Cardinal Justin Rigali is killing me over here. Catholic schools and other religious organizations got so much money for so many years out of the U.S. gov't on the condition that government funds were not used for expressly religious activity (that has changed; now when religious schools receive public funds they can buy rosaries for all the gov't cares, but it was not always this way).
Of course that money was going to rosaries! They assigned the government monies to the textbook fund, bought the same textbooks, and used the extra to buy rosaries! But it was symbolically important for SCOTUS that the funds be separate for many many years--until 2002, IIRC, in the Zelman school voucher case--so they were formally separate and the schools had to go through all the bureaucratic hassle Anna outlines up there as a constant reminder: the federal government does not wish to subsidize this product/activity.
But now that this supposed fungibility is benefiting women and not his organization, Cardinal Justin Rigali is worked up over it? Oh. Okay.
I wish we would stop supporting this right wing meme that public option is not happening. It WILL be in the final bill and none of the supporting Dems are wavering from that. This 'maybe, maybe not' posturing was to see if they could whittle away at the Republican block of opposition. It is obvious that is not going to work, so we can go forward and say 'hey we tried to be bipartisan'.
Pro-life/Blue Dog Dems can holler about not supporting all they want, but they know they either fall in line for the final vote or they're getting their asses primaried asap.
Edited by battleaxonista...is a humorless bitch at 08/25/09 11:12 AM
battleaxonista...is a humorless bitch was starred
battleaxonista...is a humorless bitch was unstarred
some pro-life Democrats in Congress say they'll block any healthcare reform bill until all coverage for abortion is removed.
Fine ass holes. Block it. I don't need heathcare coverage. I have it. I'm sure there are some "pro-life democrats" who don't. Fuck them. Let them not get coverage. I'm really reaching the end of my rope when it comes to heathcare. Seems a lot of people who oppose it are the ones who need it. Well, if they don't WANT it...
By the way, I've advertised this on Jez before but I am going to a health care town hall with HOWARD DEAN in Reston, VA tonight. IF YOU WANT TO COME, SEND ME A PM! BearDownCBears will be there too!
I know a woman who died three weeks ago at the age of 33 of cervical cancer. Did you get that? THIRTY-THREE. She lost everything and died $70K in debt because she had no insurance. She couldn't even begin treatment at the age of 29 until she took out EIGHT credit cards to give to the treatment center. What was her crime? She had recently opened a small business and had not yet been able to afford personal insurance.
Yesterday, I was at my mom's side when she passed from ovarian cancer at 74. She lived a long life, and she was fortunate to have insurance. If she had not, we would be in the same boat and all of us would have bankrupted ourselves to get her treatment.
I've said it before, it is obscene for anyone to make a dollar off of whether we live or die.
Randall Terry, et al: FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON.
@Never_Nude: My condolences. And as an aside, these are the stories that should be in the news to point up the need for health care, not the maunderings of right-wing pundits and wackos.
@bluebears: And all of you... thanks for your well-wishes. I jumped on Jez this morning for a short respite, and saw this. Sigh. I appreciate your kind words.
@Never_Nude: I'm sorry sweetie. Thanks for sharing your story.
What that young woman's situation shows, to me, is how NOBODY wins without health coverage. Not people. And, well, think like a Republican for a moment (i.e. Turn off your heart.): Those hospitals and doctors responsible for that woman's treatment will never receive compensation for their work. It doesn't even make sense financially.
It's obvious that the "pro-lifers" don't care about the life that is here, just the potential to be. Like George Carlin said "Pre-born, you're fine. Pre-school, you're fucked".
@DutchessOfDork: They are their brother's keeper, as long as that means keeping them out of the hospital. And preferably in jail. My level of disgust over these people is so high...
Limiting abortion coverage to instances of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life is such a ridiculous, hypocritical position. If you actually believed personhood began at conception, why would that only apply if the sex was consensual? Suddenly the product of rape is not a human life? It's obvious that people who agree to this type of exception don't really care about embryos; they want to control and slut-shame women and know not to push it in more sympathetic situations.
@NefariousNewt: It's hard to imagine anyone taking this guy seriously, but the Tennessean talked to a lady who clapped for him, then said, "I don't go to the doctor, I don't take prescription drugs, so why should I pay for someone else's health care?" So apparently he does have an audience.
Instead of funding abortions they'd rather their tax dollars go towards feeding and housing and educating unwanted children, which is so much more expensive. And they'd rather pay for the uninsured to visit ERs when they're sick instead of paying for preventative & primary care for the poor.
I guess they just want to make sure the recipients of their tax dollars are miserable at the time. "If you're gonna take my tax dollars you better be suffering!"
@SarahMC: Actually, IMHO, these people don't want their tax dollars going to feeding, housing, or educating ANYONE. They'll work on getting rid of public schools and any sort of welfare afterwards.
@HarpMadness: What do you think "school vouchers" means, besides "get rid of public schools"? (Yes, yes, I've listened to the arguments and I can actually appreciate them conceptually, but they are a terrible idea because they boil down to one thing: "I don't like where I have been assigned, I want what THEY have, gimme!" out of a giant sense of entitlement rather than working to improve what you have for your own children and all future children who attend.)
Thank-you. Thank-you for someone finally saying it. And Randall Terry should be ashamed of himself (well whenever should he ever not be. The man is just plain disgusting). If he cares so deeply about "innocent life" then he should want to ensure it has the right healthcare to survive.
But alas, I forgot. For people like Terry, it has nothing to do with the fetuses or even the people they might become. It does have everything to with wanting to control women's bodies and their rights.
@EkaterinaBallerina: On the up side, he has finally begun to "care" about actual people, in this case the elderly, instead of just ranting on about fetuses.
I'm just curious as to how you decide what rape is. What if the victim new the assailant and took a shower? What if she doesn't want to press charges or go to court? I ask, because statistically, that sounds like the most common incidence of rape.
So if we don't allow people to get abortions when it's that kind of rape, what kind of message are we saying? Hey, you knew the guy, you have to have his kid? Or worse - we won't force you to have the child of a degenerate stranger, because they're a degenerate stranger?
If we're not drawing any kind of distinction, and just saying it has to be rape and the woman has to claim it's rape, how the hell does that really solve anything to anyone's satisfaction?
@SarahMC: exactly. they really don't give a fuck about the finer points. All their methods are designed to make getting an abortion the most complicated, terrifying, expensive and dangerous proposition ever.
@alexawesome: It is, to quote a phrase, a "red herring." They are playing up the rape angle, to divert attention from their attempts to kill health care reform.
@bluebears: They throw rape and incest in there to make themselves look more compassionate. I wish they'd just be consistent and say NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE. At least then their anti-sex (for women) motives wouldn't be so obvious. But in the real world, there's no process for pregnant victims of rape/incest. Victims just realize - how the hell am I gonna prove that before the week limit is up? - and go through with the pregnancy.
Thanks for your response - I definitely get that it's a red herring, it just bothers me when the language is so obvious. Especially in light of the invasive vaginal ultrasound as a requirement before abortion (for rape victims!?), it just... ugh. I would at least hope they had thought it through a bit. I know, there are Bad People who are pushing this through who *are* thinking it through. I just mean the people who are anti-choice who really feel it's ethically wrong. Are they questioning this? Are those people out there who really have a lot of inner conflict over this issue, or do all of those people pretty much wind up in the pro-choice side of the debate?
Ok, you know what, assholes? Fine. Take fucking everything that even mentions that women have sex sometimes out of the bill. Also remove any care that implies that women poop or have hairy armpits. Also remove any mention that sometimes women feel not so fresh "down there." And remove any birth control coverage. Also take out any coverage that would help a woman pay for injuries that she receives outside of the home, because she shouldn't be leaving, anyway.
@morninggloria: Take fucking everything that even mentions that women have sex sometimes out of the bill.
If the right continues to deny that women have and enjoy sex, then I'm tempted to organize a boycott of sexual congress with the male gender. Let's see how long their opposition to the reforms last then.
08/25/09
Of course that money was going to rosaries! They assigned the government monies to the textbook fund, bought the same textbooks, and used the extra to buy rosaries! But it was symbolically important for SCOTUS that the funds be separate for many many years--until 2002, IIRC, in the Zelman school voucher case--so they were formally separate and the schools had to go through all the bureaucratic hassle Anna outlines up there as a constant reminder: the federal government does not wish to subsidize this product/activity.
But now that this supposed fungibility is benefiting women and not his organization, Cardinal Justin Rigali is worked up over it? Oh. Okay.
08/25/09
Pro-life/Blue Dog Dems can holler about not supporting all they want, but they know they either fall in line for the final vote or they're getting their asses primaried asap.
08/25/09
08/25/09
Fine ass holes. Block it. I don't need heathcare coverage. I have it. I'm sure there are some "pro-life democrats" who don't. Fuck them. Let them not get coverage. I'm really reaching the end of my rope when it comes to heathcare. Seems a lot of people who oppose it are the ones who need it. Well, if they don't WANT it...
08/25/09
Let's see how long they last then.
08/25/09
I like your style.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
Yesterday, I was at my mom's side when she passed from ovarian cancer at 74. She lived a long life, and she was fortunate to have insurance. If she had not, we would be in the same boat and all of us would have bankrupted ourselves to get her treatment.
I've said it before, it is obscene for anyone to make a dollar off of whether we live or die.
Randall Terry, et al: FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
What that young woman's situation shows, to me, is how NOBODY wins without health coverage. Not people. And, well, think like a Republican for a moment (i.e. Turn off your heart.): Those hospitals and doctors responsible for that woman's treatment will never receive compensation for their work. It doesn't even make sense financially.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
It's obvious Randall Terry doesn't watch The Daily Show, or he'd realize he's just making himself look crazier than he already is.
08/25/09
08/25/09
Obviously not.
*sigh*
The sad part is, he and his "audience" are what's wrong with this country. Apparently ignorance is more palatable than reason.
08/25/09
Unless, of course, you are willing to pay taxes.
08/25/09
I'd add that they need to stop letting horrible priests be in the presence of children.
08/25/09
I guess they just want to make sure the recipients of their tax dollars are miserable at the time. "If you're gonna take my tax dollars you better be suffering!"
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
Thank-you. Thank-you for someone finally saying it. And Randall Terry should be ashamed of himself (well whenever should he ever not be. The man is just plain disgusting). If he cares so deeply about "innocent life" then he should want to ensure it has the right healthcare to survive.
But alas, I forgot. For people like Terry, it has nothing to do with the fetuses or even the people they might become. It does have everything to with wanting to control women's bodies and their rights.
08/25/09
08/25/09
So if we don't allow people to get abortions when it's that kind of rape, what kind of message are we saying? Hey, you knew the guy, you have to have his kid? Or worse - we won't force you to have the child of a degenerate stranger, because they're a degenerate stranger?
If we're not drawing any kind of distinction, and just saying it has to be rape and the woman has to claim it's rape, how the hell does that really solve anything to anyone's satisfaction?
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
Thanks for your response - I definitely get that it's a red herring, it just bothers me when the language is so obvious. Especially in light of the invasive vaginal ultrasound as a requirement before abortion (for rape victims!?), it just... ugh. I would at least hope they had thought it through a bit. I know, there are Bad People who are pushing this through who *are* thinking it through. I just mean the people who are anti-choice who really feel it's ethically wrong. Are they questioning this? Are those people out there who really have a lot of inner conflict over this issue, or do all of those people pretty much wind up in the pro-choice side of the debate?
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
If the right continues to deny that women have and enjoy sex, then I'm tempted to organize a boycott of sexual congress with the male gender. Let's see how long their opposition to the reforms last then.
08/25/09
08/25/09