Abortion, Pearl Harbor and 9-11

[stuffin]

Looks like this is the forum to put this.

A House Republican lawmaker likened the implementation of a new mandate that insurers offer coverage for contraceptive services to Pearl Harbor and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), an ardent opponent of abortion rights, said that today's date would live in infamy alongside those two other historic occasions. Wednesday marked the day on which a controversial new requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires health insurance companies to cover contraceptive services for women, goes into effect.

"I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that's Pearl Harbor day.  The other is September 11th, and that's the day of the terrorist attack," Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.".

I find it irrational that someone can place contraceptive services for women on the level of those events.

(edit) oops, forgot to add link

 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/08/01/13070876-republican-likens-contraceptive-mandate-to-pearl-harbor-911?lite&__utma=14933801.1526479660.1343649360.1343836659.1343844723.10&__utmb=14933801.5.10.1343844723&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1343649360.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=106076803

[jaimehlers]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/08/01/13070876-republican-likens-contraceptive-mandate-to-pearl-harbor-911

Most of the the link was safe to chop off.

I agree, incidentally.  There is no comparison whatsoever between a requirement that insurance covers contraception and military attacks on the US.  That this representative is so ignorant that he would claim so is a pretty good indication that he isn't competent to represent anyone.

[Azdgari]

He is competent to represent those who are similarly ignorant.  He's a very accurate representation of such people.

[Quesi]

What a silly, silly man. 

[screwtape]

What a silly, silly man.

no.  He's dangerous.

[Quesi]

What a silly, silly man.

no.  He's dangerous.

You are right, of course.  For now, he is dangerous. 

But I suspect that 50 years from now, 100 years from now, no one will remember either the vote or the date or his name.  At most, I suspect he might be a footnote in history as someone who stood against basic freedoms, and school kids will shake their heads in disbelief at his views. 

[Traveler]

ARG!!!!!!!    When did morons take over the universe?????

[Boots]

ARG!!!!!!!    When did morons take over the universe?????

when gawd created it?   

[curiousgirl]

The OP brings to mind the perplexing belief of certain Christians that I know, which is that once the sperm fertilizes the egg, a human soul enters that "body". They claim, therefore, that if you cause this "person" to die, you are committing murder. However, the miscarriage rate is so significant that I would ask these Christians why God would let so many "babies" die and call it a sin when women use birth control and/or get an abortion.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%.

[One Above All]

However, the miscarriage rate is so significant that I would ask these Christians why God would let so many "babies" die and call it a sin when women use birth control and/or get an abortion.

That's punishment for all the equal rights[1] and fact-based education[2] that has been going around.

1.	Which they refer to as "gay marriage", "women being allowed to vote" and such.
2.	Which they refer to as "liberal brainwashing".

[curiousgirl]

Yeah, God does have a track record for killing kids for their parents' sins... 

[Garja]

Okay, so.... I am 32, and only been really interested in politics for about the last 5-8 years.

Question for some of the older guys around here, or perhaps those more versed in the area than I....  Is this level of right-wing.... douchebaggery something that has been around for a while, or is it as new as it seems?  These guys are starting to seem so full or rhetoric and exaggeration that its hard to believe that so many people actually take them seriously.  I mean this guys said something THIS stupid on the record, in public, for posterity in the halls of government of the worlds primary power (no offense to China, please dont call in your loans)?  Its no wonder so many other countries think we are conceited-conservo-christian-asshats.

[Nick]

I guess Roe vs. Wade in 1973 does not count as one of those dates in this guy's mind.

[Nam]

Is this the same guy that said women who have miscarriages should go to jail, or is this a different guy?

-Nam

[Nick]

Our jails are pretty empty so I guess that would help to fill them up.

[Quesi]

Our jails are pretty empty so I guess that would help to fill them up.

Most US jails are owned by publicly traded, for-profit corporations these days.  The more prisoners, the higher the profits.  Better bonuses for the CEO's.  More dividends for the shareholders.

Oh.  And tax dollars pay the publicly-traded for profit corporations to incarcerate these criminals.

It is a win/win situation.

[Nam]

Let's start a prison and jail all the religious nuts while making a profit!

-Nam

[screwtape]

Is this level of right-wing.... douchebaggery something that has been around for a while, or is it as new as it seems?

it started around 1996 and has escalated since.

[Fiji]

The OP brings to mind the perplexing belief of certain Christians that I know, which is that once the sperm fertilizes the egg, a human soul enters that "body".

Funny thing is ... this interpretation of human reproduction comes closer to the quran than anything in the bible!

[Fiji]

Is this level of right-wing.... douchebaggery something that has been around for a while, or is it as new as it seems?

it started around 1996 and has escalated since.

I've often wondered ... if you made a list of Obama's actions these past four-ish years, and presented that to someone from the early 90s ... would that person recognise him as a democrat ... or would they figure he was a republican president who tossed in that Obama-care thingy to appease the democrats?

[screwtape]

a notable recent exception:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/30/611651/republican-congressman-blasts-gop-party-caters-to-extremes-is-incapable-of-governing/

[Quesi]

Is this level of right-wing.... douchebaggery something that has been around for a while, or is it as new as it seems?

it started around 1996 and has escalated since.

And you know, I think that the republican lunatics are successfully pushing away any moderates within the party. 

I always liked James Jeffords.  A republican who was elected to a wide range of offices since 1966, he left the party in 2001 out of frustration.  Here is a little blub about him from wikipedia:

Jeffords consistently voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion, and also against a harsher line on Cuba. In 1995 he was one of only 16 Senators to vote against the Communications Decency Act. The Supreme Court later struck it down as unconstitutional. Jeffords highly advocated LGBT rights in the workplace. He sponsored The Employee Non Discrimination Act of 1995 (104th Congress), 1997 (105th Congress), and 1999 (106th Congress). Jeffords Non Discrimination bills did not include "gender identity." He was in the minority of Republicans to oppose the Flag Desecration Amendment. On guns his record was mixed, despite voting for the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, he voted with gun control opponents against background checks at gun shows in 1999 and he voted with the majority of Congress for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He took a more moderate line on the death penalty. On many economic issues Jeffords was roughly in line with the majority of the Republican Party, before and after his switch: he mostly supported free-trade agreements, voted for making enforcement of consumer protection laws more difficult by moving many class-action lawsuits into federal courts, tighter bankruptcy rules, and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Even after becoming an independent, he did vote with Republicans on many major pieces of legislation. For example, Jeffords did vote against the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, a bill supported strongly by Republican John McCain and many moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Mike DeWine. Two years later he voted for the prescription drug bill, derided by many Democrats as a give away to drug companies and opposed by many conservative Republicans who opposed further federal spending, but ultimately strongly supported by President George W. Bush, and the vast majority of the Republican Party.

On October 11, 2002, Jeffords was one of 23 senators to vote against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Shortly after that, he was one of only nine senators to vote against the bill establishing the Department of Homeland Security. On November 11, 2003 Jeffords was one of only four senators to vote against the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, a bill which received strong support from politicians from across the aisle.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords

[screwtape]

I always liked James Jeffords.

new england repub.  Very different tradition from the tea baggers.  They tended to be non-evangelical, WASPy, blue blood elitists.  Like the bush family used to be.  Conservative in the pro-business sense, not so much the social sense.

It was the coalition of fiscal conservatives (IE, rich bastards) and social conservatives (IE uneducated fundies) around 1980 that made the republican party nutzoid.  The rich bastards were willing to advance any crazy idea the fundies wanted as long as the fundies supported the rich bastards rigging the system so they could make more money.

Now, they are hopelessly fucked.

[Quesi]

I always liked James Jeffords.

new england repub.  Very different tradition from the tea baggers.  They tended to be non-evangelical, WASPy, blue blood elitists.  Like the bush family used to be.  Conservative in the pro-business sense, not so much the social sense.

It was the coalition of fiscal conservatives (IE, rich bastards) and social conservatives (IE uneducated fundies) around 1980 that made the republican party nutzoid.  The rich bastards were willing to advance any crazy idea the fundies wanted as long as the fundies supported the rich bastards rigging the system so they could make more money.

Now, they are hopelessly fucked.

Gosh Screwtape.  When you paint him in that light, how could we not feel all warm and fuzzy about him? 

[screwtape]

Sorry.  I didn't mean he was a bad guy or anything.  I just meant that the area he represented breeds a less pernicious conservative.  The Romneybot was a relatively moderate repub when he was in Massachussetts.  Now that he's gone national, he's also had to go crazy.

I prefer the waspy blue bloods to the fundies any day.  They just want to legally steal everything.  The fundies want to control your mind.

[Nam]

I used to vote Republican more than Democrat. I voted for the moderates. They seem to be relatively gone from my districts in Florida. Now, except 1 or 2 moderates that somehow have remained locally, I mainly vote Democratic.

-Nam

[joebbowers]

Our jails are pretty empty so I guess that would help to fill them up.

Not sure if you're joking about this. You realize that America has more prisoners per capita than any other nation right? We have almost 2 million people in jail. And as Quesi said, most of our prison system is privatized and for-profit. I would add that the reason it's been privatized is because our politicians realized they could personally profit by sending more people to prison and then investing in those prisons.

They somehow convince the public to go along with it, despite the fact that private prisons charge the taxpayers 2.5x more than state-owned prisons. Where does that extra money go? Into the pockets of the shareholders, who also happen to be the people who make the laws that put people in prison.

Since the big for-profit prison boom, sentences have been getting longer and longer, and we have more inmates today than ever before in history, and more than any other nation on Earth.

[Garja]

^ yeah, not to be a jerk about it, but pretty sure the  implied sarcasm.