Will the GOP deny funding for bill that protects women?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Why seek only an extension? Is it the fact that they want to have this issue come up every election rather than an actual solution? Playing with women's lives isn't something that should be good for any party.
 
Damocles said:
Why seek only an extension? Is it the fact that they want to have this issue come up every election rather than an actual solution? Playing with women's lives isn't something that should be good for any party.
Click to expand...

Ask the GOP leadership. They must think they're on the right track with the "Sandra Fluke is a slut" meme.
 
\\(())// said:
Ask the GOP leadership. They must think they're on the right track with the "Sandra Fluke is a slut" meme.
Click to expand...

Actually I'll continue to ask the people who seek an extension rather than simply passing a more permanent solution. That isn't the GOP. The party who wants to perpetuate this so that it will come up every election cycle is not the one bringing it to a vote in the Senate. The drive to keep a wedge issue should be rejected by all reasonable voters.
 
\\(())// said:
Ask the GOP leadership. They must think they're on the right track with the "Sandra Fluke is a slut" meme.
Click to expand...

$3000 in birth control over 3 years......? That doesn't make a slut,......shes just a bit more active than other coeds........

150 Prophylactics a month, (thats 5 a day, everyday) at $.50 ea. for a year= about $900 .....for 3 years thats $2700.00.....thats a lot of screwin'.....
and its cuts her bill by about $300......:good4u:

Sex doesn't make her a slut .......but being 'untidy' does, according to the dictionary....

Will the GOP deny funding for bill that protects women?


If it means paying for their Summers Eve or other deodorant, then yes......:palm:
 
bravo said:
$3000 in birth control over 3 years......? That doesn't make a slut,......shes just a bit more active than other coeds........

150 Prophylactics a month, (thats 5 a day, everyday) at $.50 ea. for a year= about $900 .....for 3 years thats $2700.00.....thats a lot of screwin'.....
and its cuts her bill by about $300......:good4u:

Sex doesn't make her a slut .......but being 'untidy' does, according to the dictionary....

Will the GOP deny funding for bill that protects women?


If it means paying for their Summers Eve or other deodorant, then yes......:palm:
Click to expand...

She didn't testify about her own birth control use. She testified about the possible cost and the ovaries of somebody else. It "can" cost that much, her friend had a medical issue which needed some form of contraception to solve or she could lose the ability to procreate.

The availability of other sources for the contraception than the insurance offered was ignored in the testimony, and the attempt to call her a slut is a stupid distraction. One needs to drive at the crux of the argument rather than try to make this personal in order to argue effectively.
 
Damocles said:
She didn't testify about her own birth control use. She testified about the possible cost and the ovaries of somebody else. It "can" cost that much, her friend had a medical issue which needed some form of contraception to solve or she could lose the ability to procreate.

The availability of other sources for the contraception than the insurance offered was ignored in the testimony, and the attempt to call her a slut is a stupid distraction. One needs to drive at the crux of the argument rather than try to make this personal in order to argue effectively.
Click to expand...

He has been told this numerous ties, he is stubborn and wants to hold on to his ignorance. It is sad to watch.
 
Damocles said:
She didn't testify about her own birth control use. She testified about the possible cost and the ovaries of somebody else. It "can" cost that much, her friend had a medical issue which needed some form of contraception to solve or she could lose the ability to procreate.

The availability of other sources for the contraception than the insurance offered was ignored in the testimony, and the attempt to call her a slut is a stupid distraction. One needs to drive at the crux of the argument rather than try to make this personal in order to argue effectively.
Click to expand...

Then it wasn't contraception was it...it was medicine for a medical problem and as such it is perfectly just for her insurance co. to pay for it....if it don't or won't see that see gets whatever medicine thats required, she needs a lawyer....not someone claiming "contraception" costs too much.....

Contraceptive products are used to prevent pregnancy.....
Medicine is used to treat a medical condition, disease, or medical problem.....
Lets keep the two products in their rightful categories, even if they are physically the same .....

Like cough medicine for a drunk or cough medicine for a cold must be treated differently....
Like morphine for a used or morphine for a cancer patient....
 
Damocles said:
Actually I'll continue to ask the people who seek an extension rather than simply passing a more permanent solution. That isn't the GOP. The party who wants to perpetuate this so that it will come up every election cycle is not the one bringing it to a vote in the Senate. The drive to keep a wedge issue should be rejected by all reasonable voters.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't know that federal legislation is required to periodically reauthorize VAWA and fund the grants it disburses.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/315468/20120316/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-2012.htm
 
\\(())// said:
Maybe you don't know that federal legislation is required to periodically reauthorize VAWA and fund the grants it disburses.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/315468/20120316/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-2012.htm
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't know that it can be timed for much longer periods and not on election cycle years for stuff you don't want to be wedge issues to press in the middle of an election cycle. I'd be more pissed that these jerks keep seeking to keep this issue as a wedge rather than to work out what is best for women's health.
 
Damocles said:
Maybe you don't know that it can be timed for much longer periods and not on election cycle years for stuff you don't want to be wedge issues to press in the middle of an election cycle. I'd be more pissed that these jerks keep seeking to keep this issue as a wedge rather than to work out what is best for women's health.
Click to expand...

Explain, then.

Maybe you know things about federal funding that I don't.
 
\\(())// said:
Explain, then.

Maybe you know things about federal funding that I don't.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is that things can only be funded in election years? I don't believe you are that stupid, nor do I believe that your comprehension level is incapable of handling that there are more years than one in every four for such issues to be discussed so that it doesn't become a political football. That they want it to fall on these years in particular means that they want it as a wedge to be used to drive women they way they want them to be driven rather than any pretense of care about their best interest.
 
Damocles said:
Your assertion is that things can only be funded in election years? I don't believe you are that stupid, nor do I believe that your comprehension level is incapable of handling that there are more years than one in every four for such issues to be discussed so that it doesn't become a political football. That they want it to fall on these years in particular means that they want it as a wedge to be used to drive women they way they want them to be driven rather than any pretense of care about their best interest.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it could only be funded in an election year, did I?

Read up:

http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/vawa.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_grants_in_the_United_States
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top