Misogyny and Health Care: When it doesn't take two to tango?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The obvious point

    You are making absolutely no sense, Arthur.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Tiassa, when you posted: Republicans are fighting to make women ask their employers for permission to be on the pill,

    What did you mean by "to be on the pill" ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    It's pretty obvious what these bills are about

    Exactly what you think it means.

    The problem, Arthur—

    —is that you insist on definitions that only have merit because you insist.

    Doctors would disagree with you that contraception isn't a medical issue.

    Strangely, for all that conservatives fret about the potential for the government to come between doctor and patient, they don't seem to have a problem with an insurance company coming in between doctor and patient, and now they're demanding that one's employer should be able to come between doctor and patient.

    You'll notice, for instance, that these bills don't say a damn thing about erectile dysfunction drugs. Contraception is a medical need, depending on how one defines need. If we limit the definition to vital need, then acne treatment isn't a medical need, and getting a boner certainly isn't a medical need.

    For the rest of us, however, who recognize a more realistic definition of medical need, the fact that these bills focus on contraception and not other drugs one might, by your context of need, call extraneous, is telling. The Missouri bill is specifically limited to "health plan coverage of certain obstetrical and gynecological benefits and pharmaceutical coverage".

    If an employer objects to a woman undertaking tubal ligation, insurance won't cover it.

    If an employer objects to a man undertaking a vasectomy? Well, that's not covered by Missouri SB 749.

    Something about medical need?

    If an employer objects to a woman using contraception for contraceptive purposes, insurance won't cover it.

    If an employer objects to a man using boner drugs? Well, that's not covered by Missouri SB 749.

    Again, something about medical need.

    In the first place, it's absolutely stupid for you to insist on definitions that don't make sense except in the context of suiting your political needs.

    And, in the second, it's pretty obvious what these bills are about.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Lamping, John T. Senate Bill 749. 96th General Assembly of the State of Missouri. February 21, 2012. Senate.MO.gov. April 7, 2012. http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/pdf-bill/perf/SB749.pdf
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    wild shit
    once i logged in and the ad space vanished, it got scrambled

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    err
    adou
    how come you are taking boner drugs?
    afghani golden showers vol 3 not up to snuff?
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And that isn't the issue Tiassa.

    The law you quoted explained what it was referring to quite well:

    So the meaning of this legistlation is clear.

    They are in fact pieces of the legislation which allow medical coverage for use of the pill for non BC reasons if an employer opts out of providing coverage for BC for moral reasons:

    4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to exclude coverage
    for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices ordered by a health
    care provider with prescriptive authority for reasons other than
    contraceptive or abortion purposes.

    So NOTHING in the legislation you pointed to supports your assertion that Republicans are fighting to make women ask their employers for permission to be on the pill
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Gustav, what I do with your girlfriend, when we are alone, has no bearing on this thread.
     
  10. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    In a group health plan, the group that determines if a treatment is covered is the insurer, not your employer who the insurer is dealing with. The type of plan that they buy depends on the needs of the company, and they are never cheap. Employers already bear as much as 75% of the cost of the premiums for their employees.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    (Duh ....)

    What is it about you conservatives that the facts shaping the context of a discussion have no meaning?

    I mean, we're sitting here discussing bills intended to empower employers to decide what should be excluded from their employees' health policies, and you come back with, "In a group health plan, the group that determines if a treatment is covered is the insurer, not your employer who the insurer is dealing with"?

    Really?

    No, I mean, really?
     
  12. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Really. I'm not kidding you.

    I didn't read the entire thread, but I skimmed past some posts and those statements you made struck me as off. I wasn't sure if you knew that or not.

    However, if there are bills being considered in order to change that, they probably won't pass. Nor should they. They aren't demonstrations of good policy. For those of you with conservative leanings, your own mileage might vary.
     
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And allowing an employer to not have to pay for things which they are against for moral reasons has nothing to do with your assertion that Republicans are fighting to make women ask their employers for permission to be on the pill. Indeed, by definition these women all have jobs and as we've seen, if they want to get OCPs it will cost them less than $10 extra per month, vs the cost of insurance, to do so and they never have to ask their employer for permission to get them.

    So really, that's what's got you're panties in a twist, an exta $10 per month?

    Hmmm, If I'm a young man and I have sex on average 5 times a week, and I buy condoms in bulk it will cost me more than $10 per month, and they aren't covered by any plan I've ever seen.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2012
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    (Duh ....)

    And if your hooker has a headache, she doesn't need a prescription to buy Advil.

    Nor do you require a prescription to buy condoms.

    I cannot believe the logical contortions you're willing to undertake in arguing that same old conservative line: If I cannot impose my moral will on others, my First Amendment right to freedom of religion is violated.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The right will come up with a variety of contortions to defend their misogyny and to deny women rights over their own bodies. We are mere cattle.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And that would matter if prescriptions to get BCPs were hard to come by.
    They are not.
    It was a comparison of relative cost.


    No Tiassa, the contortion is all YOURS.
    No one is imposing their moral will on anyone.
    The Govt is not forcing people to pay for something they are morally opposed to and the Employers aren't saying that women can't have Birth Control pills in ANY scenario under discussion.

    The BIG ISSUE you keep making is about the less than $10 per month that women without insurance that covers BCPs would have to pay vs those with insurance that does pay for BCPs.

    $10 a month is HARDLY justification for claiming anyone is imposing any will on anyone.
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Roe v Wade sort of provided for it up to 24 weeks but this Bill (and that in 6 other states, limits abortions to less than 20 weeks Gestation) based on more recent medical findings that babies start feeling pain at a slightly earlier period of gestation.

    Because it's not ALL about the women's rights is it?

    And I'm having a hard time getting all worked up over a law that says women have 5 months to decide to keep the baby, but after that, if the baby is healthy and not harming the mother, it's too late to kill the baby because to do so would be cruel to what is by then a new life.

    This is the basis for HB 954

    What part of that do you disagree with and why?

    And there is an out of course:

    1) No abortion is authorized or shall be performed after the second trimester if the probable gestational age of the unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to be 20 weeks or more unless the physician and two consulting physicians certify that the pregnancy is diagnosed as medically futile, as such term is defined in Code Section 31-9B-1, or in reasonable medical judgment the abortion is necessary in their best clinical judgment to preserve the life or health of the woman to:
    (A) Avert the death of the pregnant woman or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

    So unlike that article, there is nothing in the Bill that makes a women carry a dead fetus to term.

    And it turns out that the legislation is in fact in line with legislation in Australia on how late an abortion can be performed:

    Other territories have similar time limits for instance Queensland allows "therapeutic miscarriages" on pregnancies < 22 weeks.
    Northern Territory, 23 Weeks.
    Victoria, 24 weeks
    etc

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

    So Bells, if the mother's life is not in danger, is there any number of weeks after which you think an abortion should not be allowed?
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2012
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Nice little play on the argument. Classic tactic for conservatives such as yourself..

    What you fail to mention is that the law would force women to carry to term, a fetus that is diagnosed as not being able to survive to term. In short, it would force women to carry a child that may not want or that is a result of incest or rape. Now, I don't know about your experiences in pregnancy Arthur, but as a woman who has had two children, that prospect is a horrifying one.

    Even more appalling is the argument given by the Republicans about this piece of legislation.

    State Rep. Terry England was speaking in favor of HB 954, which makes it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks even if the woman is known to be carrying a stillborn fetus or the baby is otherwise not expected to live to term.

    He then recalled his time working on a farm:

    “Life gives us many experiences…I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive. Delivering pigs, dead or alive. It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”



    Suggesting that if a cow or pig can give birth to a dead baby, then a woman should too was not enough for Rep. England though. He then delivered an anecdote to the chamber in which a young man who was apparently opposed to legislation outlawing chicken fighting said he would give up all of his chickens if the legislature simply took away women’s right to an abortion.



    [Source]


    This is what you are defending.

    So you'll excuse me if I have a hard time taking you seriously in defending laws such as this and buffoons such as Mr England.

    The part where women are being forced to carry a child to term that they do not want, that may have been the result of rape. Do you have any idea how traumatic that is Arthur? But of course, women, to you people, are mere cattle and their uterus your property.

    The wording of the statute however could be taken both ways. And it directly contravenes Roe v Wade, which grats women the right of choice at 24 weeks.

    Late term abortions here can be performed if the mother's health is at risk, and that includes her mental health. Here we consider the mother's health and wellbeing to be paramount, even during pregnancy. Strange concept for you, I know. But while the law stipulates anywhere from 20 weeks to 24 weeks depending on the State, women can and do have late term abortions for a variety of reasons, and one of them does include her health and wellbeing, including her mental health. While the conservatives here have moved to try to limit access to late term abortion, the stipulation of the mother's health will always stay, unless they want a very very public backlash at the polls, and the mother's health will always include her mental health - ie if she threatens to kill herself, her life and safety will become paramount and she will not be forced to keep a child she would be willing to kill herself to not have.

    In my home state, for example, R v Bayliss and Cullen, allowed that an abortion is legal if her physical and/or mental health is in danger. It would simply require her to go to a doctor and advise she is depressed.

    Personally speaking, I have a dry foot policy and feel that a woman should know what is best for her. My own personal feelings should not impact on other people, nor should it be used to control how other women live their lives and what they do with their collective uterus.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Bells and Adoucette

    Bells and Adoucette

    Just a brief note, as I'm out the door in three minutes:

    • The bill Bells refers to did exist; it passed the Georgia House. However, it was stopped in the Senate, in part because a Republican state senator told the story of his family's own tragedy, when his daughter lost a fetus; the proposed law would have forced her to carry the thing until it fell out of her naturally. This prompted enough Republicans to cross party lines to stop it.

    • I believe the provision Adoucette notes is part of the revised bill pushing its way through the Georgia legislature.​

    I will dig up the specific information this afternoon, but for now, I've other obligations.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829


    Except I posted HB 954 and it doesn't contain that requirement:

    Clearly if the baby has died or won't survive to term, then the pregnancy is "medically futile".

    No, clearly the law does not say what you claim it says.

    And I'm not defending him.
    I went and looked at the actual legislation that was passed.

    Not at all, it says that women have 5 months to make that decision and that's easily 3 months after they know that they are pregnant, so this isn't an issue about forcing a women to carry any child they might conceive to term. But indeed all jurusdictions have an end date, most are within a few weeks of this date already, and as people the world over realize how aware a fetus is after 20 weeks, and this new medical knowledge spreads about the awareness of the developing child other laws will likely move to about this same time, which is simply a humane consideration.

    No, the statute is clear and R v W did not grant them this "right at 24 weeks", it simply said this right would not last past that time.

    And this law has the exact same provision, even after 20 weeks, abortions are allowed to:
    Same as yours.

    And here is where Georgia slightly differs, by several weeks from some Australian territories, in that at 20 weeks Georgia (and 6 other states) consider the Baby's PHYSICIAL health now trumps the Mother's mental health.

    So does this law since at NO TIME during pregnancy does the baby's right to life trump the mother's right to life, or even trump the loss to the mother of of a major bodily function.

    Same here, with the exclusion of the difficult to define "mental health" after 20 weeks.

    So in essence, you would allow a mother to kill her baby any time right up until normal full term birth, even at 8 months and 3 weeks?

    Really, because that sounds positively barbaric.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2012
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    HB 954 passed.

    I've been quoting from text of the bill AS PASSED.

    http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/fulltext/hb954.htm
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Noted. It was ammended.

    And the rest of the 4 months, it is the State that decides what happens to her body? Or you? Who else?

    Really? I was under the distinct impression it mentioned viability, which some had tried to lower to 24 weeks.

    Here the mother's health is paramount and if her pregnancy is a risk to her health, including her mental health, then a late term abortion can be obtained if it is her choice to do so and if doing so will ensure her health and wellbeing, including her mental health.

    I will put it this way Arthur. When things went badly while I was in labour with my second child, I was told that they may not be able to save my son. I begged them to forget about me and to save my son and I was told no. That my health mattered the most and while they would do what they could, if the choice was between me or my son, my safety and health would trump that of my child's, even with my explicit consent to the contrary. So even during labour, if something goes wrong, at no time does the baby's right to life trump that of the mother's if the mother's health is in any way at risk. If for some weird reason I suddenly became suicidal during the later stages of my pregnancy and I declared I would kill myself if I did not get an abortion, I would probably have ended up being given an abortion. So here, major loss of bodily function is not the only requirement.

    Not here. Women only have to declare they feel depressed and they can be granted a late term abortion. Of course they will receive counselling beforehand and for the most part, they will grant it if she tells them that having a child will endanger her mental health.

    You see, this is where you lose it.

    It is not for me to not allow a woman to do what she wants with her uterus. It is her bodily organ and I have no right or say over it. It is not mine to own or control. Nor is it yours or anyone elses. I do not own her. She is not my cattle or chattel. She is a human being with human rights over her own body.

    To quote Ms Chemaly. She has the following rights as a human being:

    The right to life.
    The right to privacy.
    The right to freedom.
    The right to bodily integrity.
    The right to decide when and how [she] reproduce.


    Ergo, whatever I may feel about her decision is beside the point. It is her body and her decision.


    And yet, you do not consider Mr England's comparison of women to cattle as being in any way barbaric. Funny that, huh?
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No she decides, but she can no longer decide to unilaterally have her babies life terminated after 20 weeks.


    No, this law is not going against RvW, so while that ruling does mention viability, but it basically said that the state could NOT prevent it in the first Trimester, but it doesn't say the state can't act after that, and of course, viability is now down to 22 weeks.

    They didn't define a specfic period except for the 1st TM.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

    Not the way I read your laws Bells.
    It seems pretty clear that getting an abortion much after the 20th week isn't easy/possible in most of Australia either.

    Indeed most of the entire civilized world stops it at some point during fetal development, so you are really just quibbling about a few weeks.

    Yeah Bells, you've already made it clear, you have no issue with someone killing a full term baby if they are just having a bit of maternal depression.
    You know, as long as that foot's not dry, no problemo.

    Yes I do, and if you notice I've never defended Mr England, so again that charge falls totally flat.
     

Share This Page