• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republican "War On Women" Is Not A Left-Wing Inven

Help Support Ranchers.net:

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Republican "War On Women" Is Not A Left-Wing Invention

April 10, 2012 3:15 pm ET —


Right-wing media are claiming that a Republican "war on women" is "phony" and "invented" by the left to distract attention from issues such as the economy and gas prices. But Republicans throughout the country have indeed pushed a plethora of legislation during the past few years that would result in limiting women's reproductive rights, access to health care access, and access to equal pay; moreover, right-wing media themselves launched a bullying campaign against Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke after she testified in favor of expanded contraception coverage.



snip...





But Republicans Throughout The Country Have Pushed Legislation That Would Restrict Women's Reproductive Rights And Access To Health Care, Equal Pay

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

In May 2011, House GOP Passed Bill That Would Ban D.C. Reproductive Funding. In May 2011, House Republicans unanimously passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which created a "ban on the District [of Columbia] using its own money to fund abortions for low-income women."

From The Washington Post:

The House approved a bill Wednesday that would make permanent a ban on the District using its own money to fund abortions for low-income women, dealing D.C. another setback in its quest to retain control over its finances.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act cleared the House on a 251-175 vote, with 16 Democrats joining all 235 Republicans present to support it. The bill would tighten laws designed to prevent federally-funded abortions across the country, and would enshrine the District ban into federal law. The spending resolution signed by President Obama last month contains a similar restriction on D.C., but it only lasts through Sept. 30. [The Washington Post, 5/4/11]

"No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion" Bill Originally Included Language Restricting The Definition Of Rape. The original version of the No Taxpayer For Abortion Act included language amended from the Hyde Amendment, which limited federal funding for abortion to cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. The law would have removed all exceptions other than "forcible" rape. A January 28, 2011, Mother Jones article pointed out that this would have "rule[d] out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases." From Mother Jones:

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.) [Mother Jones, 1/28/11]


Virginia GOP Passed Measure To Require "Invasive" Vaginal Ultrasound Before Abortions. In February, Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates introduced a bill that would have required women in the early stages of pregnancy to undergo an "invasive" transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. Following public pressure, [t]he House of Delegates passed a modified version of the bill that still requires a medically unnecessary ultrasound. From Mother Jones:


Virginia's controversial mandatory ultrasound bill is now headed to Gov. Bob McDonnell's desk. While the final version of the bill allows women to opt out of having an invasive transvaginal ultrasound -- the provision that drew a national spotlight in the last couple weeks -- don't be fooled: It's still a burdensome law.

The original bill would have required women seeking an abortion to undergo whatever kind of ultrasound gets the best image of the embryo or fetus. In the early stages of pregnancy -- when the vast majority of abortions occur -- that's typically a transvaginal ultrasound, which is far more invasive than the abdominal kind (think jelly-on-the-belly). That requirement was scrapped at the eleventh hour, after a deluge of national attention. Abortion rights activists said mandating such an invasive procedure amounted to "state-sanctioned rape," a comparison that clearly struck a nerve: Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show took cracks at the bill; more than a thousand women gathered in silent protest outside the state capitol. Eventually, McDonnell backtracked on his initial support, stating last week, "No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure." [Mother Jones, 3/3/12]

Pennsylvania GOP Proposed "Invasive" Ultrasound Bill. In February, Republicans in the Pennsylvania State House introduced legislation requiring that "medical professionals say women would have to undergo an invasive, vaginal ultrasound." From PennLive.com:

Under the bill in Pennsylvania, medical professionals say women would have to undergo an invasive, vaginal ultrasound. That prospect is drawing outrage among supporters of abortion rights.


[...]

The bill, proposed by Rep. Kathy Rapp, a conservative Republican from Warren County, outlines what women seeking an abortion would undergo in great detail.

The bill requires that the woman not only get an ultrasound, but that the ultrasound screen be in her line of sight. The woman can choose to look away, the legislation states, but the technician performing the ultrasound would have to note if the woman viewed the results.

The patient would also have to hear the results of the physician's finding, sign a written report to give to the abortion provider, and receive a sealed copy of the ultrasound's image.

On March 2, The New York Times noted that the State House majority leader canceled debate on the bill "follow[ing] a national uproar over a similar proposal in Virginia":

The State House majority leader announced on Thursday that a bill requiring ultrasounds before abortions would not be considered soon. The shift followed a national uproar over a similar proposal in Virginia, which as originally worded would have forced women to have vaginal ultrasounds. The majority leader, Mike Turzai, a Republican, canceled a debate on a bill that critics said would require invasive procedures and interfere with doctor-patient relations. A spokesman, Stephen Miskin, said, "Until there is a consensus within the House and the medical community, it won't be scheduled for a vote." [PennLive.com, 2/29/12; The New York Times, 3/2/12]

Alabama GOP Attempted To Pass Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill. In February, Alabama GOP State Sen. Clay Scofield ended debate over a bill that would have required transvaginal ultrasounds before getting an abortion. From The Huffington Post:

Alabama state Sen. Clay Scofield (R) backed off a provision Monday that would have forced women to submit to transvaginal ultrasounds before getting an abortion. The move mirrors the fate of an ultrasound measure in Virginia, which was similarly scrapped in favor of one that mandated a less invasive procedure.

[...]

The change of course comes after state Sen. Linda Coleman (D) denounced the transvaginal ultrasound bill as nothing less than "a state-sanctioned rape bill," arguing in a recent interview that beyond restricting access to safe abortion care, the bill amounts to an assault on women. [The Huffington Post, 2/28/12]

GOP Lawmakers In Idaho Introduced Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill. In February, GOP lawmakers on the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee unanimously voted to introduce a bill that would have required "an invasive transvaginal ultrasound" procedure "before any Idaho woman could have an abortion." From the Spokesman-Review:

Controversial anti-abortion legislation that caused a brouhaha before being withdrawn in Virginia was introduced in Idaho today, to require an ultrasound before any Idaho woman could have an abortion.

The issue is that at very early stages of pregnancy, before six to eight weeks gestation, a regular abdominal ultrasound doesn't provide a clear picture of the fetus, requiring instead an invasive transvaginal ultrasound, a procedure that includes penetration of the patient with an ultrasound wand. Idaho Senate Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, R-Meridian, said the original version of his bill specifically mentioned that procedure, but he removed it. [The Spokesman-Review, 2/27/12]

Georgia GOP Cuts Option For Abortion Services After 20 Weeks. In March, Georgia Republicans passed a bill that would have "cut by about six weeks the time women in Georgia may have an elective abortion." According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the bill "would tighten medical exemptions for terminating pregnancies and require any abortion performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy be done in a way to bring the fetus out alive. No exemption is made for rape or incest":

As originally written by its sponsor, state Rep. Doug McKillip, R-Athens, the proposal would have cut by about six weeks the time women in Georgia may have an elective abortion. The Senate's changes forced into the bill an exemption for "medically futile" pregnancies, giving doctors the option to perform an abortion past 20 weeks when a fetus has congenital or chromosomal defects.

Although the House -- including McKillip and House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge -- initially balked, they agreed Thursday to move forward with a compromise. It was to include a definition in the bill describing what "medically futile" means: Profound and "irremediable" anomalies that would be "incompatible with sustaining life after birth."

[...]

Commonly referred to as a "fetal pain" bill, House Bill 954 would tighten medical exemptions for terminating pregnancies and require any abortion performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy be done in a way to bring the fetus out alive. No exemption is made for rape or incest. The measure says that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, therefore the state has an interest in protecting it. [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/29/12]

Arizona GOP Promoting Law That Restricts Abortion To 20 Weeks And Requires Ultrasound. The Republican-led state legislature in Arizona is promoting a bill that would ban "most abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy." From Reuters:

A controversial Arizona bill that bans most abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy moved closer to becoming law on Wednesday in the Republican-controlled state legislature after clearing the state Senate.

The bill, which would still allow abortions after 20 weeks in the case of medical emergency, was passed by a mostly party-line 20-to-10 vote in the Senate on Tuesday. Only a small number of abortions are performed in Arizona after 20 weeks.

[...]

The Arizona bill would also require women to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to having an abortion, instead of the one hour that is currently mandated under state law.

In addition, the bill would require that the state create a website that details the risks of the procedure and shows pictures of the fetus in various stages. [Reuters, 3/28/12]

In 2011, Center For Reproductive Rights "Monitored Over 600 Anti-Choice Bills That Would Undermine Women's Autonomy And Fundamental Rights To Health And Well-Being" At The State Level. From the Center for Reproductive Rights' 2010-11 annual report:

The Center is hard-pressed to cite a time in the last twenty years that can rival -- in volume and in severity -- this most recent period of anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-health legislative action in the United States.

In 2011, the Center's State Program has monitored over 600 anti-choice bills that would undermine women's autonomy and fundamental rights to health and well-being. It's clear: Women and their fundamental rights to health and decision-making are being attacked. [Center for Reproductive Rights annual report, 2010-11]

HEALTH CARE ACCESS
House Republicans Voted To Cut Off Funding To Planned Parenthood. In February 2011, the House approved GOP Rep. Mike Pence's amendment to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. According to a February 18, 2011, Politico article:

The House just approved Rep. Mike Pence's amendment to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, checking off a hot-button social issue even as it set up a bigger showdown over defunding the health care law.

The vote was 240-185 with 11 Democrats voting for the amendment, and seven Republicans voting against. One member voted present. A group of Republicans on the floor applauded when the vote hit 218.

[...]

A longtime anti-abortion crusader, Pence has three times previously tried to cut off legislative funding, called Title X, for any group that provides abortions.

The money cannot be used to pay for abortions, and Pence has not argued that Planned Parenthood has used the funds to do so.

But he argues that cutting off support for millions of women's health clinics would cut off their ability to perform the procedure.

"We should end the day when the largest abortion provider is the largest recipient of [Title X] federal funding," he said.

"What's clear to me, if you follow the money, you can actually take the funding supports out of abortion. We then have a much better opportunity to move forward to be a society that says yes to life."

Planned Parenthood estimates it received a quarter of the $317 million in Title X funds appropriated last year. They use the money for pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling, among other things. [Politico, 2/18/11]

GOP Sen. Roy Blunt Introduced Amendment That Would Have Allowed Any Employer To Deny Reproductive Health Coverage To Women. In March, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced an amendment to a highway funding bill that "would have allowed not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement." From The Washington Post:

The Senate Thursday rejected an effort to vastly expand conscience exemptions to the Obama administration's new birth control coverage rule, even as Republican presidential contenders continued to tussle over the issue.

The measure, an amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to a highway funding bill, would have allowed not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement. And it would have allowed such employers to do so in the case of not only contraception but any health service required by the 2010 health-care law. [The Washington Post, 3/1/12]

Texas Republican Lawmakers Voted To Restrict Health Services To Low-Income Women. In March, "conservative Republican lawmakers" in Texas implemented a law that would "cut off clinics with any affiliation to a[n abortion] provider, even if it's just a shared name, employee or board member." From USA Today:

Delia Henry was tired but had no idea her blood sugar was high when she went to Planned Parenthood for her annual gynecological exam. The clinic referred her to a doctor, who diagnosed her with diabetes.

The 31-year-old nursing student said she would have skipped the exam since she has no insurance, but she had just signed up for Texas' Women's Health Program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to about 130,000 low-income women through Medicaid.

But under a state law taking effect Wednesday, Henry and other eligible women won't be able to get care at Planned Parenthood clinics -- which treat about 44% of the program's patients -- or other facilities with ties to abortion providers, meaning those women will have to find new health-care providers.

The $40 million program is at the center of a faceoff between conservative Republican lawmakers and the federal government, which provides 90% of the program's funding. Although Texas already forbids taxpayer money from going to organizations that provide abortions, the law will cut off clinics with any affiliation to a provider, even if it's just a shared name, employee or board member.

[...]

The nonpartisan Center for Public Policy Priorities, which works to alleviate poverty, said poor women would have difficulty finding new doctors who participate in the program. Doctors and clinics must be qualified Medicaid providers and enrolled in organizations that manage the program. [USA Today, 3/11/12]

GOP-Led Indiana Legislature Voted To Eliminate Funding To Planned Parenthood. In June 2011, a federal judge struck down a law passed by Indiana GOP state lawmakers that would have eliminated both state and federal matching funds from going to Planned Parenthood "because it performs abortions." From Reuters:

A judge on Friday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Indiana from enforcing a law that eliminated funding to Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions.

The Republican-led Indiana legislature had voted to strip the women's health group of funding, including money from the federal Medicaid program for the poor, and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed the legislation into law. [Reuters, 6/25/11]

EQUAL PAY
WI GOP Gov. Scott Walker Repealed Law Aimed At Preventing Gender Wage Discrimination. On April 5, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repealed a law "that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court." From The Huffington Post:

A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill.

The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.

In November, the state Senate approved SB 202, which rolled back this provision. On February, the Assembly did the same. Both were party-line votes in Republican-controlled chambers.

[...]

Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH, said that the repeal was a "demoralizing attack on women's rights, health, and wellbeing."

"Economic security is a women's health issue," she said. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women's health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access." [The Huffington Post, 4/6/12]

Right-Wing Media Launched Bullying Campaign Against Women's Health Activist Sandra Fluke
Limbaugh Repeatedly Called Fluke A "Slut" And "Prostitute" For Promoting Contraception Coverage. Following Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke's congressional testimony in support of contraception coverage, Rush Limbaugh repeatedly called Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" on air. From the February 29 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.

Limbaugh later "apologize[d]" to Fluke "for the insulting word choices." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/29/12, via Media Matters; RushLimbaugh.com, 3/3/12, via Media Matters]

Loesch: Fluke "Wants To Be Able To Be As Promiscuous As She Wants To Be." During the March 2 edition her radio show, CNN contributor Dana Loesch responded to a caller who said that Fluke should "change her career and go work at the Mustang Ranch out there in Vegas," and said:

LOESCH: Oh my gosh. That could be -- you know, I'm telling you, she's worried about money apparently instead of going and asking for the government. But see that's -- and, Mike, I appreciate your call -- it comes down because she doesn't want to have to pay her own bills, because she's an independent woman. She's an independent woman like that Destiny's Child song, but she doesn't want to take care of all of her own business, because that's what independent women do. Independent women expect the government, which is characterized as the old cartoon Uncle Sam, to take care of their financial needs. She wants to be able to be as promiscuous as she wants to be, and all of the accoutrements that go along with that, she wants those to be financed by the government, because that's what independent women do. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/2/12 via Media Matters]

Jim Hoft: Fluke "Insisted She Was No Prostitute For Wanting Government To Pay For Her Sex At College." In a March 2 Gateway Pundit post titled, "Hot-And-Bothered Coed Who Demanded Free Birth Control From Congress Responds to Critics -- Insists She's No Prostitute," Jim Hoft wrote:

On Thursday night, MSNBC's Ed Schultz interviewed hot-and-bothered Georgetown coed Sandra Fluke, the woman who went before a Congressional panel and demanded free birth control for herself and her peers. Sandra Fluke, who was mocked by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this week, insisted she was no prostitute for wanting government to pay for her sex at college. [Gateway Pundit, 3/2/12, emphasis in original]

Fox's Hannity: Limbaugh Is Making The Point That "For Crying Out Loud, Why Is The Taxpayer Bearing The Cost Of The Sex Life Of Students At Georgetown University Law School?" On the March 2 edition of his radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity said:

HANNITY: [W]ith absolutely, you know, just a sense of confidence in what is right here, I watched this woman Sandra Fluke give this testimony. And it's -- there is a sense of entitlement and outrage that in fact that she or her fellow law students will have to pay for their own contraception.

And now people are mad at Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh, I've been a fan of for years. And for years, what does he say? He illustrates absurdity by being absurd. And Rush says: "Well, if we're going to pay for it do we get videos with it?" Did he mean it? You know, for those on the -- no, he did not mean it. He's making a point. And the point is is that for crying out loud, why is the taxpayer bearing the cost of the sex life of students at Georgetown University Law School? And how that's missed on the media. I mean, maybe she could take a year off of law school to pay -- to fund, you know, the remaining three years of one's sex life. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

— J.V.B., M.L.J., & R.A.S


http://mediamatters.org/research/201204100007




Planned Parenthood Sues to Halt Exclusion from Program
by Emily Ramshaw
April 11, 2012




Planned Parenthood branches in Texas have filed a federal lawsuit in an effort to block their exclusion from the state's Women's Health Program.





After Texas' Republican leaders indicated their intent to start enforcing a state rule that bans "affiliates" of abortion providers from participating in the Medicaid-funded contraception and cancer-screening program, the Obama administration pulled federal financing from the program. Gov. Rick Perry has vowed that the state will find the money to continue the program without federal help — and that the rule banning Planned Parenthood clinics will stand. No clinics participating in the program have performed abortions.





The lawsuit, filed today in Austin, asks the court for an injunction to stop enforcement of the rule, so that the Planned Parenthood clinics would be able to remain in the program. Its filers argue the rule violates clinics' rights by putting an "unconstitutional condition on their participation" in the Women's Health Program. It also alleges that the Health and Human Services Commission, which is enforcing the rule, "overstepped its authority in adopting a rule that conflicts with the purpose of the laws that created the program."





We'll update this post as soon as we get a response from the governor's office or the attorney general.









http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/planned-parenthood/planned-parenthood-sues-halt-exclusion-program/





what some rebublicans have said in the war against women ;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfjAMRgpoug



===============================================




« Perry’s “Oops” is named craziest quote of GOP primary … so far



Texas pulls a ‘switcheroo’ to continue women’s health program funding


Texas on the Potomac regularly shares some of the best national political content from the Texas Tribune. Today, we offer a piece by one of the Trib’s finest, Emily Ramshaw.

In a fiscal switcheroo, Texas could free up state dollars to fund the embattled Women’s Health Program by seeking federal block grants for other programs, the state’s health commissioner has written in a letter to House Democrats.

Texas is losing more than $30 million in annual federal funding for the Women’s Health Program over the state’s decision to force Planned Parenthood clinics out of the Medicaid program. Gov. Rick Perry has vowed that the state will find the money, despite a bleak budget, to continue operating the contraception and cancer screening program without federal help.

In response to questions from state Democrats, Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs wrote on Tuesday that his agency is “exploring a number of funding options that would not create additional budget needs.” One of those options is to apply for newly available federal block grants for existing state programs, Suehs wrote, so the cost savings could be funneled into the Women’s Health Program. “State funds and federal block grants are interchangeable in many programs,” he wrote.

Suehs also said some health and human services programs have “achieved efficiences, resulting in savings that can be used to fund the program.”

Texas Democrats, who have opposed Republican leaders’ efforts to keep Planned Parenthood out of the women’s health business, called the financial plan “fiscally irresponsible.” Despite Perry’s rebukes of the federal government, they say, the proposal relies on federal dollars yet again to keep the program whole.

“The governor and Commissioner Suehs are going to rob state funds and federal block grants that were set aside for one program to pay for services that would have already been funded,” state Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, said in a statement. “This problem was completely avoidable.”

The governor’s office said Perry has not received any final funding plan from Suehs and called Farrar’s letter “fiction-filled and reactionary.”

“Gov. Perry stands by his pledge to identify the funding that will keep these services going and Commissioner Suehs is working towards that plan,” Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said.

Back To Top


This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/abortion-texas/tx-could-use-feds-grants-free-womens-health-money/.



http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/04/texas-pulls-a-switcheroo-to-continue-womens-health-program-funding/
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Truth does not matter in flipper the floppers mind, He just wants to fear monger and spread half truths as well as a lot of mis information!!!

Google the authors and you will see they are pretty much not worth the paper they write on when appraised by their peers..
Guess that kinda describes flipper as well.
:wink: :wink:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Faster horses said:
flounder, how many people do you think Actually READ your post?

For heavens sake, if you have a point, MAKE it, don't just copy and
past that much information if you care at all if it gets read.

he never has a point he just posts
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
September 21, 2011

By Amy Sullivan

The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/#ixzz1rmdE73hM


Look at the senior women meeting with Obama in this White House photo at a dinner they called to discuss their invisibility. Look at their faces and body language. They are pissed off.

Coverage in the Washington Post and a new book by Ron Suskind has focused attention on the frustration of Obama’s female advisers. But the problem has been obvious almost since Obama took office. And while the explanations so far have blamed members of the mostly-departed boys club–Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emanuel–Obama himself is responsible for a work atmosphere that marginalizes and ignores women.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/#ixzz1rmdSdQFl


Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard. At a 2010 symposium on women in finance, Christina Romer, then the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, talked about the difficulty she had getting the floor in policy discussions. Suskind relates the story of how Obama reacted angrily to one suggestion by Romer, and yet calmly heard out the same point from Larry Summers a few days later. Other senior women have complained that their arguments seemed to disappear into the ether at meetings, unacknowledged by Obama. Ellen Moran, Obama’s first communications director, was the first member of his team to leave the White House, resigning just 92 days into the term.

These complaints will ring familiar to most professional women. And we know that the difference between temporary annoyances and an intolerable situation is a boss who acknowledges the issue and moves quickly to address it. Yet it seems to have taken several years for Obama to pay even minimal attention to the problem. When asked in an NBC interview about concerns regarding the boys-only basketball games, Obama called them “bunk” and added, “I don’t think it sends any kind of message or signal whatsoever.” The Tuesday Washington Post story cites an official who says Obama initially discounted complaints about the tough climate for women because that’s just what happens in a highly-competitive workplace. That response matches Obama’s reputation for having little patience with personal gripes and intra-office squabbles.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/#ixzz1rme3WSOl
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
10
Location
north central Nebraska
This whole abortion thing was not started to help women. It was engineered by men lawyers who did not want men to have to acknowledge children that they fathered. It has been the cause of many health problems and mental problems among women.
The women who supported this were just sheep following their leader.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Martin Jr. said:
This whole abortion thing was not started to help women. It was engineered by men lawyers who did not want men to have to acknowledge children that they fathered. It has been the cause of many health problems and mental problems among women.
The women who supported this were just sheep following their leader.


I don't think you can have a discussion about the "start of abortion" without bringing in the racial aspect, or eugenics, and Margaret Sanger, can you?
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
10
Location
north central Nebraska
Margaret Sanger was certainly a racist and promoted eugenics, and promoted contraceptives, but in all fairness, she was not in favor of abortion. Her organization, Planned Parenthood, fell into the abortion thing after she was gone.

But, yes, she got the ball rolling.

Margaret Sanger would have probably been favor of aborion if it was only for blacks, Italians, or other groups that she hated.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Scott Walker Recall: 'War On Women' Fight Becomes Big Issue In Election

Posted: 04/17/2012 10:56 am



WASHINGTON -- Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), who is running in his party's primary to face off against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) in the June recall election, is out with a new ad blasting the governor for his "war on women."

The online ad highlights Walker's recent decision to quietly repeal the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court.

"Scott Walker has torn our state apart waging an ideological civil war in Wisconsin, and Walker's war extends to women," Barrett said. "No decision underscores that more than Walker's move to take away enforcement teeth of the state's equal pay law. As the father of three daughters I am deeply concerned with the effect that this will have not only on my daughters, but also the women of Wisconsin."

WATCH:



"Thus far, Tom Barrett has dealt with tough issues in one of three ways: Remaining silent, blaming others, or in this case, outright lying," replied Ciara Matthews, the Walker campaign's communications director. "Tom Barrett’s campaign message has become borderline irrational in his attempt to win a seat that Wisconsin voters have twice denied him because of his failed leadership and utter lack of ideas or solutions."

On Monday, state Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison) challenged state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), the author of the equal pay repeal bill, to a debate on women's rights. Grothman has not yet accepted.

Grothman recently said that the pay gap that exists between women and men is there because "money is more important for men." Women, on the other hand, are too focused on childrearing, he said.

The "war on women" in Wisconsin has moved to the national debate, as the Obama campaign has called on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to explain whether he backs Walker's actions on equal pay. One of Romney's surrogates is state Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), who cosponsored Grothman's bill repealing the Equal Pay Enforcement Act.

Barrett's main competitor in the Democratic primary, former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, is also focusing her attention on women voters, saying they may be key to the race.

"Of these undecided voters out there -- and there's a lot -- they're primarily women, and they're primarily independent," Falk said during a recent interview with WISN-TV. "They're looking for a candidate that knows how to run government and that will bring us together."

The Barrett ad comes out on Equal Pay Day, which is the day when a typical woman's earnings catch up to those made by her male counterparts in 2011.

Transcript of the ad:

Screen: "Scott Walker's war on women escalates" DailyKos, 4/9/12
Tom Barrett: Senator Hanson, who in 2009 got legislation passed dealing with equal pay for equal work.

Screen: "Scott Walker repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law" The Raw Story, April 6, 2012

To ensure that women would be treated fairly in this state. Pow! He goes after that.

Screen: "Scott Walker launches all-out attack on women from behind closed doors" MSNBC, The Ed Show, April 6, 2012

Legislation to make it more difficult for women to have the most intimate conversations with their health care provider. Pow! He goes after that.

Screen: "Walker signs slew of controversial legislation, including anti-abortion and sex-ed bills" Wisconsin State Journal April 7, 2012

Legislation that was on the books that made sure that young people got sex education that reflected the real world. Pow! He goes after that.

Screen: Photo of Scott Walker and the protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol.

All part of this idealogical war. A war against women. A war against working people. A war against Wisconsin values.

Screen: Tom Barrett will END Scott Walker's War on Women

Screen: Join WomenForBarrett.com (Photos of State Rep. Terese Berceau, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, State Senator Lena Taylor and Former Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/scott-walker-recall-war-women_n_1431143.html



Romney Won't Say Whether He Would Have Signed Lilly Ledbetter Act
The Huffington Post | By Sam Stein Posted: 04/16/2012 7:32 pm


When Mitt Romney's economic advisers were asked last week whether the former governor supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act, they took a few hours to produce an answer. Even then, the aides left some questions unanswered.

Romney, aides said, supports the concept of equal pay for equal work and has no interest in repealing existing legislation. Whether Romney would have actually signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law in early 2009 was left less clear. During an interview with the likely GOP presidential nominee on Monday, ABC's Diane Sawyer tried to nail down a more definitive answer. And, once more, Romney punted.

DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19-point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president -- you had been president -- would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?
MITT ROMNEY: It's certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend -- intention of changing. I wasn't there three years ago ...

DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?

MITT ROMNEY: I'm not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and -- and have no intention of changing that law, don't think there's a reason to.


It's worth noting that Romney's vague answer supporting "equal pay for women" is not necessarily the same as support for the act itself. The law allows for lengthier legal channels for women to sue employers for wage discrimination.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/romney-ledbetter-act_n_1429961.html
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Faster horses said:
flounder, how many people do you think Actually READ your post?

For heavens sake, if you have a point, MAKE it, don't just copy and
past that much information if you care at all if it gets read.

I read it.

Since I did not vote for Hannity, Limbaugh et al - his whole argument is useless. These people do not hold public offices and are not elected officials. Comparing them to the elected Dems who are public servants and trashing women is pretty much a useless line of rhetoric - as I suspected it would be when I started reading this rant.
 

Latest posts

Top