hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 12:00:36 GMT -5
Some quotes for you GG:
So many existing and proposed laws aimed at women's reproductive 'rights' but none stopping men from being Johnny Appleseeds.
Let's see if the men who are trying to rule women's reproductive rights like the law regulating their's.
No one here is talking about abortion
I understand what YOU are saying, I'm attempting to clarify what is actually being discussed. Seems to be a lot of people on one side of an issue just contradicting one another repeatedly. Or just a lot of people bringing up issues they aren't allowed to discuss in hopes they can bring it up, then pretend it's not happening when proven wrong.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 12:02:49 GMT -5
That's fine. I'm just clarifying that when I say "point me to the current laws", I'm speaking specifically to people who are saying there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights. So far that's just been met with anecdotes and musings on history...but not the laws people claim exist. I have not seen anyone say "there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights". I HAVE seen (and experienced) obstacles to permanent contraception. And there ARE obstacles to women obtaining contraception. The original post is about a proposed law designed to highlight the irony and hypocrisy of laws restricting women's access to safe and legal abortion. Men would never tolerate any law governing their bodily autonomy. Which is exactly what I said, that it was nonsense that people are pretending this is about anything other than that. Men wouldn't tolerate any law governing their bodily autonomy? Of course we would. Most citizens tolerate all kinds of laws governing their bodily autonomy.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 17, 2020 12:05:27 GMT -5
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 17, 2020 12:08:06 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 17, 2020 12:11:24 GMT -5
Regarding women's health. I think it is really stupid women's menstrual products are taxed. It's not as if sanitary products are luxury items.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 12:26:43 GMT -5
I have not seen anyone say "there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights". I HAVE seen (and experienced) obstacles to permanent contraception. And there ARE obstacles to women obtaining contraception. The original post is about a proposed law designed to highlight the irony and hypocrisy of laws restricting women's access to safe and legal abortion. Men would never tolerate any law governing their bodily autonomy. Which is exactly what I said, that it was nonsense that people are pretending this is about anything other than that. Do you actually have a point?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 12:29:33 GMT -5
Which is exactly what I said, that it was nonsense that people are pretending this is about anything other than that. Do you actually have a point? My point is that perhaps you should read the thread before pretending to be making points to me which I made first. It's less effective to regurgitate someone else's points in an effort to pass them off as your own if you're regurgitating them to the person who actually made them first.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 12:48:29 GMT -5
Do you actually have a point? My point is that perhaps you should read the thread before pretending to be making points to me which I made first. It's less effective to regurgitate someone else's points in an effort to pass them off as your own if you're regurgitating them to the person who actually made them first. If my posts annoy you, please feel free to use the block button. I have no interest in arguing with you but I will post whatever I see fit
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 17, 2020 16:48:17 GMT -5
I can't speak for other posters. And we can't discuss the "a" word. The end. That's fine. I'm just clarifying that when I say "point me to the current laws", I'm speaking specifically to people who are saying there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights. So far that's just been met with anecdotes and musings on history...but not the laws people claim exist. Planned Parenthood primary provides birth control education, women's health education, etc. Only a small percentage of the women who go there get an abortion. Yet many states have come up with laws that make it impossible for Planned Parenthood to operate there - so all the women who rely on PP for contraception, PAP tests, etc can't get it. Not only is that happening now, some states (as well as Trump) are continuing to scheme to completely defund the group, leaving all those women without reproductive health services/education. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Current enough for you?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 20:32:41 GMT -5
My point is that perhaps you should read the thread before pretending to be making points to me which I made first. It's less effective to regurgitate someone else's points in an effort to pass them off as your own if you're regurgitating them to the person who actually made them first. If my posts annoy you, please feel free to use the block button. I have no interest in arguing with you but I will post whatever I see fit You can absolutely post what you want, I'm just pointing out that if you're not going to post anything that required original thought, and you're just going to regurgitate other people's thoughts as your own, a more effective method would be to not regurgitate it back to the same person whose original posts you're copying. It's less effective than pretending they are your own thoughts to a 3rd person. Maybe other people will fall for it, I wish you luck!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 20:36:04 GMT -5
That's fine. I'm just clarifying that when I say "point me to the current laws", I'm speaking specifically to people who are saying there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights. So far that's just been met with anecdotes and musings on history...but not the laws people claim exist. Planned Parenthood primary provides birth control education, women's health education, etc. Only a small percentage of the women who go there get an abortion. Yet many states have come up with laws that make it impossible for Planned Parenthood to operate there - so all the women who rely on PP for contraception, PAP tests, etc can't get it. Not only is that happening now, some states (as well as Trump) are continuing to scheme to completely defund the group, leaving all those women without reproductive health services/education. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Current enough for you? It's current, but it's in no way relevant to the government passing laws regulating women's reproduction. There's a canyon-sized gap between "regulating women's reproduction" and "providing free money". So the complaint is that the government doesn't give free money some people's preferred provider?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 21:20:48 GMT -5
Planned Parenthood primary provides birth control education, women's health education, etc. Only a small percentage of the women who go there get an abortion. Yet many states have come up with laws that make it impossible for Planned Parenthood to operate there - so all the women who rely on PP for contraception, PAP tests, etc can't get it. Not only is that happening now, some states (as well as Trump) are continuing to scheme to completely defund the group, leaving all those women without reproductive health services/education. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Current enough for you? It's current, but it's in no way relevant to the government passing laws regulating women's reproduction. There's a canyon-sized gap between "regulating women's reproduction" and "providing free money". So the complaint is that the government doesn't give free money some people's preferred provider? So you’re still pretending that if an obstacle isn’t a legality, it’s somehow not an obstacle, or less of an obstacle? If men can have their Viagra covered by ins, then women should be able to have birth control covered by ins.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 21:21:38 GMT -5
If my posts annoy you, please feel free to use the block button. I have no interest in arguing with you but I will post whatever I see fit You can absolutely post what you want, I'm just pointing out that if you're not going to post anything that required original thought, and you're just going to regurgitate other people's thoughts as your own, a more effective method would be to not regurgitate it back to the same person whose original posts you're copying. It's less effective than pretending they are your own thoughts to a 3rd person. Maybe other people will fall for it, I wish you luck! I don’t need a lecture from you on how to post, thank you very much
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 17, 2020 23:05:30 GMT -5
Planned Parenthood primary provides birth control education, women's health education, etc. Only a small percentage of the women who go there get an abortion. Yet many states have come up with laws that make it impossible for Planned Parenthood to operate there - so all the women who rely on PP for contraception, PAP tests, etc can't get it. Not only is that happening now, some states (as well as Trump) are continuing to scheme to completely defund the group, leaving all those women without reproductive health services/education. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Current enough for you? It's current, but it's in no way relevant to the government passing laws regulating women's reproduction. There's a canyon-sized gap between "regulating women's reproduction" and "providing free money". So the complaint is that the government doesn't give free money some people's preferred provider? You know very well the far right is not attempting to shut down Planned Parenthood because they don't like free tax dollars being handed out there. The far right want to keep unmarried people from having sex, and the best way to do that is to make sure sex ed/contraception is provided to women.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 18, 2020 7:53:27 GMT -5
How timely... One of the New York Times stories this morning discussed medical doctors performing pelvic exams on unconscious patients without their knowledge.
As the NYT is behind a paywall, there is a similar article in The Cut.
Only 10 states have banned unauthorized pelvic exams. A survey from 2003 stated that 90 percent of medical students gave unconscious patients medical exams.
The woman who is the subject of the articles was a victim of child abuse and when she was asked if she wanted a pelvis exam, stated no. Yet she woke up from a seditive, the doctor was giving her one anyway.
Why must there be regulations for doctors to NOT perform examinations without consent?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 18, 2020 9:05:34 GMT -5
Planned Parenthood primary provides birth control education, women's health education, etc. Only a small percentage of the women who go there get an abortion. Yet many states have come up with laws that make it impossible for Planned Parenthood to operate there - so all the women who rely on PP for contraception, PAP tests, etc can't get it. Not only is that happening now, some states (as well as Trump) are continuing to scheme to completely defund the group, leaving all those women without reproductive health services/education. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Current enough for you? It's current, but it's in no way relevant to the government passing laws regulating women's reproduction. There's a canyon-sized gap between "regulating women's reproduction" and "providing free money". So the complaint is that the government doesn't give free money some people's preferred provider? Most of the money they get is just medicaid payments like they would give any other provider for services that are covered, like pap smears. So "free money" isn't an accurate description of the money they are cutting. They are literally reducing the number of doctors available to see low income patients. They do also get grants for birth control, and cutting that off will increase the birth rate, and I suspect 100% of the women who would qualify for that coverage will now qualify for WIC, food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare payments, medicaid and free lunches. So, I never understand why we want to cut off government funded birth control and instead raise the number of people in poverty and have to support the family for a couple of decades. I know there is a theory if we leave poor people to fend for themselves, they will magically become smart, responsible and self sufficient, but thousands of years of history show that is not true. I am a practical person. Let's help prevent babies we don't want to support.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 9:56:48 GMT -5
I was never a big fan of planned parenthood because of the abortion factor. Other than that it provides many good services. Now if they wanted to change it from birth control to pregnancy control that would be fine with me. I also don't like tax dollars going to it.
BTW...I also think men should have to pay for their boner pills also...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2020 10:02:27 GMT -5
I was never a big fan of planned parenthood because of the abortion factor. Other than that it provides many good services. Now if they wanted to change it from birth control to pregnancy control that would be fine with me. I also don't like tax dollars going to it. BTW...I also think men should have to pay for their boner pills also... Birth control IS pregnancy control....and pregnancy control IS birth control.. For many low income people, Planned Parenthood is the only source of affordable health care.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 10:03:43 GMT -5
I was never a big fan of planned parenthood because of the abortion factor. Other than that it provides many good services. Now if they wanted to change it from birth control to pregnancy control that would be fine with me. I also don't like tax dollars going to it. BTW...I also think men should have to pay for their boner pills also... Birth control IS pregnancy control.... yes but abortion is not pregnancy control since it already happened
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2020 10:07:13 GMT -5
How timely... One of the New York Times stories this morning discussed medical doctors performing pelvic exams on unconscious patients without their knowledge. As the NYT is behind a paywall, there is a similar article in The Cut. Only 10 states have banned unauthorized pelvic exams. A survey from 2003 stated that 90 percent of medical students gave unconscious patients medical exams. The woman who is the subject of the articles was a victim of child abuse and when she was asked if she wanted a pelvis exam, stated no. Yet she woke up from a seditive, the doctor was giving her one anyway. Why must there be regulations for doctors to NOT perform examinations without consent? I read that. It was horrifying. The nurse had been sexually abused was given a pelvic exam by medical students while she was unconscious and had not consented. And it was completely unrelated to the reason she was there in the first place.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2020 10:13:19 GMT -5
Birth control IS pregnancy control.... yes but abortion is not pregnancy control since it already happened Planned Parenthood works very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which prevents the need for abortion. Anyone opposed to abortion should support PP for that reason alone. Instead they vote for politicians who vote to cut funding for prevention, for actual sex education, for low cost birth control; all the things that can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. So don't give me the "I'm opposed to PP because..." if you vote Republican.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 10:21:41 GMT -5
yes but abortion is not pregnancy control since it already happened Planned Parenthood works very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which prevents the need for abortion. Anyone opposed to abortion should support PP for that reason alone. Instead they vote for politicians who vote to cut funding for prevention, for actual sex education, for low cost birth control; all the things that can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. So don't give me the "I'm opposed to PP because..." if you vote Republican. wll it's like everything else everyone has an opinion, and in such will vote to what they line up with. Nothing is perfect but weighing out what one likes from something to what they dislike. Personally planned parenthood with abortions take it over the top period nothing else matters because you can get those services elsewhere. Btw...there are democrats who are against abortion so it's not just political issue...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2020 10:25:55 GMT -5
Planned Parenthood works very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which prevents the need for abortion. Anyone opposed to abortion should support PP for that reason alone. Instead they vote for politicians who vote to cut funding for prevention, for actual sex education, for low cost birth control; all the things that can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. So don't give me the "I'm opposed to PP because..." if you vote Republican. wll it's like everything else everyone has an opinion, and in such will vote to what they line up with. Nothing is perfect but weighing out what one likes from something to what they dislike. Personally planned parenthood with abortions take it over the top period nothing else matters because you can get those services elsewhere if you have the money. If you are poor, you are screwed.Btw...there are democrats who are against abortion so it's not just political issue... Fixed it for you
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 18, 2020 10:29:09 GMT -5
Planned Parenthood works very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which prevents the need for abortion. Anyone opposed to abortion should support PP for that reason alone. Instead they vote for politicians who vote to cut funding for prevention, for actual sex education, for low cost birth control; all the things that can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. So don't give me the "I'm opposed to PP because..." if you vote Republican. wll it's like everything else everyone has an opinion, and in such will vote to what they line up with. Nothing is perfect but weighing out what one likes from something to what they dislike. Personally planned parenthood with abortions take it over the top period nothing else matters because you can get those services elsewhere. Btw...there are democrats who are against abortion so it's not just political issue... You forgot to mention there are Republicans who are pro choice. In other words, it is a woman's decision to continue a pregnancy or terminate it. Ergo, some Republicans have no issue with abortion.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 18, 2020 10:32:12 GMT -5
I'm disappointed in you Tennesseer. I expected you to have posted this already.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 18, 2020 10:33:24 GMT -5
It's current, but it's in no way relevant to the government passing laws regulating women's reproduction. There's a canyon-sized gap between "regulating women's reproduction" and "providing free money". So the complaint is that the government doesn't give free money some people's preferred provider? Most of the money they get is just medicaid payments like they would give any other provider for services that are covered, like pap smears. So "free money" isn't an accurate description of the money they are cutting. They are literally reducing the number of doctors available to see low income patients. They do also get grants for birth control, and cutting that off will increase the birth rate, and I suspect 100% of the women who would qualify for that coverage will now qualify for WIC, food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare payments, medicaid and free lunches. So, I never understand why we want to cut off government funded birth control and instead raise the number of people in poverty and have to support the family for a couple of decades. I know there is a theory if we leave poor people to fend for themselves, they will magically become smart, responsible and self sufficient, but thousands of years of history show that is not true. I am a practical person. Let's help prevent babies we don't want to support. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying it does not in any way amount to passing laws which regulate a woman's reproductive rights. You can still do what you like, it's changing whether the government is going to fund it...not remotely the same thing. Again, doesn't make it a good idea to cut/reduce funding, but it's in no way regulating women's reproduction any more than the government is refusing to let me live near the water by not building a lake nearby. I can still live near the water, but it's on my dime, the government isn't stopping me, they just aren't going to pay for it on my behalf.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 18, 2020 10:39:02 GMT -5
Most of the money they get is just medicaid payments like they would give any other provider for services that are covered, like pap smears. So "free money" isn't an accurate description of the money they are cutting. They are literally reducing the number of doctors available to see low income patients. They do also get grants for birth control, and cutting that off will increase the birth rate, and I suspect 100% of the women who would qualify for that coverage will now qualify for WIC, food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare payments, medicaid and free lunches. So, I never understand why we want to cut off government funded birth control and instead raise the number of people in poverty and have to support the family for a couple of decades. I know there is a theory if we leave poor people to fend for themselves, they will magically become smart, responsible and self sufficient, but thousands of years of history show that is not true. I am a practical person. Let's help prevent babies we don't want to support. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying it does not in any way amount to passing laws which regulate a woman's reproductive rights. You can still do what you like, it's changing whether the government is going to fund it...not remotely the same thing. Again, doesn't make it a good idea to cut/reduce funding, but it's in no way regulating women's reproduction any more than the government is refusing to let me live near the water by not building a lake nearby. I can still live near the water, but it's on my dime, the government isn't stopping me, they just aren't going to pay for it on my behalf. What about states/nations that DO NOT pass laws to protect women's reproductive rights? How about men over 50 have deteriorating sperm and put the health of their babies and the mothers of their babies at risk? link
" The study found that men 45 and older can experience decreased fertility and put their partners at risk for increased pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes, preeclampsia and preterm birth. Infants born to older fathers were found to be at higher risk of premature birth, late still birth, low Apgar scores, low birth weight, higher incidence of newborn seizures and birth defects such as congenital heart disease and cleft palate. As they matured, these children were found to have an increased likelihood of childhood cancers, psychiatric and cognitive disorders, and autism."
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 18, 2020 11:09:13 GMT -5
Most of the money they get is just medicaid payments like they would give any other provider for services that are covered, like pap smears. So "free money" isn't an accurate description of the money they are cutting. They are literally reducing the number of doctors available to see low income patients. They do also get grants for birth control, and cutting that off will increase the birth rate, and I suspect 100% of the women who would qualify for that coverage will now qualify for WIC, food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare payments, medicaid and free lunches. So, I never understand why we want to cut off government funded birth control and instead raise the number of people in poverty and have to support the family for a couple of decades. I know there is a theory if we leave poor people to fend for themselves, they will magically become smart, responsible and self sufficient, but thousands of years of history show that is not true. I am a practical person. Let's help prevent babies we don't want to support. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying it does not in any way amount to passing laws which regulate a woman's reproductive rights. You can still do what you like, it's changing whether the government is going to fund it...not remotely the same thing. Again, doesn't make it a good idea to cut/reduce funding, but it's in no way regulating women's reproduction any more than the government is refusing to let me live near the water by not building a lake nearby. I can still live near the water, but it's on my dime, the government isn't stopping me, they just aren't going to pay for it on my behalf. What about the Medicaid portion? Is there any real reason to cut off PP as a provider of normal medical procedures in areas that are often poorly served?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 18, 2020 11:10:22 GMT -5
I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying it does not in any way amount to passing laws which regulate a woman's reproductive rights. You can still do what you like, it's changing whether the government is going to fund it...not remotely the same thing. Again, doesn't make it a good idea to cut/reduce funding, but it's in no way regulating women's reproduction any more than the government is refusing to let me live near the water by not building a lake nearby. I can still live near the water, but it's on my dime, the government isn't stopping me, they just aren't going to pay for it on my behalf. What about states/nations that DO NOT pass laws to protect women's reproductive rights? How about men over 50 have deteriorating sperm and put the health of their babies and the mothers of their babies at risk? link
" The study found that men 45 and older can experience decreased fertility and put their partners at risk for increased pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes, preeclampsia and preterm birth. Infants born to older fathers were found to be at higher risk of premature birth, late still birth, low Apgar scores, low birth weight, higher incidence of newborn seizures and birth defects such as congenital heart disease and cleft palate. As they matured, these children were found to have an increased likelihood of childhood cancers, psychiatric and cognitive disorders, and autism."What about them? I'm not sure what the question specifically is. Beyond that, it isn't necessary to pass specific laws "protecting" things necessarily as long as you don't have laws banning things. For example, there was a ridiculous article I saw online the other day about countries which do not have laws banning slavery. And then a ton of those countries are clearly countries that don't have slavery. We don't need laws that list every possible thing that is ok to do, that's not how laws really work.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 18, 2020 11:12:40 GMT -5
I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying it does not in any way amount to passing laws which regulate a woman's reproductive rights. You can still do what you like, it's changing whether the government is going to fund it...not remotely the same thing. Again, doesn't make it a good idea to cut/reduce funding, but it's in no way regulating women's reproduction any more than the government is refusing to let me live near the water by not building a lake nearby. I can still live near the water, but it's on my dime, the government isn't stopping me, they just aren't going to pay for it on my behalf. What about the Medicaid portion? Is there any real reason to cut off PP as a provider of normal medical procedures in areas that are often poorly served? There could potentially be lots of real reasons (meaning valid reasons), but I couldn't tell you if any of those potential reasons was the logic for doing so in this case.
|
|