Archives for category: Health

All these people who claim to be pro-life are simply pro-birth. They do not support any policies that would ensure that mother and child can survive. They do not support pre-natal and neo-natal care for mother or child, they do not support child care or child nutrition plans, they do not support education for child and possibly the mother if she is young and did not finish school because she was pregnant. No, all the pro-lifers are interested in are in forcing a life to be born, but with no guarantee that the life will be given the same chances they had.

Anti-abortionists are almost as bad. They are trying to force their views on others. Abortion is something the mother may be considering because she is too young to be a mother, because she has no support structure to help her care for a child, because the scans indicate there will be medical issues in the child that she will not be able to address, because her own health is endangered by the pregnancy, or some other reason. No one should make a decision about abortion for anyone else unless they are prepared to provide the emotional, pscyhological or financial support of not having an abortion when a mother or family feels that is the only option they have.

Many pro-choice people would never choose to have an abortion, but they would not stop anyone else from having one if that is their decision. And that is a major difference between the two sides. Personally, I believe that abortions should be avoided if possible, but I recognize that it is not always possible. I would never force anyone to incur the responsibility for another life if that person were unable to assume the responsibility.

Taking money away from facilities that provide abortion IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER WELL CARE SERVICES THEY OFFER is a travesty. To say that canceling money to, for example, Planned Parenthood, would stop abortions is not taking into account all the well care counseling that Planned Parenthood and other clinics provide to women and men. With all the anti-abortion legislation in so many states, to say that women will have other places to go if they want an abortion is insane. Yes, they can cross state or even country lines, if they can afford it, but most women are not in that position. Abortions will once again become a back alley threat to the lives of women. Of course, that probably doesn’t matter because most of those screaming that abortion is wrong is men. I wonder if they have any clue what goes on in a woman’s mind if she feels that an abortion is her only option. Probably not, as men tend not to think in terms of anything outside their own grandeur. Excuse me, not all men. Only those in positions of power that they have to protect at all costs. Treating women as equals means that they would have that many more competitors for their power, and they just can’t have that.

This has been an ongoing button for me – people who scream about keeping the government and other people out of their business are all too intent on imposing their beliefs on others, rather than allowing other people to make their own decisions. Maybe if these men, who traditionally have done little for their own families except bring home a paycheck, actually had to be involved in raising a child or being home to care for a pregnant woman who is confined to bed for months because the pregnancy is wreaking havoc on her body, or has a teenage daughter who doesn’t want to be pregnant (and it does take two to make a girl pregnant), just maybe he would be a little more sympathetic.

By the way, birth control works better than giving lip service to abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Reduce the number of pregnancies, and there would be a lot less need for abortions. But, that’s a cause and effect process, and most pro-lifers and anti-abortionists aren’t interested in preventing pregnancy, they just want women to continue to have children and be dependent upon them for the scraps they are willing to dole out.

Advertisements

For seven, no, eight long years the GOP has clamored for Repeal and Replace of Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act was an attempt to follow the template provided by “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, which has improved healthcare in Massachusetts. While the GOP screams that this is not good enough, they have never sat down and really planned what healthcare should look like, preferring to tear down anyone else’s ideas. Why they want to delegate health care to the states is beyond me; it’s a surefire way to get people who can afford to make the move to relocate to states with good healthcare. I can almost guarantee that it would wind up putting more people in states that are willing to spend money on their citizens, something that seems to be more common in blue states than red states. Hmmmm, wouldn’t that change the numbers in Congress and put the Democrats back in a place to revamp healthcare for all without any Republican input, just like the Republicans have been trying to do for the last year or so? Too bad that so many children and grandparents will have to die in the meantime because healthcare will be out of the reach of most families that don’t make enough money now to have both food, shelter and good health.

The ACA covers those that are not on Medicare and are not covered by an employer plan. It is not the largest percentage of healthcare recipients, but it is the part of the population most in need of having affordable healthcare because they have to pay for all of it themselves. It’s a lot harder for a family of four with a household income of $40,000 to pay premiums for the entire family than it is for a member of Congress to get pay for their premiums with a subsidy that comes out of the taxes on those who pay the salaries of those who are supposed to represent them.

I don’t know about repealing, but I’d like to replace every congressman who is more concerned about lining their own pockets and satisfying their donors than they are about providing jobs and basic health and financial security for the people they are supposed to represent.

So long as the women do what the men feel they should be doing.

Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia said on live television appearance on MSNBC that he wants to “snatch a knot” in Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s “ass”. In other words, he feels beating a female member of Congress is acceptable because she didn’t vote for something that would have hurt her constituents.

This followed Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas, speaking of Senator Susan Collins’ vote against the quickly and secretly drafted repeal and replace bills, telling a local radio station that, “If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.” Again, the threat that violence is acceptable, although he stopped short of saying that it was appropriate to attack a woman. Those two at least had the decency to offer and accept one another’s apologies for statements made.

I’m not surprised by Buddy Carter. Georgia Republicans have a long history of charming their constituents with all the right words, but then working to cut the legs out from under those same constituents. Georgia, one of the red states that did not expand Medicaid “because it would be too costly”, has a high percentage of workers living under the poverty level. While expanding Medicaid would have helped reduce that, the Republican legislature all rejected it. But what can you expect from a state that will not submit disability applications to the federal agency making those decisions, despite the examining doctors confirming to the patient that they should be on disability, unless an attorney forces the issue?

Back to the non-war on women. It is Republican-dominated legislatures that are now trying to force raped women wanting an abortion to get the permission of the rapist. I guarantee that if it was the men who had to go through the experience, it would be shot down immediately. Generally speaking, men are competitive and have to be winners, while women are more cooperative and try to do what is best for their community. Taking that to the political arena, I’ve been noticing that most of the (too few) women in Congress are often shut out of secret meetings and are more likely to consider what is best for their constituents while the men are more interested in making a name for themselves amongst their constituents rather than helping all but a few who can help them retain power and enrich themselves.

Men who cheat on their wives, serially marry, or beget children off multiple women are praised and looked up to, while mothers who have been abandoned and try to get on with their lives are sluts and worse. Heaven forbid a working woman tries to assert herself and her expertise, as she is usually considered, at least among much of corporate management, to be aggressive and bitchy. If, as the Bible says, Eve was created to be an equal and helpmate to Adam, why do men consider women to be no better than chattel, and have to restrict their actions and liberty.

I have yet to hear of Democratic Congressmen inciting violence against women, so I find it hard to believe reports of Democrats having a war on women. Democrats have other problems, but they pale in comparison to the way Republicans are currently acting against half the population (and I am not just considering women in that statement).

Someone please explain to me how, with a Republican president, a Republican-majority Senate and a Republican-majority House of Representatives, it can possibly be the fault of the Democrats if we have another government shutdown because the Democrats won’t agree to a budget including money for a wall that will accomplish very little. Does anyone really believe that if we build a wall that another country will pay for it? Keep the wall out of our budget, support the programs that help and protect people, and Comrade President and Republicans need to take courses in economics and history (wherein they will see that historical actions to cut funding has only increased the need for higher costs down the road when the system which they decided to not fund went belly up and needed complete overhaul and repairs.

Here’s an alternative: how about letting our billionaire president pay for the wall out of all his excess funds (call it a capital expenditure on his taxes) and then get reimbursed by Mexico. He could even charge interest. This way, he gets his wall, and the people who would be most financially and medially damaged by the social funding programs he wants to cut in exchange for the wall funding will continue to have the resources they would otherwise lose.

Planned Parenthood’s raison d’etre is not to provide abortions. It is to help women and families plan for when they want to grow their family. Many of us first went to Planned Parenthood because we were too embarrassed to talk with our parents about menstruation, sex, where babies come from, and how to not get pregnant by accident before getting married.

What information is available from Planned Parenthood? Non-judgmental information on Birth Control, Body Image, General Health Care (which may include testing for anemia, diabetes and thyroid problems), Men’s Sexual Health (including colon, prostate, and testicular cancer screenings), Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception), Pregnancy, Relationships, Sex & Sexuality, Sexual Orientation & Gender, STDs, and Women’s Health (including screenings for Cervical and Breast Cancer, Endometriosis, conducting Pap & HPV Tests and Pelvic Exams, dealing with Menopause, Menstruation, Ovarian Cancer, Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and Yeast Infection & Vaginitis) as well as Abortion.

I had thought, for years, that any state and federal funding was because of the screenings/testings that Planned Parenthood performed. Put them out of business and suddenly hundreds if not hundreds of thousands may lose access to low cost care, increasing the risks to their health, as well as the health of the unborn who would otherwise have had appropriate re-natal care.

And please remind me how attacking Planned Parenthood is not supporting a war on women.