddling butt to court for infringing on my religious freedoms.
It is my belief that you picked and chose among religions that suited your conservative lifestyle, then religion is a choice of life style and as a life style your choice doesn’t get special privileges to dictate to others what their choices are.
And you choose your beliefs as casually as you contend that gays and lesbians choose their gender preferences–not least, your religious beliefs. You could wake up tomorrow and be a fervent believer in another faith. Why not?
Your religion is a choice EJ… Hypocrite.
Since it is my belief that religious zealots chose their lifestyle, then being a religious zealot is a special privilege, not a right.
(rolls eyes)
The entire Bible, right? Including all of Leviticus, etc.?
There’s an 11th commandment in Leviticus. It’s there if you look for it. Thou shalt not dishonor God by refusing to use the brains he gave you.
Love it!
Parsons reveals his utter indifference toward victims of rape. It’s all the girl’s or the woman’s fault insofar as she, according to holier than thou EJ, must carry the baby because she somehow “risked getting pregnant.” Sounds like Rep. Akin re legitimate rape vs. illegitimate. Sounds like Catholics who insist that pregnant girls never have abortions no matter how young they are. And is so typical of anti-abortion extremists who utter not a word about innocent girls and women. There’s a long history of pregnancy as punishment, and this is just the latest version. How many victims of rape have you supported? Taken in? Cared about?
I have a wonderful, intelligent nephew as a result of rape. And I do believe that if you ask him, he’s glad his mother decided to keep him.
Yes we all know that you had a nephew as a result of rape and that it turned out really well for you. We understand that you like the product of that rape and that you think women should just be more accepting about rape. EJ you weren’t raped and rape isn’t about you and how much you enjoy your nephew.
EJ Parsons: your complete lack of sympathy for girls and women who are raped is so beyond the pale that I cannot discuss this issue with you any longer. Congratulations on your wonderful nephew, but I’m sure that most females who are raped don’t see the world through your “pro-life” eyes and, if nothing else, think long and hard about keeping any baby resulting from it. You do not, though, answer my question about what you personally have done for children born to rape victims beyond imposing your no-exceptions view on all of them. As I’ve said repeatedly, the vast majority of those “pro-life” extremists vote Republican, advocate cutting America’s already modest safety net for the poor, advocate military increases and further wars, and give new meaning to hypocrisy.Kindly let us know what you have done beyond presumably spending time with your nephew.
I can’t tell if this is a pro-rape, or a pro-choice argument…
Hoping this mornings eggs are unfertilized.. Nothing worse than scrambling up a batch of “the unborn” for breakfast, right EJ. LOL
Technically if you go by what Earl (EJ) says you’re not having eggs….you’re actually eating chicken for breakfast……Oy.
LOL
I think it’s fairly clear who the selfish one is here Earl…..and it’s not women who want to have control over their own bodies or same sex couples who want to marry….it’s people like you who think your ‘values’ and ‘beliefs’ should somehow supersede everyone else’s values and beliefs for themselves. THAT is SELFISH.
Still shilling a religion based entirely on incest to say being gay is immoral?
Outrageous!
Even in the cases of rape, incest and health? Those are just cases of women who are inconvienced by risking getting pregnant? Are they just being selfish? Or are they being treated as incubators rather than human beings? Come on EJ the Repbulican platform was written with NO exceptions for any other these …… why would they do that if they believe there should be any exceptions?
EJ I know living in the 21st century with all this horrifying freedom for women is a major stumbling block for you and your church, but that’s your problem and you need to deal with it. Using your church’s dogma to try to force women back into the 19th century and under your religious thumb is not dealing with your problem honestly. Your real problem is with women, freedom and sexuality and not with women’s eggs fertilized and unfertilized.
Linda,
What are your sources for your comments? Here is the correct source – from the Rebublican 2012 Platform. Read it, please.
The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life (Top)Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form – and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.
Then YOU don’t have an abortion but don’t try and tell the rest of of us what we can and cannot do based on YOUR values and beliefs…….YOUR values and beliefs are not required to be anyone else’s values or beliefs.
You don’t think a trans vaginal ultrasound penalizes a woman who is seeking an abortion? Or how about Arizona’s law that basically says conception starts 2 weeks before having the sex that one became pregnant from. Or attempting to un-fund planned parenthood, or certain states making a woman wait 48 hours prior to having an abortion, or certain states attempting to get rid of all the providers of abortions in said state…..that all sounds ever so slightly punitive to me…..silly me.
Arizona has a law like that? Even more incredible! They should be careful for what they ask. That would imply that the instant an egg is released from the ovary, that a person is created. Never mind that although most of the cell machinery is there (including mitochondria) but it still lacks the male DNA (which is about all the sperm contributes). Not only is this even more false than the previous opinion, but this also leads to the opinion that if that egg is not fertilized, then it’s an abortion. What do you do about that?
Unfortunately AZ does have a law like that.
Yup, Linda was right: Republican want to ban abortion, overturn Roe v Wade, withhold contraceptive insurance coverage, create biological science in their own image, call an unfertilized egg a baby, redefine sex education and contraception as abortion and defund any entity that provides such services, redefine rape so that if a woman gets pregnant she wasn’t raped and refuse to allow women any say in their sexual or reproductive decisions.
Thanks for clearing the Republicans position, Cspin19. Good to know that Republicans are watching over women.
They not only want to call an unfertilized egg a baby but the women is considered pregnant for two weeks before intercourse even occurs.
Yes, Arizona has decided that biology no longer exists in their world of women’s issues.
In the world of Women’s Issues. First, Abortion is LEGAL. 2nd, Terminating a pregnancy is a woman’s decision under the laws of this country. I don’t know one woman who likes being told what she can and canNot do with her body by others who do not walk in her shoes. Face facts, abortion is LEGAL.
Linda, I forgot to point out to you, that the Republican Platform is against public money spent for certain circumstances with abortion, not the least of which includes abortion in the 8th and 9th month of pregnancy. That IS in the Democratic Platform.
And there is a very good reason for that and if you would make yourself knowledgable about biology, genetics, embryology, neurology and pregnancy you would understand the reason.
Do you know that doctors must proceed to make sure the baby is dead, even if it is crying in pain?
Once a baby takes a breath the doctor is duty bound to try to save it’s life because if the doctor did not, they would be charged with murder.
You are either misinformed or lying.
The doctor is not bound. That’s what Barack Obama voted against 4 times when he was an Illinois state senator. That’s what I call a “champion of life.”
Once a fetus takes a breath it is no longer a fetus but is a human being according to the law. A doctor is then required to try to save the life of the baby or face legal actions. Taht is the law and the truth, your claim is wrong, so very wrong.
There is no such law. You are simply parroting your right-wing religious clap trap. Find the law that says this and post it.
re Howard Segal’s letter on Susan Sontag and Clint Eastwood’s “empty chair”. I understand his point. what I do’t understand is how the producer/director of “BIRD” about the musical genius whose Jazz lines were pure in the sense that Bach’s were pure; “Straight No Chaser, titled after a fast Blues by its idiosyncratic genius subject Thelonius Monk, could support a “cornball” like Willard Mitt Romney. Clint is not racist; he has been given and accepted awards for this work by Black America. Malia and Sasha Obama know the famous Dizzy Gillespie riff “Salt Peanuts”. The Romney boys, not so much. Beyond politics, for people with a strong connection to the Jazz world this counts for a lot. And on Social issues Clint is far from the Republicans. The only other (sad) possibility I can think of here is the early stages of a serious mental condition. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Pamela Taylor. I read with great interest about your experience with a complication after neuro surgery. The cold arrogant dismissal of your serious post op symptoms and the lack of proper discharge instructions and follow up, need to be fixed. A root cause analysis of your complications and those of your acquaintences needs to be done. The MOST important thing the hospital could do is to include you and the other harmed patients in this analysis and the solutions to the problem. Usually patients’ input is not sought or even considered during root cause analysis. Questions that need to be answered about your serious complication, your doctors cold response to it, and lack of discharge instructions and follow up, are 1. Could it have been prevented? 2.How could it have been prevented? 3. Why didn’t you get the post op/discharge instructions that were appropriate for your surgery? 4. Who could you have contacted when your surgeon ignored your serious symptoms? 5. Was there enough nursing staff on duty so your nurses could properly educate you? 6. What will be done so this does not happen to another patients? 7. What is the follow up process for post op patients who have had your surgery? (I could think a dozen more questions)
I might add, that if was me, I would not be paying for the costs associated with the complication.
There is no excuse for what you experienced, there are only solutions. If you or the people you have mentioned in your letter are willing, I will go to the Hospital with you so you can tell them exactly what happened to you, make your suggestions to them on how to remedy the problems, and let them know that you want to be involved in the solutions.
Kathydayrn@aol.com Kathy Day RN, Patient Safety Activist.
Linda Buckmaster: “The candidate who treats you like a grown-up” is here because his mother gave birth to him, as are you, but over 54 million unborn children(and partially born) have had their lives snuffed out because of the Roe v Wade decision of 1973, which your “grown-up” candidate supports wholeheartedly, being the most pro-killing of innocent unborn babies president we have had.
No, we are all here because our mothers CHOOSE to have us. It was their CHOICE to make. You seek to take that ability to CHOOSE away from ALL women under ALL circumstances.
I don’t know about you, but if it came down between MY life without my mother, and her life without me, I’d want her to choose the latter.
It was HER choice to make, and I respect that.
If you’re so upset over those “54 million”, you should be working to educate people about reproductive health and responsibilities, because there’s no way simply taking away the legal right to choose is going to bring that “54 million” back, or prevent future abortions. ALL it will accomplish is to make future abortions a big secret.
But this is the crux of what it’s all about, PRETENDING there’s no problem or consequence in taking away people’s legal options.