The War on Women

[cephalopod9]

Has anyone noticed the unseemly pile up of proposed legislation out to destroy reproductive health services, access to them, and knowledge about them?

Here's a list to get you started though.
It's all pretty fucked up, to the point where I'm kind of surprised there isn't a higher level of outrage and protest. Even if a person really really hates abortion, or even contraception, there's a lot going on that no-one should be okay with, or want for themselves or people around them. Like making it legal for doctors to lie to their patients.

So, do y'all got any plans for responding to, engaging with, or generally acting out with regards to this topic?

There's a nice Personhood for Women petition at change dot org.

I'm also trying to compose a letter to attach to another petition to tell my state senate president that it is not okay to allow businesses to fire employees based on what medication they might be taking. I'm having a difficult time because I really cannot even imagine even a little bit of a defense of this idea, much less one I could reason with. (Also, because is Pierce even still senate president? I don't know).

And I'm still trying to figure out who would be best to write to in order to remind folks that doctors who knowingly mislead their patients are still dangerous criminals.

I feel like I should add a disclaimer that I'm not really qualified or studious enough to speak competently on legal issues or these in particular, but the people supporting and creating these bills don't appear to understand them at all.

[sourmìlk]

Well a lot of these things this forum has gotten outraged over. The Kansas law that would allow doctors to lie to their patients particularly outrages me. I'm going to stop slacking off and work for a moment because this thread made me sad.

[Arrian]

Well, it's not going unchallenged.

<edit>

"The physician shall ensure that the sessions include information on nonpharmaceutical treatments for erectile dysfunction, including sexual counseling and resources for patients to pursue celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice."

He he he, abstinence only sex education? Why not abstinence as an erectile dysfunction treatment!
</edit>

But really, when I read your title, I thought you were talking about the rough state of medical research. It's not just medications, for example neuroimaging results are generally portrayed as much more cut and dry than they actually are.

The unspoken rule is that at least 50% of the studies published even in top tier academic journals – Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, etc… – can’t be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. In particular, key animal models often don’t reproduce. This 50% failure rate isn’t a data free assertion: it’s backed up by dozens of experienced R&D professionals who’ve participated in the (re)testing of academic findings. This is a huge problem for translational research and one that won’t go away until we address it head on.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

I think you forgot the bill in Arizona which will allow your employer to ask whether you got birth control pills for a "valid medical reason" or for sex. And that they can fire you if you reason is the latter. But, of course, they say, it isn't about birth control! (But their secret is, it is about feudalism.)

[ShortChelsea]

I want to throw a childish tantrum saying, "STOPPIT STOPPIT STOPPIT! They're my ladyparts, why are you messing with them?
Seriously, though. I feel really sick to my stomach whenever the conversation comes up. It's as though these people that I don't know and don't know me don't want me to have a career, or a life, or access to medical care.

[Deep_Thought]

for example neuroimaging results are generally portrayed as much more cut and dry than they actually are.

I could talk with you about this topic for hours. But it's a bit off-topic, so I won't do it here and now.

[Princess Marzipan]

Well, it's not going unchallenged.

<edit>

"The physician shall ensure that the sessions include information on nonpharmaceutical treatments for erectile dysfunction, including sexual counseling and resources for patients to pursue celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice."

He he he, abstinence only sex education? Why not abstinence as an erectile dysfunction treatment!
</edit>

Ooooh that is gorgeous.

I'm firmly against this bullshit and these satirical bills STILL managed to show me they're even more bullshit than I'd thought.

Edit for the antidote to any amusement provided by antivasectomy legislation, via Shakesville. A woman talks about navigating the emotional minefield of aborting a wanted pregnancy under Texas' new laws: http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-stor ... ot-to-know

[cephalopod9]

I think you forgot the bill in Arizona which will allow your employer to ask whether you got birth control pills for a "valid medical reason" or for sex. And that they can fire you if you reason is the latter. But, of course, they say, it isn't about birth control! (But their secret is, it is about feudalism.)

I thought I had a link to info it at some point, but the second petition I mention is about that (because I'm in Arizona). It is one of the more comically backwards, and completely false appeals to "religious freedom". I haven't seen anything that's made it clear that the bill couldn't go the other way, and people not taking birth control (for sex) get fired.
Also, it's pretty far from a comprehensive list of the goings on. There's even more stuff out there, like (I don't know what kind of TW to put here, but it probably needs one) a Georgian state representative making the argument "Livestock. therefor you can't take a non-living fetus out of a woman if it's more than 20 weeks old". [/TW]

But really, when I read your title, I thought you were talking about the rough state of medical research.

I kinda wanted to bring up that in the process of being really shitty to women, and people who benefit from reproductive health services, these a-holes are also throwing this gigantic hissy-fit about medicine. Medicines that aren't even new, the pill has been around for 50 years, and it helps people. There's no part of it that isn't an insult to reason, empiricism, science and logic.

[paulisa]

And I'm still trying to figure out who would be best to write to in order to remind folks that doctors who knowingly mislead their patients are still dangerous criminals.

This kind of stuff makes me wonder what kind of world these people live in. Sure, as a pinko commie european I can never understand the holy american culture, but this just makes words fail me.

Also, it's not just disrespectful to women, but also implies (to me) an ableist attitude. It seems that those responsible could not imagine themselves taking care of an "imperfect" child and would ask for an abortion, and so can't imagine that others think differently. That may just be a wacky, cynical thought of mine.

[Diadem]

Sometimes, when I read these kind of things, I wonder if it's not already too late for America. Sometimes, your country seems terminally ill.

Isn't it time for liberals to flock to a few of the more liberal states, stack up on guns, and secede? Basically, cut your losses and run.

Or am I too bleak?

[n0etic]

I've only recently noticed some of the craziness that's been going on in American legislation around birth control. I had someone on my Facebook post a fantastic link about a US senator that has been getting wall posts from outraged women because he has endorsed mandatory ultrasound before allowing a woman to be granted a safe abortion. It's amazingly brilliant idea for these women to post "vagina updates" to this senator's page because he has taken on the stance of being an "expert" on women's health. I think if that we want legislation to work for women, more and more of this kind of organizing has to happen.

http://www.themarysue.com/women-leave-v ... -facebook/

[Puppyclaws]

Sometimes, when I read these kind of things, I wonder if it's not already too late for America. Sometimes, your country seems terminally ill.

Isn't it time for liberals to flock to a few of the more liberal states, stack up on guns, and secede? Basically, cut your losses and run.

Or am I too bleak?

For one, a not inconsiderable number of liberals don't like violence very much, and the idea of taking up arms for their "cause" is not particularly appealing (especially given that "liberal" is a blanket term in the US for about a dozen different conflicting ideologies). Also, many of them do not care for the idea of secession and dissolution of a country. I hear we had some sort of unpleasant war about it in the past, in which most liberals seemed to feel that separation into two nations was unconstitutional/a bad idea.

For two, there are few "liberal states" and they are not all connected physically. And anyway generally speaking there are only liberal parts of states. Massachusetts is the only state with more than two or three representatives where all the elected members of congress come from the Democratic party (or that was the case before the special election that gave us Scott Brown, so now even we have one Republican). Even here, there is a considerable Republican streak in the rural communities that make up the Western part of the state, which is represented in our state legislature primarily by Republicans.

For three, yes that is extremely bleak when what we are talking about is mostly proposals and ideas, not legislation that has been passed or is universally applauded/supported by politicians. There are nuts trying to do awful things in all kinds of countries. The Le Pens in France and their political party have received considerable support despite having roughly the same views as American Republicans, including statements that they would like to make abortions illegal again and essentially push women out of the workforce and back into the home. That doesn't mean it's time for the leftists of France to move to their own special part of the country and secede, or that it's somehow become a right-wing country.

[nitePhyyre]

It's as though these people that I don't know and don't know me don't want me to have a career, or a life, or access to medical care.

Fix'd.

[jules.LT]

I think you forgot the bill in Arizona which will allow your employer to ask whether you got birth control pills for a "valid medical reason" or for sex. And that they can fire you if you reason is the latter. But, of course, they say, it isn't about birth control! (But their secret is, it is about feudalism.)

In Soviet Russia (and all suitably secular countries*), you're more likely to hide getting off the pill from your employer. Because of the dreaded maternal leave.

* Well, at least in mine anyway.

[Darryl]

I think you forgot the bill in Arizona which will allow your employer to ask whether you got birth control pills for a "valid medical reason" or for sex. And that they can fire you if you reason is the latter. But, of course, they say, it isn't about birth control! (But their secret is, it is about feudalism.)

Of course, that bill is completely illegal, as it violates HIPPAA privacy requirements. And federal law trumps state law.
Still troubling as hell that this is even being considered, though.

[cephalopod9]

Hey, Protest with Yarn
...Maybe I'll crochet a model of an ectopic pregnancy.

In Soviet Russia (and all suitably secular countries*), you're more likely to hide getting off the pill from your employer. Because of the dreaded maternal leave.

* Well, at least in mine anyway.

I'm pretty certain that would be a thing here too, and I haven't seen anything from the people backing the bill that says they don't want that.

Of course, that bill is completely illegal, as it violates HIPPAA privacy requirements. And federal law trumps state law.
Still troubling as hell that this is even being considered, though.

Arizona seems to be going through a spell of people going out of their way to be crappy people just for the sake of it. Like banning abortion after 20 weeks, when less than 1% of abortions happen at that point already.

Edit: I can't quite decide if this is relevant, but Fun Fact of the day: Rick Santorum's wife had an abortion at 20 weeks.

[sophyturtle]

I almost posted that thing places, then looked a bit deeper. it looks like they were thinking about maybe doing it, but were against it, and were saved from the decision by early labor.

Still, this is a super relevant thing to be talking about, especially considering the backhanded way it is going on. Like in Texas where they could not pass a law so they are simply mandating it through state agencies.

[cephalopod9]

I don't really want to dig into Karen Santorum's personal medical history, and I feel kinda shitty about discussing it at all. However, I feel like Rick Santorum's actions make it political as well as personal, and that it seems less than a black and white, abortion or not, situation is a relevant point. The issue for me is that Rick Santorum saw his family go through this incredibly difficult ordeal, and wants to make life more difficult for women and families in the same position, and make it more difficult . He saw his wife go through this, and wants to go back and take away her agency, and any meaning her decisions had.

So, Arizona's "authoritarian judgment is freedom"- "explain to your boss why you think you deserve to have birth control" got struck down.

Unfortunately I think "HB2036
private attorney retention; contingency fees
(NOW: abortion; procedures; informed consent; requirements)" is almost a law. (it has two names because Kimberly Yee decided to take a proposition and rewrite the entire thing. I am also appalled and alarmed by the back handed sneakiness going on. Especially since I thought the whole point of being aggressively "pro-life" was to show off.)

fffff. I'm really not good at politics. The main reason I started this thread was to get input from people who are better at politics than me.

[Malice]

Unfortunately I think "HB2036
private attorney retention; contingency fees
(NOW: abortion; procedures; informed consent; requirements)" is almost a law. (it has two names because Kimberly Yee decided to take a proposition and rewrite the entire thing. I am also appalled and alarmed by the back handed sneakiness going on. Especially since I thought the whole point of being aggressively "pro-life" was to show off.)

fffff. I'm really not good at politics. The main reason I started this thread was to get input from people who are better at politics than me.

To summarize, they're rewriting the part of Arizona law that's a list of things abortion clinics must comply with to add the following provisions:

-If they give an abortion to a minor without consent from a parent or judge, the parents can bring a civil suit against the clinic.
-DHS (Department of Health Services) is to set up a website "describing the unborn child" (including "pictures or drawings" of every single stage of fetal development) and a list of abortion alternatives; the clinic is required to tell the patient at least 24 hours before the abortion that this website exists and that the patient can have a free printout if they want.
-The clinic has to put up signs in every room that say "it is unlawful for any person to force a woman to have an abortion".

If the following two new rules are not followed:
-At least 24 hours before the abortion a doctor needs to do an ultrasound and offer to explain it and offer a print-out of it.
-If the fetus has been diagnosed with a non-lethal disorder, the doctor needs to explain the "range of outcomes" for people with that disorder.

then the woman has not legally consented to the abortion, and she, the father (if he's also the husband), or her parents if she's a minor can bring a civil suit against the clinic. (There's a rape exception for those.)

Those same people can bring a civil suit against the clinic if the doctor:
-does not determine the gestational age and performs the abortion
or
-determines the gestational age to be greater than 20 weeks and performs the abortion

That one is also a misdemeanor, the doctor will lose their license, etc.

--

To summarize the summary, they've either added or rewritten a 24-hour waiting period, an ultrasound before the procedure, a 20-week limit (with no exceptions for rape or health of the mother), and some other bullshit.

[lutzj]

-The clinic has to put up signs in every room that say "it is unlawful for any person to force a woman to have an abortion".

This actually seems reasonable. The other conditions of the bill make it harder to abort but this doesn't inhibit anyone who actually wants to, and can help people make properly-informed choices. As long as the number of women who are being pressured into abortions they don't want is >0 this is good information to provide.

[Garm]

Not sure you need a sign in every room tho'.

[lutzj]

Not sure you need a sign in every room tho'.

My high school had an American flag, the school's mission statement, the school's honor code, an LGBT safe-zone insignia, instructions to the fire exits, the maximum occupancy listing from the fire marshal, something about peanut allergies, and a list of phone extensions in every classroom. Did anybody need any of that information in every room on every day? Of course not. Putting it in every room demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that this information is understood. Does every business need those posters detailing worker's rights regarding wages, overtime and harassment in the workplace? Does every seat of the airplane need its own "No Smoking" signal?

I'm not saying ubiquitous signage is necessary, but it's at least precedented heavily by similar things governments enforce. It's better at least than something genuinely bothersome like making doctors deliver a short speech before every appointment or patients sign a contract specifically waiving their right not to have the procedure.

[Proginoskes]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

[phlip]

-The clinic has to put up signs in every room that say "it is unlawful for any person to force a woman to have an abortion".

This actually seems reasonable. The other conditions of the bill make it harder to abort but this doesn't inhibit anyone who actually wants to, and can help people make properly-informed choices. As long as the number of women who are being pressured into abortions they don't want is >0 this is good information to provide.

On its own, perhaps. But as part of that huge list, it's part of trying to frame the whole thing as "saving" women from having abortions forced upon them. And by framing it such, thus attempting to marginalise women who actually want abortions. This is an incremental change on the previous framing, which was that women who wanted abortions were merely uninformed, and legislating questionable education tactics (hence pamphlets and waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds and doctors describing the fetus and so on). Ultimately the idea is the same - frame wanting an abortion as weird and abnormal, to the point that normal right-thinking pro-lifers need to figure out excuses for why you'd possibly want one, so they can save you from them.

Now, I'm not saying that people being forced into abortions isn't a problem - if it happens, it's a problem, and I haven't seen numbers one way or the other as to whether it actually happens. But even if it is happening, you need to be careful when trying to fix it with legislation... specifically to make sure that the legislation doesn't punish either people being coerced into doing something, or people who want to do it willingly... just punishes the coercers. It's the same thing as with the pushes to ban bhurkas to protect muslim women... the ban doesn't punish those who force women to wear the bhurka, just the women who are so forced, and women who wear it by choice. And thus, as a result, does plenty of harm, and little good. Ditto restricting abortion to allegedly stop people from being coerced into having one.

[cephalopod9]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

I'm trying so hard to vote them away right now, but it doesn't seem to be working. Maybe I'm doing something, but voting with all my might hasn't helped.

-If the fetus has been diagnosed with a non-lethal disorder, the doctor needs to explain the "range of outcomes" for people with that disorder.

then the woman has not legally consented to the abortion, and she, the father (if he's also the husband), or her parents if she's a minor can bring a civil suit against the clinic. (There's a rape exception for those.)

Those same people can bring a civil suit against the clinic if the doctor:
-does not determine the gestational age and performs the abortion
or
-determines the gestational age to be greater than 20 weeks and performs the abortion

That one is also a misdemeanor, the doctor will lose their license, etc.

I forgot, I also wanted to mention the really fun part: Putting this together with SB 1359, which says you can't sue if your doctor doesn't adequately inform you of conditions your fetus has, and you give birth to an infant you aren't prepared to care for.
(I'm disappointed with myself for not adding it up sooner) This means that if a doctor is late getting information to a patient, she's stuck with a pregnancy and without any legal recourse. (Dependent on whether the lateness is "gross negligence", which I'm not 100% clear on, but the limited time frame makes me suspect it would be very difficult to prove).

-The clinic has to put up signs in every room that say "it is unlawful for any person to force a woman to have an abortion".

This actually seems reasonable. The other conditions of the bill make it harder to abort but this doesn't inhibit anyone who actually wants to, and can help people make properly-informed choices. As long as the number of women who are being pressured into abortions they don't want is >0 this is good information to provide.

In any other context it would be reasonable, and I would agree, but in this bill, it's one more potential reason to shut down a clinic, which makes it bad. Yes what Phlip said. ((minus the use of ellipsis as wild card punctuation, which confuses and angers me, but is unrelated to the content of the message))

Can I also share? Every part of even thinking about this stuff is less fun with a uterus full of angry period.

[lutzj]

Now, I'm not saying that people being forced into abortions isn't a problem - if it happens, it's a problem, and I haven't seen numbers one way or the other as to whether it actually happens. But even if it is happening, you need to be careful when trying to fix it with legislation... specifically to make sure that the legislation doesn't punish either people being coerced into doing something, or people who want to do it willingly... just punishes the coercers. It's the same thing as with the pushes to ban bhurkas to protect muslim women... the ban doesn't punish those who force women to wear the bhurka, just the women who are so forced, and women who wear it by choice. And thus, as a result, does plenty of harm, and little good. Ditto restricting abortion to allegedly stop people from being coerced into having one.

This is roughly what I meant when I said the signs were reasonable; they provide information without coercing or even inconveniencing people.

In any other context it would be reasonable, and I would agree, but in this bill, it's one more potential reason to shut down a clinic, which makes it bad.

That's like complaining that license plate stickers are "just one more way to ticket a car," except that putting signs up in your business (again, basically something that businesses and especially those dealing in healthcare have to do anyway) is trivially easy compared to updating one's plates.

[omgryebread]

That's like complaining that license plate stickers are "just one more way to ticket a car," except that putting signs up in your business (again, basically something that businesses and especially those dealing in healthcare have to do anyway) is trivially easy compared to updating one's plates.

I want signs in grocery stores saying "It is unlawful for any person to force another to buy broccoli." It doesn't inhibit anyone from broccoli who wants to, and it helps people make properly-informed choices. I mean, my roommate once told me to buy broccoli, and it would have been nice to know she couldn't force me to do so.

It's also easy for the grocery store to put up. Win/win, I say.

[buddy431]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

I'm trying so hard to vote them away right now, but it doesn't seem to be working. Maybe I'm doing something, but voting with all my might hasn't helped.

Maybe not all voters (including all women) have the same beliefs and values as you do. Welcome to democracy.

[lutzj]

That's like complaining that license plate stickers are "just one more way to ticket a car," except that putting signs up in your business (again, basically something that businesses and especially those dealing in healthcare have to do anyway) is trivially easy compared to updating one's plates.

I want signs in grocery stores saying "It is unlawful for any person to force another to buy broccoli." It doesn't inhibit anyone from broccoli who wants to, and it helps people make properly-informed choices. I mean, my roommate once told me to buy broccoli, and it would have been nice to know she couldn't force me to do so.

It's also easy for the grocery store to put up. Win/win, I say.

If regulators think there is a significant of people whom broccoli-buying is forced upon, and that being forced to buy broccoli is harmful, then they could definitely require such signs.

[Dauric]

With regards to "women being coerced in to abortions by their doctors" I'm going to say [citation needed].

Last time I checked doctors providing abortions weren't doing it for the lulz, or because their demonic familiars require a pile of fetus-meat to dine on under every full moon.

So, unless someone can show that women are actually being coerced in to abortions by their doctors (which is all the notifications are there to prevent) then it's a smokescreen to solve a nonexistent problem and make the whole package seem better than it is, while creating additional barriers for those women who are actually seeking the procedure, and creating additional pitfalls for doctors that provide it.

[cephalopod9]

Ticketing a car does not shut down a health care clinic providing much needed, and increasingly scarce services. Also, I do not care about how much you like posters, or your assumption that clinics don't already take precautions and watch out for women being coerced into medical procedures (and that telling the women being coerced that it is wrong is the best and most necessary step in preventing this, not, say, supporting women or creating resources for domestic abuse victims).

Also, it's not just disrespectful to women, but also implies (to me) an ableist attitude. It seems that those responsible could not imagine themselves taking care of an "imperfect" child and would ask for an abortion, and so can't imagine that others think differently. That may just be a wacky, cynical thought of mine.

Augh, yes, the rhetoric surrounding this is just hideous.
For starters, there's the constant, inherent effect of abortion restriction which is that it devalues and takes the meaning out of pregnancy and birth. If there's never an alternative to carrying a pregnancy to term, then the risks and sacrifices that go into can never have the significance they would have if they were given by choice. Something given under duress or threat of punishment can't be a gift.
Pointing to living people with conditions that might be selected against is a deflection, and kind of a lousy thing to co-opt their lived experiences for a political message. It, again, erases the risks and resources birthing and raising children with debilitating conditions, and it ignores conditions where the fetus is extremely likely, or inevitably going to have a short painful life following birth.
I also hate how much of the debate seems caught up in the idea that opposing ideas are exact reflections of each other. I'm already reflexively jumping to add and clarify that what I mean is that the outcome of a high risk or complicate pregnancy should be decided by the mother, and I hate the weird double think that feminism somehow devalues motherhood by wanting it to be a choice. It is exactly because pregnancy and motherhood are noble and admirable things that it is unacceptable and reprehensible to force them on a person.

Maybe not all voters (including all women) have the same beliefs and values as you do. Welcome to democracy.

It's also not an effective strategy when there isn't an election going on.

[Sartorius]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

In addition to what other people have said about it not being an election cycle and there are such things as pro-life women, this may very well be the most sexist thing said in this thread.

(Apologies if I'm misunderstanding or overreacting, but it sounds like you're saying that all women are stupid because pro-life legislators aren't out of office in a thread with women trying to inform each other about pro-life legislators.)

[Angua]

BBC article summarising a bunch of the different anti-abortion bills going on this year in the US.

Slight trigger warning for them interviewing pro-life advocates who are calling this genocide, as well as a description of the transvaginal wand being the equivalent to state-sponsored rape.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17709398

[Shivahn]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

(Apologies if I'm misunderstanding or overreacting, but it sounds like you're saying that all women are stupid because pro-life legislators aren't out of office in a thread with women trying to inform each other about pro-life legislators.)

That's how it naturally parses, given that "women" is the set of all individual women.

[lutzj]

With regards to "women being coerced in to abortions by their doctors" I'm going to say [citation needed].

I don't think anybody in this thread is claiming that. I'm more concerned about coercion from family/SOs/employers.

[DavidH]

With regards to "women being coerced in to abortions by their doctors" I'm going to say [citation needed].

I don't think anybody in this thread is claiming that. I'm more concerned about coercion from family/SOs/employers.

Yeah, that's actually exactly the reason for the posters. The reason the posters are in every room (in a good clinic) is because a woman might not feel comfortable discussing her reasons for getting the abortion in every setting. We've had plenty of women wait until they were alone with the doctors (and thus away from whoever came with them) before voicing concerns.

[Proginoskes]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

In addition to what other people have said about it not being an election cycle

Not an election cycle? Everyone in the House of Representatives is up for re-election this year!

and there are such things as pro-life women, this may very well be the most sexist thing said in this thread.

Okay, let's remove gender entirely from what I was trying to say.

Suppose Scott Walker signs a bill making it illegal for anyone to be paid, unless their last name begins with the letter W. Now, what would you do if your last name didn't begin with W? The only logical choice (I guess I should have said "logical", not "smart" here, I'll admit that), for someone whose name doesn't begin with W, would be to get rid of the idiot. However, there would still be plenty of people whose names didn't start with the letter W who would vote for him; those people would be even bigger idiots.

(Now I'm going to get flamed for picking on idiots, I guess, or people whose last name begins with 'W' ...)

(Apologies if I'm misunderstanding or overreacting, but it sounds like you're saying that all women are stupid because pro-life legislators aren't out of office in a thread with women trying to inform each other about pro-life legislators.)

The opposite of "smart" is not "stupid". You're using that either-you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us mentality that tore the country apart during the Bush II years. (Hmmm, maybe John Titor was right ... Maybe we are headed for a civil war, with the OWS and Tea Party ...)

[cephalopod9]

Okay, let's remove gender entirely from what I was trying to say.

What you said was about gender, so that makes as much sense as removing words entirely from it, although that would save time.

if women were smart,

Voting is a great strategy, However, State legislatures are making laws now, not after the next election, so it isn't helpful or relevant.
You will be derailing if you continue on about what you really truly meant and why anyone should care.

Does anyone have good research strategies for finding out and keeping track of which bills are at which stage? I saw a news blog say that HB 2036 was signed into law, but the evening news (on the television) said it was still "on the governor's desk".

I also want to add: Fuck democrats for not running away with both the "the real issue for women is the economy", and the completely fake outrage over respect for stay at home moms. Why have they not stood up and said "Why thank you for bringing up the topic of mothers. Let's have a chat about who's been trying to provide families with health care and other safety nets, and who's been obstructing those efforts, which party has a member trying to repeal the equal pay act, and who said he would rather spend more money than let welfare recipients stay home to care for their children"? Obama is ahead in the polls just by not being actively terrible, and the republicans are making your arguments for you, get it together.

[Shro]

I have links!
Abortion Reporting Requirements

In case you don't think privacy is important in women's health matters

[omgryebread]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

Old post but:

Judging from this and your posts explaining it, I know this is just awkward wording rather than you saying women are dumb, but language is important! Your statement is offensive in this backhanded not-quite-misogynist-but-still-sexist way. Like complimenting a black guy on how articulate he is, or saying "it's not all about being thin, I like girls with curves!" We understand the intent is good, but be careful!

Firstly, women don't vote as a bloc. There are republican women. Even misogynist women. That's not even them being dumb. Smart people can be wrong, even extremely wrong.

Secondly, your comment carries the tone of "listen up ladies, while a dude tells you how to help yourselves." Again, not intended, I know.

It may seem small, but it's pervasive. Sure, the hardcore sexist remarks are more flagrant and actual discrimination in pay or services or whatever is more harmful, but it's the little, usually unintentional, often well-meaning, things embedded in our culture.