Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!

[Front-Ranger]

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, what is Congress doing messing with women's rights when it's clear to see that they should be focusing on jobs and the economy? Apparently a bill has passed the Senate aiming to make sure government money isn't used for abortions.

(Added) This bill is so convoluted. From what I understand, it prohibits health insurers (which are private companies, not the government) from paying for covered abortion services to any organization that also receives Federal funds. Effectively, what insurers will do is stop paying for abortions altogether and then we'll be back to where we started from, with black market abortion clinics springing up along with Draconian techniques that kill, maim or cause suffering to more women.

(restored text)
Some people think the simple solution is for women to abstain from sex if they can't afford children. However, that doesn't take into account the other half of the equation, poor young men. These men are primarily looking for free entertainment and sex. There are no consequences of their actions since they plan to be long gone from the scene when the pregnancy asserts itself. Poor young women are the victims of rape, pressure and abuse and they pay for it with a decades-long sentence of hard manual labor and a lifelong one-way trip to the land of poverty.

[delalluvia]

Some people think the simple solution is for women to abstain from sex if they can't afford children. However, that doesn't take into account the other half of the equation, poor young men.

They never take men into account for this because men are never going to restrict men's sexual freedom.  On the other hand, they're always more than happy to try to regulate and restrict women's sexual freedom.

[Monika]

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, what is Congress doing messing with women's rights when it's clear to see that they should be focusing on jobs and the economy? Apparently a bill has passed the Senate aiming to make sure government money isn't used for abortions.

so it comes down to money whether a woman can have an abortion or not. What the hell are they thinking?

[milomorris]

This isn't about women's rights from a Congressional perspective. This is about how federal tax revenues---a/k/a your money and mine--is being spent. Its also about the role of government, and abuse of funds.

[Marge_Innavera]

Let someone propose that men abstain from sex to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen and see how far that would get.  

Of course, this is a feminist perspective       so some folks might want to take that into account...

[CellarDweller]

Let someone propose that men abstain from sex to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen and see how far that would get.   

Of course, this is a feminist perspective so some folks might want to take that into account...   

Marcia, abstaining from sex would never work.

However, I think I have a solution.

Let's take all the abortion clinics, and have the doctors turn them into Vasectomy Clinics.  Men could go in and have the reversable surgery, which will prevent pregnancies, and then there would be no need for the abortions.

[Front-Ranger]

Milo, what this thread is about is saying that Congress should be focusing on the crisis at hand, which is the economy and jobs, not on prohibiting health insurers from providing coverage for therapeutic abortions to women. If women had jobs, then they would go ahead with more pregnancies since, like Alma, they'd be able to "support 'em". They'd also have the money to get preventive health care and birth control pills. Congress is being reactive, deceptive and delusional.

Chuck, your idea is good, but I thought vasectomies were already widely available. Apparently they aren't very popular with the men who would benefit from them most. It's another aspect of the actions being divorced from the consequences for men. Oh, why didn't the Creator figure out a way to physically burden the man for 19 years or so when he conceives a child? Seems He didn't think it through completely. God must be a He!!

[milomorris]

not on prohibiting health insurers from providing coverage for therapeutic abortions to women.

The government is not prohibiting insurers from doing anything. The idea is to withhold federal funding from abortion practitioners. The insurers can fund whomever they please. The practitioners can still get state funding where allowed, and private funding. So to say that poor women will no longer have access to abortion is factually incorrect.

Congress is not interested controlling the sexual behavior of poor women, they just want to make sure that our federal tax dollars aren't involved in the abortion process.

[Monika]

This isn't about women's rights from a Congressional perspective. This is about how federal tax revenues---a/k/a your money and mine--is being spent. Its also about the role of government, and abuse of funds.

If that was the case, then the congress should understand that bringing unwanted children into this world will also cost tax money - eventually.

Besides, I don´t think that´s what it is about. I think it´s about trying to please certain groups of voters.

[milomorris]

Let someone propose that men abstain from sex to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen and see how far that would get.

If the women are abstaining, the men are abstaining too by definition.