Did the GOP Overreach on Birth Control?

I'll gladly stand to block any of those morons from diverting from the edge. With a electric cow herd if I must! Gotta get my fun torturing those who want to torture the resat of us!

They weren't outmaneuvered as much as they chose to out maneuver themselves. Now, the Republican Party is officially against the Pill.

Yep - they've painted themselves into a corner. Not only can they not be for the pill, they also can't deny a religious organization that doesn't want to pay the minimum wage or follow any other government regulation.

How ironic from the party that was leading the fight to outlaw Sharia...

How ironic from the party that was leading the fight to outlaw Sharia...

They weren't fight to outlaw Sharia per se; they wanted to outlaw Islamic Sharia. They're fine with Christian Sharia.

What bait? I haven't been following this on FOX. However I have read the coverage in the news papers (yes, some still exist), and viewed the reports on CBS and ABC.

What is your position on Muslims managing the details of, say, prenuptial agreements (when two Muslims are marrying) according to their religious convictions?

Surely you wouldn't expect the state to intervene and demand conformation to societal norms?

The religion based organizations do NOT want to pay for the services either directly or indirectly as a matter of religion.

They are not being asked to.

If this is what you base your objections on, then your argument lacks a basis.

It is not about what a number of people do or don't do, it's about faith and religion.

What bearing do you believe your faith and religion should have on another's health care insurance? For whom, other than yourself, would you speak? Interesting that you should use the term "supreme dictator" given your stance.

Are health insurers mandated to pay for prenuptual agreements?

So now the supreme dictator can dictate what religion must do to conform to the state. You can not practice your religion if the state deems it unacceptable.

This is just more BS.

Here in MO land a Catholic priest did not follow to the letter the way the mass was said and was fired by the Vatican. This is the First amendment at work. This is a church.

Catholic hospital and universities are in the secular world and fall into US labor law there is NO first amendment except for free speech. The Gov cannot control that.

But there is NO free speech for those who work for these institutions. If the corp bosses do not like what you say you can be fired. This is because these are privately owned.

What bearing do you believe your faith and religion should have on another's health care insurance?

Religion should not have a bearing on health insurance. Religion based organizations do have a choice on what they provide and finance. It is unconstitutional to mandate religion based organizations finance services that violate the precepts of the religion.

I haven't been following this on FOX.

Except the same language is used on Fox.

Your comments are much the same as saying Obama is the cause of gas prices. Oh wait, you've already done that.

It is unconstitutional to mandate religion based organizations finance services that violate the precepts of the religion.

Wrong!!! Not in the secular world of employment.

So now the supreme dictator can dictate what religion must do to conform to the state. You can not practice your religion if the state deems it unacceptable.

Religions can do whatever the hell they want. If you're a business, however, you have to play by the same rules as all other businesses. It doesn't matter if your owner of a business is Joe Schmo or the Catholic Church or Jesus Christ Himself. Business is business, it has to abide by US law.

The notion that giving special financial advantages to some businesses on the basis of the owner's religion is somehow constitutional is laughable. I'd bet the right-wing wouldn't fight even half as hard if the issue were whether we should grant business advantage to a Muslim owner, or a Hindu owner, or literally anything other than a sect of Christianity.

Here in MO land a Catholic priest did not follow to the letter the way the mass was said and was fired by the Vatican.

One of the vows a Catholic Priest takes is obedience.

No organization is legally mandated to provide health insurance. Even under Obamacare organizations can just pay the fine. What gives Obama and the dims the authority to mandate religion based organizations violate their precepts?

IF religionj wants to play politics.....tax them. Property, income, workers the whole shabang!

The notion that giving special financial advantages to some businesses on the basis of the owner's religion is somehow constitutional is laughable.

What does that have to do with mandating a religion based organization provide specific services?

What gives Obama and the dims the authority to mandate religion based organizations violate their precepts?

What does that have to do with mandating a religion based organization provide specific services?

Religion based enterprises who hire from the secular world are NO longer just faith based and are under US labor law end of story.

LOL... liberals love to tax others. All the liberal not for profit organizations and societies should be taxed first. The OWS protesters should have been tried and fined. Any liberal based organization is playing politics and should be taxed.

What does that have to do with mandating a [business] provide specific services?

Fixed that for you.

We're not talking about "religion-based organizations" here, Bill. We're talking about businesses. The mandate always included an exemption for religious-based organizations, with very clear criteria. If you primarily exist to propagate or teach about your religion, and if you primarily hire members of that religion, then you count as a religious-based organization and you're exempt from the mandated requirement.

Catholic churches fit those requirements, so they aren't mandated to do anything. Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities don't fit those requirements, so they were mandated to follow the same laws as everyone else. The distinction couldn't be clearer.

So as I said: giving a business financial advantages based on the religion of its owner is unconstitutional. Would you be this passionate if a Buddhist were claiming his business should be exempt from federal taxes because he'd be paying for war?

What is your position on Muslims managing the details of, say, prenuptial agreements (when two Muslims are marrying) according to their religious convictions?

Are health insurers mandated to pay for prenuptual agreements?

I'm not sure I follow this.

Are you saying that the state should not be able to interfere with the religious convictions of businesses, but it is okay if they interfere with the religious convictions of a couple getting married?

billk......didn't you KNOW that grover norquist....YOU know the moron who refuses to allow the 1% to be taxed....is PERFECTLY OK with YOU and I and the rest of the 99% being taxed. Last I looked.....Obama and the dems aren't trying to create more taxes on the general public but allow the tax cuts to the 1% be allowed to expire like they were SUPPOPSED to. So much for the libs being for taxing everyone. And just goes to show those on the reich couldn't tell the truth if it came up and bitch slapped them. Didn't that hurt!

One of the vows a Catholic Priest takes is obedience.

But not to the United States of America.

A great portion of Catholic Priests in the U.S. are not U.S. born but are foreign born and are here on work visas. Their only loyalty is to the Church.

So now the supreme dictator can dictate what religion must do to conform to the state. You can not practice your religion if the state deems it unacceptable.

Utterly and completely false. The President's proposal fully and completely respects and protects the right of an individual to make their own choice regarding contraception.

When you have to lie about what happened, as you did here, it should be an indicator to you that what you're trying to advocate for is not worth advocating for.

It is not about what a number of people do or don't do, it's about faith and religion.

Correct, but it is about everyone's faith and religion not just yours.

Obama and the libs are obfuscating their assault on Christian religion.

The President and most liberals are Christians, and are protecting their rights to practice Christianity as they see fit, instead of capitulating to what they consider your twisted and corrupted interpretation of Christianity.

The choice of religion based organizations do not limit the availability of the services only who is responsible for paying for the services.

That contention has already been repudiated with numerous examples where the Christian-dominated government has inflicted requirements on small denominations (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) and non-Christians (like Muslim) without concern or respect for how those mandates violate those religion's tenets. Face it: You want to have it both ways: You want the government to subjugate everyone to your religious beliefs but refuse to subjugate yourself to the religious beliefs of others. It's a thoroughly egocentric, self-serving policy, without even an iota of honorable legitimacy.

Religion should not have a bearing on health insurance.

Correct: Health insurance offered should be based on secular medical considerations only, not the religious beliefs of the employer.

Religion based organizations do have a choice on what they provide and finance.

As much as any other employer has, and that is governed by the will of the people, not by the employer's preferences.

It is unconstitutional to mandate religion based organizations finance services that violate the precepts of the religion.

No it isn't. You made that up. The right to freely exercise one's religion is a right granted to people, not employers. Employers are not, for example, allowed to discriminate in hiring, firing and advancement, on the basis of religious belief and practice, for non-religious employees. So the issue here is that you simply don't understand the US Constitution well enough to understand the issue being discussed in this thread.

Even under Obamacare organizations can just pay the fine.

That much is true. So they can just pay the fine and avoid the whole issue. Problem solved.

liberals love to tax others

And right-wingers love to try to evade their responsibilities and obligations to others and to society. The basis of their advocacy is nothing by egocentric self-enrichment without any consideration of anyone other than themselves. So, what's your point?

All the liberal not for profit organizations and societies should be taxed first. ... Any liberal based organization is playing politics and should be taxed.

Here we see a perfect example of the underlying instinct for Dominionism: You say that those you disagree with should be punished, while implying that those you agree with, who are different in no other way than the fact that you agree with them, should be immune. That kind of self-serving insistence on receiving special treatment for themselves is a hallmark of the right-wing. Meanwhile, liberals are distinguished for their efforts to receive special treatment for others, i.e., for those less fortunate. This clearly shows the difference in morality between the right-wing (selfishness) and the liberals (altruism).

The OWS protesters should have been tried and fined.

For what? Trespassing? Yes, I agree. Now let's get back to the transgressions and offensive perspectives of the right-wing, instead of letting you try to derail the thread to distract attention away from what we were already discussing.

LOL... liberals love to tax others. All the liberal not for profit organizations and societies should be taxed first. The OWS protesters should have been tried and fined. Any liberal based organization is playing politics and should be taxed.

And all conservatives should be taken out and shot.

There, I can spout sensless, fact-free inflammatory rhetoric just as well as you, Bill.

What US Code or case law gives Obama and the dims the authority to mandate religion based organizations violate the precepts of the religion?

See post #8.14

Does not answer the question.

Does not answer the question.

Do you have comprehension problem or just being obtuse?

HOW about since the church wants to push POLICY they have their tax exempt status removed. They can no longer play it both ways!

What US Code or case law gives Obama and the dims the authority to mandate religion based organizations violate the precepts of the religion?

I guess Bill K. NY doesn't want to admit that states already do that, not to mention many catholic hospitials and institutions...

Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception...

...Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits:

University of Scranton, for example, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization…Also problematic is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of “contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control.”

DePaul University in Chicago covers birth control in both its fully insured HMO plan and its self-insured PPO plan and excludes “elective abortion,” said spokesman John Holden, adding that the 1,800 employee-university responded to a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission several years ago and added artificial contraception as a benefit to its Blue Cross PPO.

Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., offers employee health insurance via the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, a consortium of Christian Bible and other private college and universities. Its plan excludes abortion, but probably covers artificial contraception as a prescription drug, said C. Gregg Conroy, the executive director of the TICUA Benefit Consortium.

Boston College, the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, and other Catholic organizations that are located in one of the 28 states that already require employers to provide contraception benefits could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate — but didn’t do so. Instead, they — like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country — chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/

Do you have comprehension problem or just being obtuse?

Let me expand on what Jack said, here, to Bill. There is a difference between saying that you disagree with something and claiming it wasn't said. Right-wingers (at least on Newsvine) are increasingly using the tactic of denying that answers are provided to their questions, posed in these threads, to avoid having to defend their perspectives on qualitative grounds. It's a self-serving and indefensibly lazy way of "discussing" an issue, and ultimately is grievously disrespectful to the casual reader, who would reasonably expect the right-winger to conscientiously post a substantive rebuttal to what the liberal has posted, instead of just inanely denying it was even said.

Right-wingers (at least on Newsvine) are increasingly using the tactic of denying that answers are provided to their questions, posed in these threads, to avoid having to defend their perspectives on qualitative grounds. It's a self-serving and indefensibly lazy way of "discussing" an issue, and ultimately is grievously disrespectful to the casual reader,

Absolutely Walt. It's like watching the Borg evolve a response to an attack!

Whenever I start seeing a particular phrase (like Liberals love to tax others) being picked up by the Vine's Teahadist contingent, it can always be traced back to either Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage or one of their minor deities.

It show a remarkable lack of ability to cogitate and express an independent or even critical thought.

I don't know that I'd call it self-serving however. It's more cowardly.

OK, Bill, I propose that all male employees of Jewish-owned businesses must be circumcised as a condition of employment. After all, it's a basic tenet of their religion, and should therefore apply to everyone who works there, right?

How does that grab ya? The logic is the same as yours.

lol!!!

I never would've thought I'd ask anybody named "Severed Head in a Jar" to be my friend on Newsvine...

but I just did!

Thank you Severed. Your sarcasm was much appreciated.

The controversy is a mandate that religion based organizations provide and finance services that violate the beliefs, teaching, and precepts of the religion. It has nothing to do with what goes on between the doctor and the patient.

The controversy is a mandate that religion based organizations provide and finance services that violate the beliefs, teaching, and precepts of the religion.

... and how do those beliefs outweigh the religious beliefs and decisions made by individuals, including patients who want access to birth control and their doctors who prescribe them? People utilizing a religious focused hospital and still ask for birth control understand what they are asking for. They've made their choice, the religious institution should not discriminate, these people made their choice and that should be respected.

The controversy is a mandate that religion based organizations provide and finance services that violate the beliefs, teaching, and precepts of the religion.

Then the religious owners are perfectly free to shut down their secular businesses if they don't want to comply with US law. As long as you own a business in the United States, you have to abide by the same laws as every other business. It's really not that complicated.

The controversy is a mandate that religion based organizations provide and finance services that violate the beliefs, teaching, and precepts of the religion.

False. The mandate is a mandate on all employers. The mandate even exempts churches. When you have to deceive the casual reader to make your point, as you've done here, it should tell you something about how invalid what you're posting is.

Don't bother,WaitUU. Bill's sitting there with his hands over his ears saying, "La, la, la, I can't hear you."

I don't see any connection between covering Viagra and not covering the pill.

Viagra allows a man to become well, you know, and that allows a woman to become pregnant. We can't have that now, can we? And Rick "the almighty" Santorum says that no one should have sex for fun. Nope, no Viagra for men.

I see another reason for the Church to ban Viagra. The Church's position is that it is God's will that we procreate BUT that it must be done "naturally". So, if the Church forbids in vitro fertilization as unnatural, then it should similarly forbid Viagra. If a man's impotence is God's will, then he just has to live with it. That argument seems more logical than Viagra vs. birth control pills if you are trying to say the Church is illogical.

And Rick "the almighty" Santorum says that no one should have sex for fun. Nope, no Viagra for men.

Santorum and the Catholic Bishops are actually in favor of providing Viagra, because it increases the chance of more pregnancies. I guess the idea is to breed more potential Catholics, because they're losing the ones they have.

Severed, if increasing the chance of pregnancies is their goal, then what is their objection to in vitro? At what point does "unnatural" kick in?

This entire idea of controlling people and their sexual and reproductive lives is just ridiculous. Hopefully, some people will see that a vote for Santorum is a vote for the United States to be controlled by the Catholic Church and their laws. I just cannot believe that this is how most people want our country to be run. This is a blatant cross over of church and state. I thought that Republicans were so proud that we lived in a democracy with freedoms. You can kiss that goodbye if any of these Republicans/conservatives/tea baggers/ libertarians wins the next election. Dominionism is what it is called, and it MUST be stopped!

tweet, are you old enough to remember the 1960 election when jFK had to assure the nation that he would not govern the country as a stooge for the Pope? We've come a long way, haven't we?

No, that was before I knew anything about politics. However, I do remember that my very Republican parents basically told me that Democrats and Kennedy were akin to the devil. They are still die-hard Republicans and believe everything that FAUX tells them. It's sad.

This entire issue makes me think of a Seinfield episode.....the soup nazi, but instead it's Santorum, the SEX nazi....."NO SEX FOR YOU unless it is to have a child!"

SMS

if increasing the chance of pregnancies is their goal, then what is their objection to in vitro? At what point does "unnatural" kick in?

They don't object to in vitrio; they just don't waqnt any embryos to die in the process. If they could mandate that a couple attempting in vitrio fertilization had to implant all of the fertilized ova somewhere they're fine with it. So either the mother has to implant all of them in herself (think Octomom) or find volunteer wombs for the rest.

As far as "unnatural"kicking in, I'd say every time Rick opens his mouth.

Severed, I believe you are mistaken.

http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/apr1997/feature1.asp

I checked a few other sites and as of 2010 there doesn't seem to be any change in the Church's position.

Pat--

BINGO!!!

Oh so well said...

FR sent.

Really LISA? As a woman you can't see why WOMEN would take any of this stuff seriously?

What a sham...er SHAME! Yeah, that's what I meant SHAME.

really LISA? As a woman you can't see why WOMEN would take any of this stuff seriously?

As a woman i felt it was pretty important to learn about my body and to be able to know when I was ovulating....

Vote Obama that will solve all your problems.

Ok Lisa, let's make a deal.

You don't tell me how to vote and I won't tell you where to put it.

K?

disclaimer: no ultra rightwing conservatives were harmed in the creation of this sarcastic comment.

Of course, I understand your comment was intended to be sarcasm, but I choose to accept it for the truth of the matter stated. Sarcasm filters are useful.

No it was not I know how to use the sarcasm tag.

What century are we living in again?

Well according to Einstein, time is relative.

So, let's see....8 plus 16....

carry the 2....

and God said: E=MC squared.....

and then there was light....

er....

Well...

It depends on the political beliefs of the person you're asking

If they are members of the GOP...this would be the 19th Century.

...relatively speaking.

Spike Evans, Exactly! No one is forcing any one to use contraception if they don't want to use it. Is the Catholic Church so weak that they cannot control their entire flock? Oh no! Imagine that!

As they bugger America from behind they "over-reach" the courtesy reach-around one would expect. I would run screaming too.

The best way to win against an incumbent president is to find an area of disappointment with the president and exploit it. And they just dont really have too many areas to exploit with Obama, especially with the economy improving. Obama does have many flaws and many areas of disappointment but then all tend to be left wing in nature. Things like the failure to investigate the past admin, the failure to arrest anyone involved in the financial meltdown, the failure to undo the bush intelligence apparatus and executive power overreach. Hasnt let medical marijuana alone. Hasnt ended all wars. still too much a corporatist. ETC I dont necessarily agree with all those, but those are the common complaints. That he hasnt been left enough.

He has really left nothing on the right for them to grasp on.

He lowered taxes, he reduced gun restrictions, killed osama, warred a bit in Libya, kept the bush intelligence apparatus, was forced to but kept open gitmo. We havent been attacked. The markets are doing well the gdp growth is ok, UE decline seems real, what have they got? gay marriage and this one single ruling on contraception. Obama is mostly a center right president, they have no where to go but off the deep end. To go full on taliban.

The best way to win against an incumbent president is to find an area of disappointment with the president and exploit it

i know it seems like repubs are stupid. If they wanted to win the election they would be using Ron Paul's talking points on the economy and foreign policy to their full advantage. They would get a young good looking guy to say exactly what Ron Paul is saying and they would win hands down. Intead they are talking about a brokered convention and plan to bring in Jeb Bush. The people will not vote in another Buh an they know that. They want to let Obama be the one to crash the economy.

Obama is not improving the economy if you believe he is you must not be in the real world with rising gas and food prices.

If you really believe it is the goal of any political party in America to save the economy you are sadly mistaken the goal is to completely demoralize and impoverish all but the wealthy and that goal is being met with ease.

The dems and repubs are working together right now to conquer and divide the people and they are doing an excellent job of it.

The dems and repubs are working together right now to conquer and divide the people and they are doing an excellent job of it.

Yes Lisa, except there has ONLY been ONE concerted effort to stripmine women's reproductive rights...and it's by the GOP/TP...in States all over the country. There were 64 anti-women laws proposed in the first 6 months of 2011. Of them there were 30 in the month of April 2011 alone. MANY of them passed. Here's a smattering in alphabetical order.

Arizona:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, also a Republican, signed a new law banning state tax credits for donations to Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers.

Georgia:

A Georgia state representative known for his fringe politics has introduced a radical pro-life bill that not only calls for the nullification of Roe v. Wade, but also makes having a miscarriage a capital offense unless the mother can irrefutably prove that there was “no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such an event.” Laced with misogyny, insensitivity, and pseudo-science, Representative Bobby Franklin’s House Bill 1 (HB1) could be considered ridiculous, if it was not just the latest episode in a frightening turn of right-wing pro-life extremism that targets pregnant women.

HB1 rationalizes that, because “Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death,” the failure of an inseminated egg to come to term should fall under suspicion as an act of “prenatal murder.” So, if Franklin has his way, hospitals would be mandated to report every miscarriage (which, he points out, is known medically as “spontaneous abortion”) to the local police, who would then somehow ascertain the cause of the miscarriage. The burden of proof, in other words, would be placed on the woman who might be mourning the loss of her pregnancy.

Indiana:

The Obama administration prohibited the State of Indiana on Wednesday from carrying out a new state law that cuts off money for Planned Parenthood clinics providing health care to low-income women on Medicaid.

Indiana has hit a new low in the right's attacks on women's reproductive rights. A provision of House Bill 1210 would actually require doctors to tell pregnant women that abortion could increase their risk for breast cancer -- no matter the science.

The abortion/breast cancer connection is controversial at best. Health organizations have refuted the theory. In fact, researchers have found that breast cancer risk increases temporarily when a pregnancy is carried to a full term.

Beyond that, the bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks, force women to view an ultrasound unless they submit a written refusal and targets Planned Parenthood by outlawing state funding for organizations that perform abortions or maintains facilities where women can get abortions.

Mandating the spread of misinformation is irresponsible and reprehensible. Indiana's women deserve accurate information and real reproductive choice. Tell Indiana lawmakers to oppose all bills that attack women's health rights.

Iowa:

Key Iowa Republicans are drafting legislation mirroring a new, more restrictive Nebraska abortion law in an attempt to derail plans of a Nebraska doctor to open a Council Bluffs clinic where late-term abortions would be performed.

A new law took effect Oct. 15 in Nebraska that bans abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, or roughly five months, except in cases in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

The Midwest is seeing a wave of new measures intended to give additional protections to fetuses—including a growing number of bills that could make it legal to kill an abortion doctor in the name of protecting an "unborn child."

A South Dakota bill that could have allowed the "justifiable homicide" defense to be used for individuals who murder abortion providers was shelved last week after public outcry. And as my colleagues Daniel Schulman and Nick Baumann reported Thursday morning, a Nebraska lawmaker introduced a very similar bill there. Now legislators in Iowa are have also introduced a pair of bills that would recognize a fetus as a separate person and would permit "deadly force" in the protection of that fetus, as the Iowa Independent's Lynda Waddington reported Thursday

Kansas:

Just this week, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, signed a pair of new Kansas laws that ban abortions (no exceptions) after 21 weeks of pregnancy and that require minors seeking to terminate pregnancies to get consent from both their parents.

Louisiana:

BATON ROUGE, La. -- A group of abortion clinics filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging two new Louisiana abortion laws that require ultrasound exams for all women getting abortions and that bar medical malpractice coverage for doctors who perform elective abortions.

The new ultrasound law not only requires the medical procedure, but also requires that women know they have the option to hear a description of what is seen in the ultrasound, to receive a photograph of the ultrasound image and to view the ultrasound.
There is no exception for victims of rape or incest.

Nebraska:

Nebraska, debates are still alive between pro and anti abortion groups when the last legislative session was marked by the restrictions of abortion. The executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, Julie Schmit-Albin, said has already foreseen the attention that the coming 2011 session will get.egislative session was marked by the restrictions of abortion. The executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, Julie Schmit-Albin, said has already foreseen the attention that the coming 2011 session will get.

A law that has been in effect in October forbids abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy because there have been disputed claims that a fetus can already feel the pain after that point. It is obviously outside the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that allows abortion between 22 to 24 weeks if the fetus has no viable chance of survival outside the womb.

U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska Republican group is known for pushing for a federal law, same with the officials of National Right to Life introducing similar laws in other states. Schmit-Albin believes that there is more to be done in Nebraska.

New Jersey:

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” (HR 3) that would limit the rape exemption for abortion to “forcible rape” which would have defined many rapes, for example, statutory rape of a minor, as non-forcible and therefore not covered by federal assistance

Pennsylvania:

Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced a bill (HR 358) would allow states to deny insurance coverage for birth control meaning hospitals could deny abortion procedures and transport to a facility that would provide a woman with an abortion even if failure to provide an abortion would mean the death of the woman

South Dakota:

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in federal court on Friday seeking to block a South Dakota law that would require women seeking abortions to face the nation’s longest waiting period, three days, and undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortion. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to suspend the law from taking effect on July 1 until a final ruling is issued on whether it violates a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

Texas:

Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, made the bill, which the Legislature passed on Thursday, a priority and is expected to sign it. The bill requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to give the woman the opportunity to see the results and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.

Virginia:

Lawmakers in Virginia approved an amendment Wednesday that would ban private insurance plans from covering abortions if they participate in a state health care exchange under President Obama’s new health care law.

The amendment, proposed by Gov. Bob McDonnell and passed by both the State House and Senate on Wednesday, states that no insurance plan sold as part of the state health care exchange could cover abortion except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

House Republicans continued Wednesday with their efforts to dismantle the health care law. On a 251-to-175 vote, the House approved a bill prohibiting federal money to be used for insurance plans that cover abortions. The bill goes beyond current federal law, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. It would also wipe out tax breaks for private employers who provide coverage if their plans offer abortion services and would eliminate the ability to pay for an abortion with pretax dollars from a flexible spending plan. Voting 235 to 191, the House blocked money for construction of school-based health centers that had been earmarked in the health care act.

As a longtime voting member of the Democratic Party...I KNOW the Dems aren't perfect. There's even a few things they do that I could b!tchslap them for...

But PLEASE DO explain to me how I'm supposed to support ANY political party that hates women on THIS LEVEL!!!

Why would ANY women support these people? Could you explain that? Could you?