Because republicans got no lady bits

Senator Jon Kyl doesn’t need maternity care and objects to it because it raises his premium. Hey!  Who said that the republican party is just for old white guys?!  Take it back!  Take it back NOW!

(The article notes that “in several states” insurers are not required to provide basic maternity care.  If you’re talking about individual policies, it’s actually “in most states.”)

28 thoughts on “Because republicans got no lady bits

  1. i didn’t know that maternity care wasn’t covered in most states, that is ridiculous. i did love reading the comments at the link talking about “inner jackass” lol.

    also, i don’t understand why the proposed health care plan doesn’t cover abortion.

  2. Uh, bifeemefatale, there are plenty pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. In fact, there was a bill (I can’t remember the name) initiated by pro-lifers to extend maternity care coverage that pro-choicers killed because it refered to unborn babies as babies.

  3. Flower–and what party were those who intro’d and those who killed the amendment? Btw, I support the downing of that amendment–prolifers have been trying for years to sneakily build legal support for the “personhood” of fetuses.

  4. Bets – it is legal, but as an anti-racist, we of all people should know legal doesn’t automatically mean right — whether we are pro-choice or pro-life. I don’t remember which party was which – femme, I’m not interested in painting one party as the good guys and one party as the bady guys. I’m not too fond of either of them.

    I don’t know how that’s sneakily building support for the personhood of fetuses — either you’re a human patient or you’re not. I think it’s sneaky to want to cover unborn people like people but deny that they are people — not just sneaky but blatantly hypocritical. “Sure, your unborn child can have healthcare, as long as we pretend its not a child…” I’m sure the women who would have benefitted from the law really appreciate your lack of support for it.

  5. And of course, the law could have been posited by bipartisan pro-lifers and killed by bipartisan pro-choicers.

  6. Flower, it’s *maternity* care. Mater=mother. It doesn’t “cover fetuses like people” because fetuses are not people. You don’t get to prioritize a fetus over its life support system, an existing adult human being.

    What makes you think *I’m* not a person who would have benefited from that amendment? But I don’t want to have to make a choice between having health care and having the right to privacy, bodily integrity and control of what can be a life-threatening, and most certainly life-altering condition. Furthermore, I shouldn’t have to. In every other prosperous, industrialized nation women have maternity care *and* the right to abortion.

    Btw, I would love to see some citations for your assertions because all my Googling has failed to produce any evidence of such a bill.

  7. Hi Bi,

    I wish I could remember the bill’s H.R. number which would make it easier to find, but I can’t. Maternity care is care for a mother and baby — it’s just silliness to pretend otherwise. And sometimes its solely for the baby — as in the case of in utero surgery on an unborn child — how would you describe such procedures that aim to heal only the child and not his or her “life support system?” Can you cite sources for your claim that fetuses aren’t people? Is that supposed to be a biological assertion? A philosophical one? What? And really — the baby isn’t an existing human being? What’s being pulled from the womb during abortion? An imaginary being? Are mothers always adults? Do only adults have rights? No one is talking about prioritizing a baby over it’s mom — the law was about protecting both.

    I didn’t mean to suggest you wouldn’t have benefitted from the law, I’m just saying that other women would have too — women who are being denied healthcare they would have wanted because some people didn’t like the language. Women who were offered no choice by pro-choicers about whether they found the language problematic or not.

    Privacy has often been an excuse for abusive behaviors — it used to be an excuse for the legalization of wife beating. Bodily integrity would make a lot more sense if it was the woman’s body being destroyed in abortion. And of course — abortion is most life-threatening and life-altering for the baby — who has no control over the situation at all. The all the other nations argument doesn’t make sense to me — all the other prosperous industrialized nations also once went about colonizing Africa — the simple fact that other nations do something doesn’t make it right. But my intent wasn’t to argue with you or offend you – my point is those of us with lady bits, those of us who are poor, and those of us who are anti-racist don’t all speak with the same voice — just think of anti-racist activist, poor black woman, and ardent pro-lifer Fannie Lou Hamer.

  8. “And of course — abortion is most life-threatening and life-altering for the baby — who has no control over the situation at all. ”
    _____________
    now Flower, I do not agree with that statement one bit. I wonder, why are so many women who have had abortions so reluctant to openly discuss how they feel, why is it that abortion is a taboo topic for so many women? you don’t have to answer, but i would bet that you have never experienced an abortion.

    for young teens, getting pregnant is a point of no return. life is never the same for the mother, it is life altering and possibly life threatening, as well.

    if a young teen gets pregnant, her life is altered forever, she keeps the baby, her life is completely different, she has an abortion, she may feel a range of emotions for a life time over that decision, she decide to give birth but not keep the baby, she might grieve for that baby the rest of her life, all the options are complicated and filled with great sorrow and loss.

    Flower and Bi, I did enjoy reading your exchange, thanks for that.

  9. Hi Kathy,

    I understand, and don’t mind, that you don’t agree with me, but I would caution you not to try to guess whether I or any other woman has experienced an abortion. I agree with what you say, very sensitively and compassionately, about teen pregnancy. Abortion is a taboo topic for many reasons — some women feel great relief after an abortion, others great regret, and both sentiments and everything in between can be hard to share.

    I’m glad you enjoyed our exchange. I enjoy reading your and Bi’s comments.

  10. flower,
    i am curious why you think it is necessary to caution me not to guess, my comment was off the cuff, but your comment seems to cement the taboo of why women do not discuss or admit to the abortion experience.

    this taboo of not discussing or admitting to the abortion experience is horrible for women!

  11. The reason I commented that you shouldn’t guess if someone has had an abortion is not because abortion should be taboo – I think we should discuss abortion more, but you shouldn’t guess if someone has had one because many women don’t want others to know, or think its others’ business, until they disclose it themselves, and because you can’t tell reliably from someone’s behavior or words whether or not they’ve had an abortion. You can hurt someone by guessing right and by guessing wrong or by assuming they have or haven’t had an experience that led to (or validates or invalidates) their views or by forcing them down some paths they don’t want to go down to defend those views or by making them the object of speculation if you don’t know them personally and they aren’t willing to share, etc. For me personally, I’m discussing policy. I don’t care for my personal life to be the object of speculation (even off the cuff speculation.) And I think women should have the choice to discuss policy without presenting their specific who, what, when, where, whys on demand. The gist of your post seems to be, “You disagree with me, I think you’re wrong, and that wrong view probably comes from your inexperience. If you had experience you would have the right point of view and agree with me.” People with a range of experiences have a range of views. Do you really think that the way to end the taboo around abortion is by guessing whether or not individual women (who may or may not want to be guessed about) have had abortion(s?) Bi says abortion is a matter of privacy – I don’t think that privacy should be an excuse for doing violence but I do think that after the fact abortion is a private matter until a woman decides otherwise.

  12. Flower–it isn’t doing violence to me to force me to go through with 9 months of an unwanted pregnancy? You say you aren’t prioritizing fetuses over adult women, but if you outlaw abortion, that is exactly what you’re doing.

    There are no good choices for a woman who is pregnant when she doesn’t want to be. Abortion is not an easy choice, neither is adoption, neither is keeping an unplanned child. But I regard it as basic liberty, a basic human right, that I and not the state and not the church get to make that difficult decision along with my doctor about what happens to my body and the rest of my life.

    And prolifers always seem to forget that not all pregnancies have happy endings with chubby healthy babies. A friend of mine very much wanted to get pregnant. She and her husband tried for a very long time. When she finally did get pregnant, they were thrilled. They found out in the second trimester that their fetus had trisomy 18, a 3-chambered heart, severe spina bifida and most of her organs growing outside the abdominal wall. If she had carried to term, the child’s life would have been measured in scant hours of only pain. If you knew her, would you have told her to keep this baby? It’s people like her that get the majority of late-term abortions. People faced with a devastating diagnosis and the end of a dream, not selfish bitches who want to look good in a dress again. It frustrates me so much when anti-choice forces paint women who have abortions as selfish, heartless or immature for not wanting to continue their pregnancies. They claim they’re all about caring and respect when they never seem to try to see women with this same compassion, only their fetuses, and they make a very gray issue seem simple.

  13. @Flower,

    Of course I do not believe that guessing is a good thing, but I am trying to point out that abortion is a taboo topic, Women are silenced, and I would guess that one reason is that the word “murder” is nearly always brought into the discussion, in addition to all the other silencing tecniques, such as religious shame and women and sexuality.

    Until women are able to share their experiences, we will be missing out on a significant insight, it has nothing to do with having the right answer, although I do think that experience does trump ideology.

  14. Bi, when I say violence, I mean, your body isn’t the one being ripped up. As for priorities, I would never choose a baby’s life over a mother’s, I would never choose a mother’s life over a baby’s — I’m for both. I agree there are no easy choices for a woman facing a crisis pregnancy – there can indeed be good ones, though. I know you regard abortion as a human right — people regarded slaveholding the same way. No the church doesn’t have a say in what goes on (many church’s a pro-choice anyways) — it is the state’s job however to protect people from violence. Again, if abortion involved just the woman’s body and life you’d have more of a point.

    I have no idea on where you get your views on the kind of babies most prolifers think pregnancies result in and how they treat and view women who have abortions beyond your own stereotypes. Who is it providing free counseling, babysitting, housing, outreach, parenting classes, etc. and even post-abortion help to women in crisis pregnancies if not pro-lifers? Free, mind you, not $300 per baby like an abortion. How does that translate to contempt for or judgement for women? But yes, I do believe all people have the right to continue their lives even if they live outside the womb only a few hours. And actually George Tiller, the late term abortionists, once said himself that only 8% of his late term abortions were due to fetal abnormality. Pro-lifers have never said abortion was simple – just wrong.

    Kathy, who is doing the silencing of women? Have you heard of Rachel’s Vineyard? It’s one of the many organizations that encourages post-abortive women whether pro-choice or pro-life to come to terms with their abortion and its run by Preists for Life. They use religion as a force for healing – never shame.

    So please tell me specifically about how these silencing techniques are deployed and by whom. Keep in mind, a large chunk of the women who call abortion murder are post-abortive — should they be silenced if that’s how they feel?

  15. I wouldn’t put my dog through the kind of suffering my friend’s baby would have had if they had carried to term. I feel that in that case termination was the most loving thing they could have done and so do they. Why do you worship the idea of life so much that you think people ought to be forced to suffer through it? What benefit would that child have received through gasping in pain for a few hours?

    As far as being ripped up, are you aware of new neurological research that shows that fetuses are not conscious in the womb? Their brainwaves are much like those of people in deep comas. They literally do not know what happens nor do they consciously register pain. And before you tell me about ultrasounds of fetuses moving away from unpleasant stimuli, so do paramecia and amoebae, single-celled organisms with no pain sense. It’s reflexive.

    “I would never choose a baby’s life over a mother’s, I would never choose a mother’s life over a baby’s”
    The simple fact is, there are cases in which such a choice must be made. the question is who gets to make it. I trust each individual woman to make the right choice for her and her family, you don’t.

    We’re obviously not going to change each others’ minds here, and I think we’ve hijacked this thread enough.

  16. Sure, I’m willing to end the discussion. But I’ll go ahead and answer the questions you asked me. Bi, do you realize that “being humane” was the reason the Nazis gave for killing hundred of thousands of mentally and physically handicapped people? I’m sure many of them were suffering as badly as your friend’s baby would have. Do you know that not one association of handicapped people supports abortion for babies with their handicap — that’s the province of the able and ableist. As for fetal pain, it’s not conclusive what unborn babies feel when. However, we do know that abortion is legal all nine months of a pregnancy — after babies can bounce in time to music, have musical preferences, recognize their mothers’ voices reading stories, etc. And of course, we don’t let people do violence to others even if they are unconcious i.e. date rape.

    As for choosing between a woman and baby, I like this analogy that I didn’t make up “If a car wreck has trapped two passengers in such a way that saving one might take the life of the other, the emergency personnel on the scene would never intentionally kill one to get the other one out. Instead, they would do everything possible to save both. If in that process one loses its life, that would be seen as a regrettable, but unavoidable, outcome. That dynamic applies when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The woman’s physician should be directed to do everything possible to save both mother and baby. If in that effort the child dies, that should be considered an unavoidable, thus lawful, outcome.”

    As for trusting women, I think this response from a pro-life website pretty much clarifies my position:

    Among the millions of people in the pro-life movement, the vast majority are women, including most of its leaders. To suggest that this female-dominated entity seeks to squash other women, or doesn’t trust women, would be silly if it were not so condescending. This is just another shabby tactic the abortion lobby uses to keep from having to defend abortion.

    To understand how truly asinine this “trust women” rhetoric is, imagine someone opposing laws against rape or incest because he “trusts men to be their own moral agents.”

    Or imagine that a woman is scheduled to have an abortion tomorrow, but gives birth in her home today. If the baby survives, should she be allowed to kill it? After all, the child was going to be killed the next day anyway. Why should she lose her “right to choose” because of a premature delivery that was completely beyond her control? Is she only allowed to pay someone else to kill her baby, but not allowed to kill it herself? Are we saying that we only trust women to make good moral decisions while they’re pregnant?

    If we are supposed to just blindly trust women, why not trust them across the board? Let each woman make her own moral choice about whether to stop at red lights, embezzle money from her employer, write bad checks, use cocaine, or become a prostitute. Let’s also exempt all female business owners from discrimination laws which make it illegal for companies to refuse employment or service to minorities. In fact, since every law on the books prevents women from choosing to engage in a particular activity and says that women can’t be trusted to make that decision, shouldn’t the pro-choice mob be screaming that women should be exempted from all laws? Do they trust women or don’t they?
    The reality is that the only reason for the law to even exist is because people – men and women – can’t be trusted to always do what’s right. Laws are necessary to keep them from inflicting their immoral decisions on others.

    Clearly, this “trust women” rhetoric is a sham. By using the term “moral agents” to describe women who submit to abortion, the pro-choice gang hopes to create the illusion that women who pay to have their children slaughtered do so out of some kind of moral conviction. It’s just a rhetorical shell-game to make abortion seem morally defensible.

  17. P.S. I mean I agree with the sentiments of this argument — not particularly the language. People on both sides of abortion (or animal rights or global warming or whatever) get pretty passionate and can sometimes use heated language. The last paragraph of this, especially, almost reminds me of PETA. I, and all the pro-lifers I know, think women who have abortions are sincere in their moral convictions — they just don’t think that makes it morally defensible.

  18. “…know you regard abortion as a human right — people regarded slaveholding the same way.”

    “People,” eh? Hey, guess what: Africans are people. Always have been, in fact.

  19. Flower:”So please tell me specifically about how these silencing techniques are deployed and by whom. Keep in mind, a large chunk of the women who call abortion murder are post-abortive — should they be silenced if that’s how they feel?”
    _______________

    link please to your assertion that a large chunc of women who call abortion murder are post-abortive, and no, if that is how someone feels let’s hear it.
    i still contend that a large portion of women are silent, so we can’t know what a large chunk of women feel about it.

    Flower, you do use inflammatory language, such as “murder”, and “pro-life gang”, and simply stating after the fact that you realize that it might be inflammatory, i think that was what you were saying anyway, is like saying to unring the bell. the language you use, such as “women killing their babies” is the sort of language that prevents other voices from being heard, the language you used in your posts is a great example of how women are silenced.

    Bifemmefatale, i will check out your link when i get a chance, thanks!

  20. Really, Bi, I lost an argument by comparing people who argue for humane killing to other people who argued for humane killing? You lost the argument by being unable to rebut it. Raijin, unborn babies have always been people too. They, like Africans, just haven’t always been recognized as such. Kathy — by teling me the kind of language I shouldn’t use you’re silencing me. You can find plenty of women who call abortion murder through the organizations and websites Silent No More, Rachel’s Vineyard, Preists for Life, Gargaro, etc. You can either go to the websites and search through their testimonies or contact the organizations themselves. It’s funny how you want to censor my language but bi can call people (including post-abortive pro-life women) anti-choice or Repugnicians who think women have abortions to get back into a dress or are so dumb they think all pregnancies result in healthy babies. Are you worried about her silencing pro-life post-abortive women? When a post-abortive women considers her abortion to be murder should she be silenced?

  21. Flower,
    I have No Intentions of censor, I was merely pointing out to you that your choice of words may increase the likelyhood of women feeling reluctant to share.

Comments are closed.