You are currently browsing the daily archive for March 27, 2010.

We already knew that Obama’s bailout to insurers came with the jane Crow’s CEO – protecting bigots’s rights of refusing to provide legal care for women for reproductive medical problems.

It turns out the church gets another bite of this

Health bill restores $250 million in abstinence-education funds

We are now finding about all the “little noticed provisions” our media kept hidden until it was time to placate the GOP (like the fact that it’s a GOP bill to begin with)

A little-noticed provision of the health legislation has rescued federal support for a controversial form of sex education: teaching youths to remain virgins until marriage.

The bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor programs aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by focusing exclusively on encouraging children and adolescents to avoid sex.

Well, of course we knew Obama owed the religious right from election time, but one would have thought Proposition 8 and Jane Crow EO would have settled that bill. But it seems there was a demand in cash as well.

That, and poisoning the minds of the young with nonsense. Which may lead to pregnancies than are then segregated from coverage, by the same nifty law.

Because to them, it makes sense

“We’re very happy to see that funding will continue so the important sexual health message of risk avoidance will reach American teens,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, a Washington-based lobbying group. “What better place to see such an important health issue addressed than in the health legislation?”

Indeed, where? In church? Fiction class? Mental health hospitals? Nah. Romneycare is it!

B0botland has a tough time justifying this. The OP felt the need to editorialize

on edit: I think this was one of the deals that was made to get some blue dogs on board.

Of course, poor babies.

Others see the glitch:

Why, why, why do Democrats have to pander to religious nuts like this?

Not just abstinence, but abstinence until marriage. I am 41 years old and never married. I’m supposed to be abstaining? Really?
Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
11. I’m 53 and never married. Yeah, we’re supposed to stay virgins.
:rofl:

I fixed that problem in 1974.

and even some of the intended victims

I’m against telling young people to wait until MARRIAGE to have sex.

It’s not just stupid and impractical, it’s bigoted since most states don’t allow gays to marry.
7. That’s a lot of money to make sure teens get pregnant n/t

Some are fed up

Caving and pandering you can believe in. And, happy karma, Obama, et.al.

How’s that working so far?

Vut some have faith in the goodness of the bill

5. If this is not a good thing to have in this bill, why do the cheerleaders

keep telling me it is a good bill?

One can imagine that if this part is considered bad, there must be other bad parts as well? I think a quarter-billion dollars is big bucks, but hey, that’s just me.

I never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself. dhlawrence
cynatnite
6. Are you suggesting we throw out the baby with the bath water?
The law needs work…not gotten rid of, IMO.

I have never saw so much work in selling a fixer upper.

Now, I ony have one question: I know there was a big fight over giving Viagra to felons. It didn’t pass, BTW as Reid thought it was not serious (not as serious as abstinence)

he Levitra legislation did not get a rise out of Democrats. “Offering an amendment dealing with Viagra for rapists?” Majority Leader Harry Reid asked, struggling for words. “I mean, this is — this — this is — this isn’t serious.”.

So, what I want to know is: can unmarried men use Viagra (covered in Romneycare)? Obviously they can – but do they need to be given a talking to by the recipients of the abstinence grants? Just so they can “think twice” about it? or rather this is just for Jane Crow – as women clearly need to seek the advice of their clergymen or their doctor in making any decision.

It was only a few days ago that I caught that skewed interpretation of a poll into a new meme which I recognized as an upcoming trend.

Sure enough, there is a 3 page feature in Politico under the heading

Face of the tea party is female

It uses the same Quinnipiac poll as TPM did – the same dishonest interpretation of “55% women”

Just to remind the overlooked numbers in that poll

As for the gender breakdown, the 55% female majority puts the tea party movement in line with other political parties, with the exception of independents.

To be sure, unlike the TPM manifesto, the sell here is softer. No longer is the racial aspect in mentioned and while healthcare comes in a lot, not a peep is made about choice rights/pro-life

Of course the reason for this new meme is clear:

“For years, it has been the liberal women who have organized and been staunch grass-roots and policy advocates,” Rebecca Wales, a spokeswoman for Smart Girl Politics, a new group formed to train and mobilize women in the tea party movement. “No longer is it only the liberals. Conservative women have found their voices and are using them, actively and loudly.”

It’s what I thought. By giving women on the other side prominence, one indirectly silences the women on the other side, the Jane Crows.

The ones who have been told: attack Palin! She is anti-choice! The one briefly remembered in this paragraph

The women became furious. Voices were raised. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), a close friend of Pelosi’s, lamented about “all the women we were just throwing under the bus” and called it “a betrayal of all the women that had fought for this for so long.” Pelosi, according to two participants, had tears in her eyes. But she got the votes — that time.

and then thoroughly forgotten in the celebration.

This way you have a win win: you put Jane Crow in her place and you give gas to the anti-choice movement. make that a win-win-win: misogyny was the ugly engine that drove Obama’s run. It needs to be revved up again

And we should be quiet because “This President supports abortion rights’ (yeah, the RW coined phrase that means nothing to us, but he said he supports them, OK?) In fact, he even said once

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice
Act. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield. And Planned
Parenthood will not yield.”

And thank the Gods, Planned Parenthood didn not yield!

Going in B0botland to find  torches and pitchforks on this meme (and there are – mostly on Palin), I had a pleasant surprise

No thank you to DU men and women who sat back and watched a….

Dem president sign off on an anti-choice statement.

It is one more nail in the coffin.

Of course the few rational statements were clobbered with chants of “STA_TUS_QUO!” from the mob formerly known as “Hope and change” but I was glad to read posts such as

9. hip hip hooray for the status quo!

The status quo in the country is that it is more difficult for women to make a choice.

Sorry, but when a Democatic President is willing to make this kind of concession it doesn’t bode well for the Party continuing to be a protector and defender of choice.

I guess change and bold new initiatives are inoperable when it comes to choice.

and

8. so how does this work if your husband is pro-life and wont

pay for the separate insurance rider and you want an abortion anyhow. If your a Stay at home Mom with no income, how are you going to get the coverage?

..

Seems it’s time for McPalin to take center page – same photo is on many papers

WaPo – and the Iraqis results too. More secular than here.

Obama Times – which has some war news today as well

.and Wall Street Journa

while in NYC, Bloomberg has a Duh moment

Gee, ya thin, Mike? Yes he does:

Not Your Sweetie