That one ought to show fully. It's small. This HR3 question is bugging me and I don't like to be bugged. First of all the hysterics and freaking feminists are losing their minds - Marcotte goes so far as to claim that the point of this bill is to punish (by denying healthcare to) young women who dare to have sex. But she's an idiot. So first I have a problem because no matter where I turn I'm seeing feminists bitching and that's never a good thing. Plus, they get it wrong; I'm gonna quote one at a bit of length in a minute. It bothers me secondly because is THIS what we sent these fuckers to congress for? Is this why I spent my own money to drive our car down to Washington, DC, lay out for a hotel and food, and attend a rally that had no bathrooms or food vendors nearby for? So these people could go to congress and start up this piddling bullshit? This is exactly what we told them NOT to do - to start in on the social shit. We have an economy to fix - a budget to get settled and very hard funding choices to make, not to mention the debt ceiling, and two years of Obama legislation to undo, and instead we get THIS? I think I hear the sound of one-termers already. Boehner you might as well hand Nancy her gavel back if this is your priority.
I'm not going to take a position on abortion here - there are likely cases where someone is in serious danger and doesn't have money or insurance and needs help; OK but overall I don't see why government should be paying willy-nilly for abortions. As to insurance companies...well let's quote the feminist and then get to that.
1. This bill narrows the “rape” exception to include only “forcible rape.” As Sady explains: Under this new bill, the only rape survivors who would be able to receive funding would be those who were able to prove that their rapes involved “force.” If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don’t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don’t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape — that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family — you don’t get coverage. If you’re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen — if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday — you just don’t get coverage.Ok,so they've removed the "forcible" language and now it includes cases where someone was coerced, drugged, etc. Having been slipped a mickey a time or two myself I can attest that you can be completely unaware of your actions after that, and I'd certainly file that under rape. I'm still unclear as to why this language was in there in the first place. We paid for 191 abortions due to rape last year...is adding the word "forcible" one of those "deep and meaningful cuts" in spending that the freshmen were sent there to make? Because I'm not seeing it.
2. This bill narrows the “life of the mother” exceptions to include only physical threats to the life of the mother. If carrying to term a pregnancy that you do not want might make you suicidal, or if giving up a baby for adoption might be more than you can emotionally bear, too damn bad. No abortion coverage unless the pregnancy causes a risk to your physical health.You know...too fucking bad. The life of the mother means just that; it means a real threat, not that you just "can't bear" it. If you can't bear it, use a rubber. Go on the pill. Do something to prevent it from happening, fool. There are 8 bazillion ways NOT to get pregnant; pick one.
3. This bill empowers rapists. This bill makes it pretty damn clear, by only offering the rape exception to pregnant survivors of “forcible rape,” that any form of sexual violation that doesn’t involve force isn’t really rape. And since about 70% of rapists don’t use force when they rape, that lets about 70% of rapists off the hook.Considering the feminist definitions of "rape" that is probably fine. You guys are insane. Don't believe me? Check out the "Biting Beaver" Rapist Checklist. I'll wait. Yeah. No. If that's what we're paying for, something's wrong.
4. This bill goes even further than the Hyde Amendment, which already prevents federal funds from being used for abortion. By amending the tax code to make it incredibly unappealing for private health insurance companies to cover abortion, this bill makes abortion less affordable than ever. As the New York Times reports: The tax credits that are encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortions. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion. People who use tax-preferred savings accounts to pay medical costs could not use the money to pay for an abortion without paying taxes on it.Yeah, they lose me here. What? Now you can't claim your insurance costs on your taxes? Bullshit. Don't get me wrong; when I was growing up and abortion became like the most common surgery in the country, you weren't getting your insurance to pay for it. You scraped up $200 or you were out of luck. I won't claim your insurance is "denying you reproductive medical care" if they won't pay for an elective abortion - most will likely pay if there are extenuating circumstances anyway, so quitcherbitchin' and be glad any of them pay at all. At the same time for the government to start sticking its nose in there? BULL. Absolute, unadulterated BULL. You want to talk about abortions we pay for out of government coffers directly (LATER WHEN WE'RE ALL WORKING AGAIN PERHAPS?) fine, but this is just nonsense. How much money is this actually supposed to save? This passes for "deep spending cuts"? No. Screw you.
5. This bill completely contradicts what the GOP’s professed priorities. Speaker Boehner and the rest of the GOP claim that their top priority is creating jobs for Americans. But this bill, their third piece of legislation in the new session, has nothing to do with creating jobs and everything to do with sexism and culture war politics.I agree...except you, being an economic fool, think the government literally "creates" jobs. It doesn't work that way, honey. What the government does is cut spending and taxes, and relieving overly burdensome regulation and red tape, and the job market begins to grow. Now by focusing on this nonsense clearly they aren't doing that - but you aren't going to like it when they DO start doing that anyway and you're going to wonder why they aren't "creating jobs" for you. Trust me; that isn't how it works, ok?
So...if Obama's a one-termer and THIS is what congress is going to spend its time on, there are going to be an awful lot of one-termers out there. I'd as soon turn it back over to the Dhimmis and let them burn it all down if this congress doesn't get its head on straight, FAST, and start focusing on this economic mess we're in. Let them break the bone all the way through so it can be properly set and heal if that's what it takes; no need to watch as alleged "Tea Party-friendly" GOPers just slowly twist the damned thing for years until it can NEVER be fixed.
